On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > The two transparent boxes can have two possible outcomes. One is that the > player only takes box B, which contains $1 million (I believe is the agreed > amount). The other is that the player sees the million dollars, takes both > boxes, and proves that the oracle is not infallible, > > The problem with N's problem is that it isn't well enough defined to be a > problem! > > Without stipulating the nature of the oracle, the nature of reality, and > so on, there is no way to evaluate the situation. Why is the oracle thought > to be infallible? How could it possibly know in advance what someone will > do? Are we living in a multiverse in which all decisions get made anyway? > Etc. > >
Oddly, philosophy undergraduates lean towards one box, while philsophy professors favor two boxes: http://lesswrong.com/lw/hqs/why_do_theists_undergrads_and_less_wrongers_favor/ Jason -- 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.
