âBut for the paradoxâs setup to make sense, the player must have, in some sense, made his decision before the prediction is madeâ No, there just has to be something that occurs earlier which guarantees what decision the player makes during the game. But if determinism is true, that thing could be the first event in the universeâs history, which would definitely not be a decision of the player. I think maybe your thinking that if thatâs the case, âthe set-up doesnât make senseâ, because the player canât choose otherwise and therefore their decision canât be evaluated as rational or anything else. But itâs a very substantive philosophical assumption that if your decisions are guaranteed by the past before the decision, they canât be evaluated for rationality (or morality or whatever) at the time they occur. Roughly that amounts to rejecting compatibilism about free will, which is the standard philosophical view*.
I donât know what point youâre trying to make, because your response was rambling, poorly formatted and incoherent.
Are you just agreeing with me that the âparadoxâ is solved and also nitpicking by claiming that itâs possible that humans donât make decisions at all? If not, then I think youâre very confused.
Basically, if your final decision was knowable to the predictor before he made his prediction, then it doesnât make sense, after his prediction is locked in, to say, âThe predictor has already made his prediction, so the decision I make now canât affect his prediction.â The predictor knew what your final decision was going to be.
Iâm not making any bold claims about free will; Iâm just pointing out that the âcausalâ arguments for taking both boxes are contradicting the setup of the question.
This comment is not civil or productive (and neither are others Manbearpanda has posted in this thread) and clearly violates Forum discussion norms that we expect everyone to respect. This is not a good way to have disagreements.
Iâm bringing this up to the moderation team to decide if we want to take further action.
Weâre banning Manbearpanda for 1 month. Their recent responses on this post have been condescending, overconfident, and uncivil. Responding to a comment by referring to the discussion as ââEffectiveâ âAltruistsâ circle jerking around yet another wrong answerâ is not a good way to get to the truth behind a disagreement. I also donât think it was reasonable or helpful to dismiss a comment in the discussion as ârambling, poorly formatted and incoherent.â And the last comment seemed to totally devolve into an ad hominem and passive-aggressive attack.
Please note that bans affect the person behind the account, not the account itself.
If Manbearpanda comes back, weâll hold them to a high standard, according to our norms.
âBut for the paradoxâs setup to make sense, the player must have, in some sense, made his decision before the prediction is madeâ No, there just has to be something that occurs earlier which guarantees what decision the player makes during the game. But if determinism is true, that thing could be the first event in the universeâs history, which would definitely not be a decision of the player. I think maybe your thinking that if thatâs the case, âthe set-up doesnât make senseâ, because the player canât choose otherwise and therefore their decision canât be evaluated as rational or anything else. But itâs a very substantive philosophical assumption that if your decisions are guaranteed by the past before the decision, they canât be evaluated for rationality (or morality or whatever) at the time they occur. Roughly that amounts to rejecting compatibilism about free will, which is the standard philosophical view*.
*https://ââsurvey2020.philpeople.org/ââsurvey/ââresults/ââ4838 Roughly 57-9% of English-speaking philosophers endorse it.
I donât know what point youâre trying to make, because your response was rambling, poorly formatted and incoherent.
Are you just agreeing with me that the âparadoxâ is solved and also nitpicking by claiming that itâs possible that humans donât make decisions at all? If not, then I think youâre very confused.
Basically, if your final decision was knowable to the predictor before he made his prediction, then it doesnât make sense, after his prediction is locked in, to say, âThe predictor has already made his prediction, so the decision I make now canât affect his prediction.â The predictor knew what your final decision was going to be.
Iâm not making any bold claims about free will; Iâm just pointing out that the âcausalâ arguments for taking both boxes are contradicting the setup of the question.
I donât understand what point your making either. Probably this wonât be productive to continue.
So you canât read or type properly; I recommend avoiding online forums.
This comment is not civil or productive (and neither are others Manbearpanda has posted in this thread) and clearly violates Forum discussion norms that we expect everyone to respect. This is not a good way to have disagreements.
Iâm bringing this up to the moderation team to decide if we want to take further action.
lol! I havenât said anything inappropriate or incorrect.
You seem to value arrogant peopleâs fragile egos over correct solutions to problems, which is obviously a terrible idea.
Weâre banning Manbearpanda for 1 month. Their recent responses on this post have been condescending, overconfident, and uncivil. Responding to a comment by referring to the discussion as ââEffectiveâ âAltruistsâ circle jerking around yet another wrong answerâ is not a good way to get to the truth behind a disagreement. I also donât think it was reasonable or helpful to dismiss a comment in the discussion as ârambling, poorly formatted and incoherent.â And the last comment seemed to totally devolve into an ad hominem and passive-aggressive attack.
Please note that bans affect the person behind the account, not the account itself.
If Manbearpanda comes back, weâll hold them to a high standard, according to our norms.