People are stupid

[Summanus]

First day of uni, the philosophy lecturer gives us 'the Monty Hall problem', which I have subsequently disproven through the use of Schrodinger's Cat.

suckers

[NEWSBOT3]

i hope Schrodinger got comission.

[Yahwe]

you're the one at a bad university.

how bright does that make you?

[Ste]

thanks T&F...
now the cat thing?

[roadrunner_0]

i nearly typed out a whole explanation, but i couldnt be bothered, so instead i will just say google it you lazy git!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Summanus

First day of uni, the philosophy lecturer gives us 'the Monty Hall problem', which I have subsequently disproven through the use of Schrodinger's Cat.

suckers

Hahahahaha you're such a ****ing moron.

To put it bluntly.

The "Monty Hall Problem" isn't a problem (except in the "solve this problem" kind of way), just like something like the "Twins Paradox" isn't a paradox; it only seems strange because people don't "get" it.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Here for all those like me who had to google:

http://www.comedia.com/hot/monty.html

Shame on you Summanus.

Hmm?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Hey, here's an idea: show us your proof, oh boundlessly knowledged one.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Hey, here's an idea: show us your proof, oh boundlessly knowledged one.

I have a problem with the answer to the exercise, and it is espoused
from another famous problem, Schrödinger's Cat. While from the realm of
quantum physics, some philosophy students may well be aware of it.

By applying the logic used in this problem to the former, the experiment
would thus involve the same method, the person would know there is a $10
bill placed in a box. An empty box is removed. The probabilities do not
change. However, to the contestant, the bill would enter a stage of
superposition. Superposition states that as long as we do not know the
state of any object, it occupies all states simultaneously, as long as
we don't look to check. The measurement of an object forces it to occupy
a single state - in both cases, the opening of the box.

The contestant knows the money has been placed in a box, and does not
know which one. For all intents and purposes, in the mind of the
contestant, the bill occupies both boxes. While the probability remains
at 33%/66%, one must keep in mind that these figures have been taken
into account based on the measurement, and forcing the bill into a
single state. To the contestant making a decision to switch or stay, the
bill will remain superpositioned until the box they choose is opened,
and thus has an equal probability of being in either box. In actuality,
the contestant is better to switch on the balance of things after the
measurement. But in the decision-amking process, where the bill cannot
be placed in a single state, there can be no discernible difference.

The question wasn't so much 'are you better off switching', but 'does it make a difference'. To the contestant, there could be the money in one and an extremely small and quiet elephant in the other for all they know.

Or quite possibly, a cat.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the repurcussions of the schroedinger's cat thought experiment, and superposition in general.

The decision making process is identical whether or not you take into account quantum effects; the knowledge that there is money in one box and not money in another is enough to come to the conclusion. Quantum superpositioning doesn't change the probabilities, as you said, and the probabilities remain 2/3 to 1/3 when changing, so I've absolutely no idea where you're getting your argument from. Yes, for all intents and purposes, from the point of view of the contestant both boxes potentially have money in. That's basically nothing to do with S's C; people who don't know anything about QM will be able to tell you that about a gameshow. However, that the superposition exists is utterly irrelevent.

Lets look at it from the other point of view.

Lets change the SC thought experiment to have 2/3 chance of the cat being alive and 1/3 chance of it being dead. Lets perform it 1,000,000 times, or sufficient that the probabilities will tend to their theoretical values.

666,666 times (say), the cat will be alive. 333,334 times the cat will be dead.

The thought experiment relies, as does much QM, on basic probability. There's no way you can say it doesn't exist.

[Tomkat]

What the hell? Schrodinger's Cat is not even similar to this question. They are completely different - Schrodinger's isn't based on probability.

The answer to the Monty Hall problem is that you should always change. Your immediate answer is "no" (as it seems the probability is still the same, as you don't know the answer), but if you work out the probabilities carefully then it becomes much more likely (a third more, I think) that you will get the prize.

I did work it out a while ago, but I'm at school right now and can't be bothered.

[roadrunner_0]

you don't have to work it out, T&F's link tells you the probabilities

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Ste

thanks T&F...
now the cat thing?

You place a cat in a box (I know, it's not very nice) along with something that will kill it - a radioactive container that might break, or a bottle of poison that might break, or something along those lines.

The chances of you opening the box and it being alive are supposedly exactly the same as it being dead, as once you close the box you don't know what has happened to it.

I think that's what it is anyway - I probably left out an important detail somewhere but can't be bothered to google to correct it.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

you don't have to work it out, T&F's link tells you the probabilities

That's like saying "you don't have to complete that computer game, here's a cheat code to take you to the last level"

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

You place a cat in a box (I know, it's not very nice) along with something that will kill it - a radioactive container that might break, or a bottle of poison that might break, or something along those lines.

It's a poison vial (traditionally, just something that will effectively instantly kill the cat with as little bother as possible) that is set off or not by a radioactive decay. The point of the experiment is that it's a "real world" situation being controlled by a quantum effect (in this case, the chance of an atom decaying).

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

That's like saying "you don't have to complete that computer game, here's a cheat code to take you to the last level"

not really, not when we know the problem as set, and just want a quick re cap

also, the link he gives doesnt give the answer unless you click on another link, T&F's link is just the question, possibly for those who didn't know it already, as it wasn't quoted in the first post of the thread.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It's a poison vial (traditionally, just something that will effectively instantly kill the cat with as little bother as possible) that is set off or not by a radioactive decay. The point of the experiment is that it's a "real world" situation being controlled by a quantum effect (in this case, the chance of an atom decaying).

Ahhhh that's right. Cheers Marcus. I knew it was somethign to do with radiation, I couldn't quite remember though.

I wrote it in layman's speak too

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Ahhhh that's right. Cheers Marcus. I knew it was somethign to do with radiation, I couldn't quite remember though.

I wrote it in layman's speak too

Just to add something: the chances of it being alive or dead do not have to be identical for the thought experiment to work. It's just the one that best illustrates it, whilst also being the simplest.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

you're the one at a bad university.

how bright does that make you?

Which university is he at?

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the repurcussions of the schroedinger's cat thought experiment, and superposition in general.

The decision making process is identical whether or not you take into account quantum effects; the knowledge that there is money in one box and not money in another is enough to come to the conclusion. Quantum superpositioning doesn't change the probabilities, as you said, and the probabilities remain 2/3 to 1/3 when changing, so I've absolutely no idea where you're getting your argument from. Yes, for all intents and purposes, from the point of view of the contestant both boxes potentially have money in. That's basically nothing to do with S's C; people who don't know anything about QM will be able to tell you that about a gameshow. However, that the superposition exists is utterly irrelevent.

Lets look at it from the other point of view.

Lets change the SC thought experiment to have 2/3 chance of the cat being alive and 1/3 chance of it being dead. Lets perform it 1,000,000 times, or sufficient that the probabilities will tend to their theoretical values.

666,666 times (say), the cat will be alive. 333,334 times the cat will be dead.

The thought experiment relies, as does much QM, on basic probability. There's no way you can say it doesn't exist.

The probabilitiy is determined after the measurement, via observation. As the contestant does not, and cannot observe what's being placed in what box, that there is money in any box is unprovable to the contestant tbh. In fact, there are enough possibilitiies that there is any set thing inside the boxes becomes infinitely small. Why not a $5 bill instead? Or pile of sugar? Or watch? The chances of each are infinitesimal, but there are an infinite number of other possibilities.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Summanus

I have a problem with the answer to the exercise, and it is espoused
from another famous problem, Schrödinger's Cat. While from the realm of
quantum physics, some philosophy students may well be aware of it.

By applying the logic used in this problem to the former, the experiment
would thus involve the same method, the person would know there is a $10
bill placed in a box. An empty box is removed. The probabilities do not
change. However, to the contestant, the bill would enter a stage of
superposition. Superposition states that as long as we do not know the
state of any object, it occupies all states simultaneously, as long as
we don't look to check. The measurement of an object forces it to occupy
a single state - in both cases, the opening of the box.

The contestant knows the money has been placed in a box, and does not
know which one. For all intents and purposes, in the mind of the
contestant, the bill occupies both boxes. While the probability remains
at 33%/66%, one must keep in mind that these figures have been taken
into account based on the measurement, and forcing the bill into a
single state. To the contestant making a decision to switch or stay, the
bill will remain superpositioned until the box they choose is opened,
and thus has an equal probability of being in either box. In actuality,
the contestant is better to switch on the balance of things after the
measurement. But in the decision-amking process, where the bill cannot
be placed in a single state, there can be no discernible difference.

The question wasn't so much 'are you better off switching', but 'does it make a difference'. To the contestant, there could be the money in one and an extremely small and quiet elephant in the other for all they know.

Or quite possibly, a cat.

did you speak like that in the class?

heh heh heh heh

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Summanus

The probabilitiy is determined after the measurement, via observation.

It's not. The probability is based on the box you originally choose, then the probability once a box has been removed from your choices.

Originally Posted by Summanus

As the contestant does not, and cannot observe what's being placed in what box, that there is money in any box is unprovable to the contestant tbh.

This is a maths problem. You're looking too deeply into it. You're supposed to assume that you aren't being swindled. If there was no prize in any of the boxes, then it'd be a pretty crappy puzzle.

[KoeN]

tomkat is stupid.

[Structural Integrity]

I heard somewhere you should change doors because the chance of getting the big prize raises from 33% to 50%.
But my gut feeling says it doesn't matter, because chances are always 50-50 whether you change doors or not.

Proving that it doesn't matter which door you chose with Schrodinger's Cat is correct. It does however not answer the question. The question is what the best choice would be, which is a statistical question, whilst the cat provides only the proof assuming that it would not matter which door was chosen.
Comparing apples with pears...

[Deepflow]

you should change doors...

its an old old old OLD problem that ive heard in about 4 different ways.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Summanus

The probabilitiy is determined after the measurement, via observation.

No it isn't. As I said, all you have to know is that there is money in one box and not money in the others to make this true. As this is the prerequisite of the puzzle, then you can't argue it one way or another. You can argue a form of nihilism all you like, but that doesn't agree with either theory or empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by Summanus

As the contestant does not, and cannot observe what's being placed in what box, that there is money in any box is unprovable to the contestant tbh.

Doesn't matter in the slightest, and, even if it was the case, then you still wouldn't have disproven the answer because, as I've said before, that state of affairs is a prerequisite for the puzzle. If you just set someone down in front of three boxes, told him to choose one and then opened another one then of course you can't make a judgement over whether you should change or not, but that's not the situation that's being discussed.

Originally Posted by Summanus

In fact, there are enough possibilitiies that there is any set thing inside the boxes becomes infinitely small. Why not a $5 bill instead? Or pile of sugar? Or watch? The chances of each are infinitesimal, but there are an infinite number of other possibilities.

Gah.

Finally, that's NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCHROEDINGERS CAT THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.

To say it again:

The Schroedinger's Cat Thought Experiment deals with the (apparant) absurdism of Quantum Effects on macroscopic situations. It is NOT a form of Nihilism.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

But my gut feeling says it doesn't matter, because chances are always 50-50 whether you change doors or not.

That is, of course, incorrect. Look at T&F's link to a proof that it isn't the case (furthermore, we've been over this puzzle several times before on GD, and, every time, there has been argument over the answer. It's mathematically provable in several ways, and, given that only one of those proofs has to exist for it to be TRUE, it's a bit overkilly. It's like the 0.9 rec =! 1 argument).

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

Proving that it doesn't matter which door you chose with Schrodinger's Cat is correct.

No it isn't. It really isn't.

[edit]

To quote our dear original poster, from another thread

Originally Posted by Summanus

This is why I don't study maths

[Stew]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It's like the 0.9 rec =! 1 argument.

But they do equal each other...

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Stew

But they do equal each other...

That's my point.

[Structural Integrity]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

No it isn't. It really isn't.

Assuming that it wouldn't matter which door was chosen, the cat would be a good analogy.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

Assuming that it wouldn't matter which door was chosen, the cat would be a good analogy.

Assuming you've read my posts, I've no idea what you're talking about. On the other hand, if I assume you haven't, then I shall instruct you to go and read my posts.

Go and read my posts.

[Nodrog]

The first thing taught in philosophy class should be "dont ever bring quantum physics into an argument unless you have actually studied it oh yeah and reading schrodingers kittens once doesnt count". It would certainly make discussions about free will/zeno/epistemology less irritating to read.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I once tried to use zeno's paradox to prove that the pope couldn't shit in the woods.

interesting, did you manage it?

[Vaio]

Why hasn't the RSPCA intervined and stopped Schrodinger from poisoning his cat ?

It's one law for the rich and one for the poor as usual

~Vaio~

[Nodrog]

To be honest I dont understand why you've even brought up Schrodinger's cat in the first place. All you seem to be saying is 'the host might have put something else in the other box!' so I dunno where the physics comes in

[Yahwe]

quite

[Chika]

this is what u guys talk about on GD? Ghey. To go on my own little road. generally, most of our European and English geniuses in the past were once thought as stupid. But now we use all of thier Laws on life etc everyday. I have the theory that its not actually the person thought stupid thats stupid, BUT the person thinking stupid thats stupid. You may have to read that last sentence a few times, but I think you'll get it.

[KoeN]

"Chika is infamous around these parts"

[Structural Integrity]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Assuming you've read my posts, I've no idea what you're talking about. On the other hand, if I assume you haven't, then I shall instruct you to go and read my posts.

Go and read my posts.

My assumption that I knew the whole of the Schrodinger's cat theory was wrong.
And you assumed correctly that I did not read the thread.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Chika

this is what u guys talk about on GD? Ghey.

Damn science and philosophy.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

To be honest I dont understand why you've even brought up Schrodinger's cat in the first place. All you seem to be saying is 'the host might have put something else in the other box!' so I dunno where the physics comes in

I'm really having the same problem.

[LHC]

If it is behind door one and you switch from door one to door three after the guard pulls out the booby prize from door two, your chance of being correct has fallen from 1 to 0.


And you look like a dumb ****.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by LHC

If it is behind door one and you switch from door one to door three after the guard pulls out the booby prize from door two, your chance of being correct has fallen from 1 to 0.

Are you trying to make yourself look like an idiot today, or just these last couple of posts?

[LHC]

Both were fantastic posts.

edit: Although I had honestly never heard of that Anime (and neither had anybody i talked to about it today)

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I'm really having the same problem.

I bet you're one of those stupid people this thread is talking about, right?

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Here for all those like me who had to google:

http://www.comedia.com/hot/monty.html

Shame on you Summanus.

Seriously how the **** is that hard to understand? 3 doors, 1/3 chance, got it wrong, then my chance of getting it right increases if i change because theres only 2 doors now? OMFGWTFHTFWOAHNEVERHOWCANTHATBE?!?!?!?!

I swear i would have found that easy in primary school....

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by sniborp

Seriously how the **** is that hard to understand? 3 doors, 1/3 chance, got it wrong, then my chance of getting it right increases if i change because theres only 2 doors now? OMFGWTFHTFWOAHNEVERHOWCANTHATBE?!?!?!?!

I swear i would have found that easy in primary school....

The thing people find it hard to understand is that if you change doors the probability of success doubles. This, many find, is rather counter-intuitive.

[Cannon_Fodder]

how is it counter intuitive? less doors = more chance?

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Summanus

First day of uni, the philosophy lecturer gives us 'the Monty Hall problem', which I have subsequently disproven through the use of Schrodinger's Cat.

suckers

You're an idiot.

It is trivial to write a simulation to prove you an idiot, but that is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Its not particularly hard to understand when you have link explaining the basic problem.

you've never read any threads about the monty hall problem before have you?

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

you've never read any threads about the monty hall problem before have you?

no. and i wish i hadnt now.