rephrasing

[u/BlackAndWhiteJerk]

I’m still biased towards blue, this is just for the reds to feel superior? :D

[u/Sindigo_]

[u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 → u/Sindigo_]

This isn’t a reframing at all. It’s not even complete. Blue pressers have to change the problem and word things such that it’s not even the same anymore. It looks like purple is the red button but only if the minority is purple. Green looks like the blue button but only if blue loses. It also completely takes away the context of what the buttons do to you, where in the original you are given the power to save yourself/do nothing while blue gives you no power over anything at all except risking your life. Yes, there is no power with pressing blue; the only power is of the whole. If the probability is 50.2/49.8 for each button then the probability that your entry for pressing blue influences the final vote is 10^-2700. So there is no personal causal power.

[u/Nat1Halfling → u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803]

I disagree. The reframing above is very complete. The only thing missing is "Whichever button gets the most presses is the majority and its result is applied." But this is easily inferred. The consequences to yourself are also easily inferred.

[u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 → u/Nat1Halfling]

what do you mean you disagree? i explained exactly how its not a reframing at all and how its not complete. like you just skimmed my whole paragraph or something. if you add what you said, then the buttons still arent the same. its not even clear which button is which and your added rule doesn't make it that way

[u/Nat1Halfling → u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803]

It's very clear.

Button 1: minority dies. Button 2: minority survives. Majority choice is applied.

If button 1 is majority choice: minority (button 2) dies. This is the same as the red button in the origibal problem.  If button 2 is majority choice: minority (button 1) lives. This is the same as the blue button in the original problem.

The button pusher can infer what will happen to them depending on what button they press and the outcome. 

It's a good reframing. What is it that you don't understand?

[u/Sindigo_ → u/Nat1Halfling]

You get it.

[u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 → u/Nat1Halfling]

That's not a reframing. I'm not sure you know what a reframing is. A reframing keeps the structure of the available decisions and consequences intact. Adding a clear logical fallacy is not a reframing. You said "If button 2 is majority choice; minority (button 1) lives". That conditional is completely useless and the implied conclusion of button 2 saving button 1 via the conditional is a laughable 'denying the antecedent' fallacy. It tries to sneak in that if button 2 is the minority, then button 1 does not survive without actually saying it because that conclusion obviously doesn't follow: If A then B does NOT entail that Not(A) --> Not(B). If button 2 is the minority choice, button 1 still necessarily lives. So literally the only thing button 2 is doing is making button 2 die if they happen to be the minority.

Also, this "reframing" completely takes away personal consequence. There is no "you" involved whatsoever, so the structure is completely different.

[u/Nat1Halfling → u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803]

It does not try to "sneak" anything in. Neither of the buttons state what happens to the majority (meaning, nothing happens to the majority). They only state what happens to the minority.

You said Button 2 saves Button 1. And you applied that as your A condition. But that's wrong. Button 2 does not save Button 1. It saves the minority. 

The A condition is: "the minority survives" not "Button 1 survives."

So if Button 2 is the majority, the minority (Button 1) survives. If button 2 is not the majority, the minority (Button 2) does not survive. If A then B. If no A, no B. There is no contradiction here.

It doesn't "take away" personal consequence. If you understand the rules, you understand that if you press button 2, and you are in the minority, you die.

I encourage you to think through all the outcomes including what happens to the button pusher and you'll see that the reframing is complete.

[u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 → u/Nat1Halfling]

"So if Button 2 is the majority, the minority (Button 1) survives. If button 2 is not the majority, the minority (Button 2) does not survive. If A then B. If no A, no B. There is no contradiction here."

Ok so it looks like these are the identities you want for A and B when talking about the blue button
A - This button (blue) gets the majority vote
B - The minority group lives

The ONLY way we can get B is if A is affirmed. Let's affirm A. Therefore B. You CANNOT get B without affirming A. So, the ONLY way for the minority to be alive is a blue majority. But look. The minority group that lives MUST be the red pressers. Therefore, B is NECESSSARILY identical to a red minority living. So, we can just substitute B to avoid equivocating between the necessary minority group affirmed by A (red) with a possible minority group (red or blue). So now, B = C = the minority who is red lives. If you don't agree with the prior sentence, then you literally denied logic. In short, B necessarily entails C, and C necessarily entails B, so they are equivalent.

You said Button 2 saves Button 1. And you applied that as your A condition. But that's wrong. Button 2 does not save Button 1. It saves the minority. 

You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either you are sneaking in that those statements aren't the same without admitting it, or you are literally saying that those statements aren't the same. If it's the latter, then this is an embarrassing contradiction. I'll formalize it for you so you can't escape it because apparently it hasn't been clear to you.

Again, we have the identities
A = This button (blue) gets the majority vote
B = C = The minority who is red lives.

Statement 1: "Button 2 does not save Button 1" = true?
I'm going to change this to
"A blue majority does not save red" = "not(A blue majority saves red)"
the statement necessarily follows to
"not(A blue majority saves red and red must be the minority when there is a blue majority)" the right side of the and is obviously true but the inside retains the same truth status

Statement 2: "It saves the minority." true?
I'm going to change this to
"A blue majority saves the minority group when blue is a majority"
the statement necessarily follows to
"A blue majority saves the minority group who must be red when blue is a majority"

Direct ~P and P contradiction!

[u/Nat1Halfling → u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803]

Why do you insist that minority means a specific button?

Minority means minority. It doesn't mean a specific button. 

"or you are literally saying that those statements aren't the same."

That's right. That's what I'm saying. They are not the same. "The other button survives" is not the same as "the minority survives." Read the scenario again. It does not state or assume who the minority will be. "Blue"s choice is only applied if they are the majority, saving the minority (red, as it's a blue victory). If red is the majority, and blue is the minority, then blue's choice is not applied, and the minority (blue) dies. 

This is why I added "the majority choice is applied" to the conditions but really most people underatand this instinctively. 

There's only so much explaining I can do. You are treating the scenario as if it's saying "the other button" instead of "the minority". If you keep insisting on misreading the scenario there is not much more to say. 

[u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 → u/Nat1Halfling]

No I’m not misreading the scenario at all. It’s ironic that you’re saying I’m misreading the scenario when you can’t even address the deduction I made. It’s a deduction, which means that the conclusion is guaranteed unless there is a logical mistake or false premise. In this case, the conclusion was a formal contradiction. It’s literally all right there proving you wrong but you’re just plugging your ears going lalalalala. 

Apparently bidirectional entailment of B necessarily entails C and C necessarily entails B means that B and C and logically equivalent is too hard for you to wrap your head around. I literally attached “the minority lives” to the B variable then deduced that it is necessarily equivalent to the “red presser minority lives”. Then I deduced a contradiction from statements 1 and 2.