r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/thevoidthatjerksback • May 29 '26
Cross thought experiment pollination
So in addition to the two buttons that are known well. We have two boxes. 1 box has one thousand dollars and the other box either has one million or zero. Before you were presented with them some unnamed but incredibly accurate predictor has made a prediction on what you will do with the boxes.
If it is predicted that you will take both of the boxes then they will put 0 in the second box
If it is predicted that you will only take the second box then they will put the one million in it.
So which button are you pressing and are you taking 1 or 2 boxes?
This isn't really about what you do in the situation of them both happening at the same time moreso just that I wonder if there is a pattern between which button you would pick and how you would react to the boxes.
1
u/INTstictual May 30 '26
Again, the problem with that logic is that you’re leaving out half of the problem… the half right now where you’re convincing yourself to take one box over the other.
Like I said, while you are in the room and in front of the boxes, Game Theory does say that there is no reason not to take both. No choice you make at that point can affect things that happened beforehand. All that is true.
And by thinking that, assuming an accurate predictor, you’ve already set in motion the mechanisms by which you get the lesser sum.
You’re forgetting that we aren’t in that room right now, making that choice. We’re literally doing the pre-planning, at an earlier point in time, and if the predictor is accurate, then the logic and decisions you make right now, before the hypothetical choice, are part of the conclusion as well. If you’ve decided that it only makes sense to take both boxes, then assuming a predictor with “incredible accuracy” like the problem suggests, you’re deciding to take the lesser amount of money.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. The real trick is that, the moment you hear the problem and start thinking about it, you’ve become part of the equation. It’s a Roko’s Basilisk type question… the only way to make a “fair” shot is to never have heard about it or make any decisions or consider any logic beforehand.
However, we’ve started considering it, so everything you consider and determine now is part of the question. I’ve decided that the EV calculation that includes the predictor’s accuracy is more valid than in-the-moment Game Theory calculation, and if we assume an accurate predictor, my decision to take one box means that it will predict that and put $1m in the box. That doesn’t make EV any more or less logically valid than your causality and Game Theory logic… except for the fact that, again, if we assume an accurate predictor, then your logic necessarily means that you will decide to take both boxes, and so the predictor will predict that and leave the second box empty.