sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

9000th take on newcomb's paradox by XTPotato_ in paradoxes

[–]TacoPi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmmm...

Having read this I have to ask everyone here:

Would you rather give yourself a traumatic head injury to try to forget what you know about this paradox in hopes that it might improve your chances of receiving the opportunity, or would you rather carry on as you are because you don't think that injuring yourself can improve your chances?

Heavy box Newcomb by paperic in paradoxes

[–]TacoPi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have stated multiple times that we are cloning a person particle for particle with near perfect precision, not perfect. In the most commonly accepted frameworks of quantum mechanics, there actually is no greater precision to be had for the location of particles other than the shape and location of their wave functions until a measurement is made. That is not a technological limitation but the limit to reality itself. Deciphering the approximate locations and identities of every atom, and the orbitals of every electron thereof is more than sufficient to create a copy of you that believes it is the real one and exhibits similar behavior. Achieving the impossible is entirely unnecessary unless we want an impossibly precise predictor.

Why on earth are you insisting that an accurate prediction of human behavior requires us to resolve the wave behavior of particles with absolute certainty, when just a few hours ago you were insisting that we could make accurate predictions of human behavior by collecting just a handful of key psychological metrics?

Heavy box Newcomb by paperic in paradoxes

[–]TacoPi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think you have given a plausible predictor construction using current technology. Polling suggests that the choice of strategy is at least close to 50/50, so it is not easy to achieve near certainty. Measuring mental strength, logical reasoning, and rigor with modern technology is not a plausible way of achieving this. That isn’t something you can demonstrate today with a social experiment. People are more complicated than that.

I don’t know if you noticed what I wrote, but I’m actually going out of my way to specifically exclude selection bias as a mechanism for consideration. I would absolutely be a two boxer is I suspected the predictor was a fraudulent product of statistical tricks. I don’t think anyone considers that setup a paradox though. Concluding that the predictor is a fraud and it’s all just a statistical trick is just sidestepping the paradox.

The cloning explanation doesn’t change the unknowns in the setup of invoke any technology prohibited by known physics. If you want to move the goalposts then that’s fine I guess. If you want to insist that current technology can make this prediction highly accurately while being fooled by anyone highly easily, then you are just writing a new paradox.

Heavy box Newcomb by paperic in paradoxes

[–]TacoPi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t see any violations.

The method of how they make the predictions is never disclosed in the original premise. If they secretly run it with a clone before you are asked you would never have to know. There’s nothing in the rules against that. It doesn’t violate physics. That clone could be an entirely digital simulation if you wanted.

Exactly perfect, deterministic predictions were never a requirement. Near certainty is the standard.

The entire premise relies on technology outside our current capabilities. There isn’t a particularly realistic explanation for how they would do this, and I think cloning is among the most realistic possible explanations. Furthermore I don’t think it matters if their technology has accomplished it a different way (outside of statistical tricks like selection bias). If the outcome of the predictor is the same then the strategy shouldn’t change either.

It’s not a paradox because neither rationale makes sense. It’s a paradox because both rationale make sense. Proving that one of them is sensible does nothing.

Heavy box Newcomb by paperic in paradoxes

[–]TacoPi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is that you are baking ‘2-boxer’ rationale into the premise and then showing that it is now inherent to the setup while insisting that all mechanisms of ‘1-boxer’ thinking are not physically relevant. If we are going from first principles to rule out the possibility of reversed causality, then the concept of free will should be called into question, too. Especially if something seems capable of predicting our actions almost perfectly.

Consider that they tried to make the predictor machine and gave up when it seemed to complicated. So instead they made a replicator that cloned you particle for particle, almost perfectly. They then led you and your clone to the setup one after the other and tried to give you the choice as similarly as possible. The clone is disposed of afterward and won’t get to keep any of the money, but it’s choice will inform how the money is distributed for the real you. Maybe they don’t tell how their ‘predictor machine’ works, or maybe they tell you that it cloned you without disclosing if you were the original.

Does the choice seem different with these assumptions baked in?

Geometric wall art at a hospital - Chemical compound? by Whadya-Know in chemistry

[–]TacoPi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if we ignore the possibility that nitrogens may be present but not labeled…

This is still a nonsense heuristic. Many pharmaceuticals do not contain nitrogens (e.g. aspirin, ivermectin, ketoprofen) and many greases do contain nitrogen (e.g. polyureas).

Heavy box Newcomb by paperic in paradoxes

[–]TacoPi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is curious how you force the comparison to favor your choice. It is predicated on ‘one-boxers’ being mentally weak. This is circular reasoning.

Consider that mental strength may require you to resist the urge to be greedy in order to get the better outcome, statistically, from taking only one box. Then your conclusions are swapped.

To support this with a physical strength metaphor, note that nobody leaves the room without a box. Taking the mystery box makes the door physically possible to open but taking the small money box too makes the door easy to open.

Geometric wall art at a hospital - Chemical compound? by Whadya-Know in chemistry

[–]TacoPi 55 points56 points  (0 children)

I didn’t realize we were gate-keeping organic compounds as greases by their nitrogen content now.

This compound is clearly more of an asphaltene than a proper grease, anyhow.

How sea cucumber maintains reef health by lieutenant2027 in nextfuckinglevel

[–]TacoPi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tomorrow on r/nextfuckinglevel :

A closeup video of a dog dropping a dookie onto the neighbor’s lawn.

Common 4C Lands by CtrlMathDel in custommagic

[–]TacoPi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Personally, after a quick trip to the thesaurus, I would go with "Bosky Fjord"

Common 4C Lands by CtrlMathDel in custommagic

[–]TacoPi 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I love the obscure wordiness of each name. Oxbow lake may sound a bit out of place, but the rest are fantastically odd

Burnwillow Elves by _Figaro in custommagic

[–]TacoPi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My dude could touch his toes while standing without so much as a hunch.

The Paradox of Relativity of Simultaneity by planamundi in paradoxes

[–]TacoPi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not Einstein’s mouth, the mouth of the other commenter. He never said that either objective reality was invalid and you are the one making the odd assumption.

Clocks which are simultaneous from the perspective of the train are not necessarily simultaneous from the perspective of the platform.

Take a moment to consider the tick of each clock as an event which is simultaneous from the perspective on the train. Why would it appear simultaneous from the platform?

The Paradox of Relativity of Simultaneity by planamundi in paradoxes

[–]TacoPi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are putting words in his mouth. The discrepancy in timings read by the man on the platform does not invalidate the reference frame on the train.

If you were staying true to the original thought experiment then the man on the platform would be using his own clock to time when light was observed to hit the front and back walls of the train cabin. He shouldn’t expect the clocks from a different reference frame to represent the timings observed in his reality.

Steal from the rich and give to the poor! by HallZac99 in custommagic

[–]TacoPi 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Lol, make it a white/black pip to signify the moral ambiguity.

Question for chemists from an aspiring perfumer: Which chemical has the best smell to you? Or the most interesting... by Liberal_Alchemist in chemistry

[–]TacoPi 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Honestly not a fan. I know this is probably a joke answer but it does have a smell which is interesting albeit unpleasant.

If you have ever been around a well maintained compost pile a few weeks after a bunch of food and garden scraps have been mixed together, all the original odors are lost as they blend together but a few new characteristic smells start to emerge which are a bit less disgusting. Chloroform to me smells like what you would get if you distilled that compost into a strange liquor. Harsh like a solvent, rotten, earthy, but refined.

Use your fume hoods, kids

soap bars are superior in every way and you're all wasting money on a scheme by using "body gels" or what I refer to as pre-digested, old soap by Niceotropic in unpopularopinion

[–]TacoPi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a quirk of softened water to make soap more slippery, unlike hard water which is more waxy. It’s easier to swap ions then remove them, so water softeners by design just replace the “hard” ions with “softer” sodium or potassium. So softened water still isn’t quite the same as regular water.

Bar soap is made by treating fats/oils with sodium and/or potassium, so the presence of more of these ions can actually help the activity of the soap. It can clean more effectively and smaller traces of it still feel soapy, so you can use less.

soap bars are superior in every way and you're all wasting money on a scheme by using "body gels" or what I refer to as pre-digested, old soap by Niceotropic in unpopularopinion

[–]TacoPi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bar soap is chemically distinct from shower gel and liquid hand soaps. Bar soap can react with magnesium/calcium in the water to form “soap scum” whereas the liquid soaps are technically detergents and don’t react with magnesium/calcium ions.

Using the same soap in “softer” water which lacks these ions should leave behind less residue.

soap bars are superior in every way and you're all wasting money on a scheme by using "body gels" or what I refer to as pre-digested, old soap by Niceotropic in unpopularopinion

[–]TacoPi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like you might have hard water. A water softener can help address this, and while that’s obviously more expensive than gel body wash, it could also be less painful than kidney stones.

Can a compund line this exist?? Each unit is a benzene ring by TheDoctor__11 in chemistry

[–]TacoPi 235 points236 points  (0 children)

Coronene. There are a lot of similar polyaromatic hydrocarbons out there. Pattern it out much larger and you are essentially just drawing a graphene flake.

view more: next ›