On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Terren Suydam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Same here, just one box. The paradox hinges on clairvoyance and how we > could expect that to be sensible in the universe we live in. To my way of > thinking, clairvoyance entails a sort of backwards-causation which I think > can be made sensible in a multiverse. To wit, you make your choice (one > box, say), and that "collapses" the possible universes you are in to the > one in which the clairvoyant predicted you would choose one box, and so you > get the money. > > In other words, the justification for choosing both boxes - that the > contents of the boxes have already been determined - fails to provide an > account of clairvoyance that can be made sensible. Or rather, I just can't > think of one. > > Terren > Clairvoyance, as you call it, is not logically problematic. What is logically problematic is free will. The paradox seems to be such because people believe that their decisions are neither determined nor random, which is nonsense. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
