this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
8 points (100.0% liked)
Videos
17985 readers
271 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This was a pretty good video, but the supercomputer setup made me kind of meh on it compared to most of the channel's videos.
It isn't really a "problem" in my mind because no such computer can or does exist (one that can predict your decision with 99% accuracy). And they hand wave away what the computer might be doing or collecting to make that decision prior to you even knowing what the problem is going to be. I don't think you can just hand wave that away.
So that "hypothetical supercomputer" is more like an "impossible supercomputer" which ruins this as a thought experiment part of this for me. It's like saying all-knowing sky fairy/god/budda has made a prediction about your decision, what do you decide?
Well, I'd say I don't believe in the sky fairy/god/budda and need evidence about the 99% success rate before proceeding.
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.
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.