• Snazz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I guess refusing to engage with the hypothetical is a choice. Personally I think hypotheticals are most interesting and revealing specifically when they are about impossible situations.

    Like the question: if you could have any superpower, what would it be?

    I would choose the ability to see the future with 99% accuracy just to mess with people by running this box experiment.

    • ryrybang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      I agree with you, but in context.

      Meaning, ask me for my superpower and what I’d do with it, sure!

      But this channel makes really good science-focused content. So to present this video, which essentially requires an all knowing god-like entity, then try and break down the game theory and probabilities, just seems odd and out of their lane a bit.

      The money is the the less interesting bit, the belief in God and outcome is the more interesting one.

      If you believe the god bit and play the game:

      Take box A&B, get $1.001M: you fooled god, there is free will. Or you are the lucky 1% god can’t predict.

      Take box A&B, get $1000: you did not fool god, there is no free will.

      Take box B, get $1M: you did not fool god, there is no free will.

      Take box B, get $0: you fooled god, there is free will. Or you are the lucky 1% god can’t predict.

      If you don’t believe the god bit, then this is just some sort of con man swindle and you are only getting a max $1000 anyway.

      So I sorta view this whole thing as religious philosophy, which is why it feels weird on a science channel.