[extropy-chat] Re: monty hall paradox again: reds and green gorfs

[Spike]

> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:50:35PM -0700, Spike wrote:
> 
> > Come on RSPs, think harder!  What are we doing wrong here?
> 
> Wasting your synapse-second-joules on non-problems?
> 
> Spike, you must have a couple of spare lives in your basement...
> 
> -- 
> Eugen* Leitl


Yes even RSPs with attitudes, please help us out.  {8^D

Gene, glad to see you posting here, even if only
occasionally.  We worried you might vanish without 
a trace.  {8-]

If only it were true that I had a couple of spare
lives.  I found this 10 zorgs variation of the two-
envelope problem so very intriguing because it looks
to me like a better illustration of quantum uncertainty
than Shroedinger's cat.  The cat thing never did work
for me: I always thought that cat was either perfectly
healthy or a cooling carcass, not some mysterious
in-between state.  But I suspected that I was somehow
getting bogged down in the details of the analogy
and missing the real point, as many did with the
red and green gorf analogy.

My point in that model was to show that if you have
two choices, equal cost, equal everything, and most
evidence says red and green are equal but a very 
small and suspect piece of evidence that red is
better, then logic tells me to pick red, even 
without good justification, even at the risk of
being thought superstitious.

The two envelope problem similarly presents two choices,
stick or swap.  Logic insists sticking and swapping are 
equal, but another *very suspect* line of reasoning suggests 
that swapping is better.  I would very apologetically open 
the envelope and then swap.  I would hope none of my
math friends saw me do it, but I would swap just the same.  
I cannot stand thinking that I might be superstitious.  
I have struggled against superstition all my adult life. 

I may write a letter to Martin Gardner.  I did that once,
he wrote back.  {8-]

spike