Well /his/?

just kill them all

you're not morally obligated to remedy a situation you didn't cause

>>2086700
Yes, I've already been forced to choose, I might as well go full monty.

>>2086744
>I wouldn't throw a lifesaver to a drowning person

>>2086700

Statically speaking it's better to not switch the tracks if you're not a psychopath. Now if you don't mind killing random people that's another story.

>>2086700
Yes.

>>2086744
>>2086761
I'm not "morally obligated" to do anything. I save people because I want to and because I can.

If I don't save someone it's because I'm unwilling and/or unable to pay the cost.

>>2086770
Are you retarded?

>>2086761
what if that drowning persons a jew and you end up saving a jews life for no reason?

Yes because there was a 66% chance you chose one of the two sets of five.

An easy way to visualise this problem is to imagine there being a thousand tracks, 999 of them are five people and remaining one track is one person.

When offered to switch with a thousand, you should take it obviously because it is more likely that you picked one of the 999 rather than having picked the one.

The same applies here, it is more likely you would have picked one of the two sets of five, so you should switch because one of the two sets of five has now been removed.

>>2086744
>you're not morally obligated to remedy a situation you didn't cause

No, you're not *ethically* obligated to. You are morally obligated, though.

>>2086804
>humanties idiots can't even round numbers

>>2086818
>hur dur you didn't say 66.6666...%
>hur dur round it up to 67%

Fuck off, retard.

>>2086817
>morals
>existing
Pick fucking none

>>2086700
I remember this problem from a math course I took

It was written as a game show though where 1 of the 3 boxes had the prize in it and you had to choose. Then one of the boxes that is empty is revealed to you, and you get the option to switch your choice. IIRC you have a better chance of winning if you stick with your original choice rather than switch

>>2086904
>IIRC you have a better chance of winning if you stick with your original choice rather than switch
No, it's the other way around. Your chances are better after rather than before the reveal, so you should switch.

>>2086700
When will you people learn? Don't touch any fucking levers ever

>>2086785

That's the monty hall problem dumbass, think as the lone guy as the goat.

>>2086922

The car*

>>2086700
I never asked to pull the lever

>>2086922
>Statically speaking it's better to not switch the tracks if you're not a psychopath.
Are you retarded?

>>2086983
>>2086770
It literally doesnt matter whether you switch the lever. Once the track closes its 50% either way.

>>2087027
>That's the monty hall problem dumbass, think as the lone guy as the goat.
Are you retarded?

>>2086904
>IIRC you have a better chance of winning if you stick with your original choice rather than switch
You get an F you dumb dumb

This is just an existing game theory question. The answer is "switch your selection". Anyone who says otherwise just hasn't heard about this before - they're not retarded. Anyone who answered correctly just heard about this before - they are not smart.

Now fuck off with this troll ass thread you fucking retard.

>>2086700
Just jump on front of it and fuck the other people they can try to figure it out themselves. But I'm out

File: 1479374454679.jpg (154KB, 953x923px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 953x923px

I still don't get it, maybe I'm retarded.
If you know one of the incorrect choices, then the only possibilities are the one you chose first and the other option. Two options, it's only one choice or the other. My logic says it's a 50 percent chance if there's two even possibilities, but the math contradicts that.

>>2087062
>Anyone who answered correctly just heard about this before - they are not smart.
Nigga you could figure this shit out with a fucking ms excel table and some basic logic. If you got it wrong you either didn't think too hard about it or you're just stupid.

>>2087093
Tbh I don't understand it either. I can't wrap my head around how my chances are altered in any way at all.

>>2087096
>lmao dude I'm so smart, I'd just use MS excel
Then you're not smart. You're using a computer to do the brain work for you.

> In her book The Power of Logical Thinking, Vos Savant (1996, p. 15) quotes cognitive psychologist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini as saying "... no other statistical puzzle comes so close to fooling all the people all the time" and "that even Nobel physicists systematically give the wrong answer, and that they insist on it, and they are ready to berate in print those who propose the right answer".

>>2086700
I would let it continue. If I pull the lever there is a chance it would only kill one person, if it keeps going it kills 5. More points for meeeee!

>>2087096
If you read about the problem you'll quickly discover that it is a difficult and confusing one.

From wikipedia
"Many readers of vos Savant's column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation confirming the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999)."

>>2087093
>>2087093
>>2087093
WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE ACT OF PULLING THE LEVER TO PLAY ALL STAR IF IT JUST PLAYS IT ANYWAY

>>2087096
>I used a computer
>You must not have thought too hard about this cuz its ez

Pick one nigga

>>2087093
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

>>2087108
>>2087093
Exactly, it's more simple than people are making it out to be. If there's a chance one of these other tracks has one person why wouldn't you pull it no matter what?

File: watdo.png (184KB, 507x612px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 507x612px

>>2086700
wat do?

>>2087459
>and/or
This can't be and/or. This is vital to my ethical calculus.

>>2086700
This treats all people as an equal potential, which is sweet, but unknowable. This is not a moral dilemma; this is an information problem. Without the knowledge of the consequences of each life being ended, any choice you make is equally an exercise in your own masturbatorial fantasy of being somehow more enlightened or superior to one who would make another choice. It's a troll's game, aimed carefully at a people who pride themselves on being better than others, and will cling with ferocity to defend the ghosts they have constructed who live in the worlds they didn't make, and who taunt them with the what-ifs and could-have-beens which claw like the hell-beasts of self-doubt that they are.

I say figure out who tied up the people, and then we can talk about "moral dilemma."

>>2086700
Isn't this a bizarre math scenario in that by changing your original choice after having the one you didn't choose revealed you bump your chances of picking more favorably considerably?

>>2087876
Actually, yeah; I think it's an attempt at a humorous mash-up between the Trolley Problem and the Monty Hall Problem. The generally agreed upon consensus on the former is that you choose the fewest casualties, and the latter is that you always change your choice after new information is revealed (because you're betting that you were wrong, which is statistically better (2/3) than that you were right (1/3)). Lulz are had.

>>2087357
That's just embarrassing. This problem should only confuse you for like 10 minutes max

>>2086700
If I'm being forced to choose a path anyway, my agency doesn't matter. I'm just changing whose deaths in which I will be implicated, although I know none of the people involved. I'm still going to have to live with the fact that I murdered someone.

>>2087459
I pull the lever, because there's nobody on 3 (BJMP on 1, 5 adults and 5 children on 2)

>>2086779
Woah, you're going to cut someone with that edge there

>>2087928
1st time I've understood the explanation. ty

>>2088039
My obsidian katana blade's edge is one atom wide

>>2086700
The answer technically depends on whether one of the two "incorrect" choices was deliberately revealed, or whether a random door was open. This is an important facet of the Monty Hall Problem. It's either 50/50 or 66/33 and I'm not wasting calories on a 50/50

>>2087861
>I must be omniscient to act

K

>>2088039
What's edgy about that other post?

>>2088406
Not the case. You'd have to be omniscient to make a fully-informed decision, which would be the only way it could be a question of moral choice. The premise of the problem is that "You are forced to blindly choose a path." This means you *must* act. The mechanism of your being "forced" may be called into question, but essentially this is the situation we are constantly in, all the time, every waking moment. Our mistake is in blaming ourselves for things that are beyond our control, and casting moral judgment upon situations that should instead warrant the admission of our own limitations.

>>2087991
noice

I smash every person's head with a rock until they die BEFORE the trolley gets there. Am I going to heaven?