https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_restricted_choice It’s not 50/50 though. One choice is already known as much as is possible to know a choice with this amount of potential complexity. But still, a known. All of the others are unknown. But I think instead of stating it in Monty Hall terms, perhaps this generalization is more appropriate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_restricted_choice It’s not 50/50 though. One choice is already known as much as is possible to know a choice with this amount of potential complexity.

But still, a known.

All of the others are unknown. But I think instead of stating it in Monty Hall terms, perhaps this generalization is more appropriate:

====

What makes it constrained even in an relatively open (or at least very complicated Universe of possibilities)?

Because we can’t ignore the fact that *one* of the choices is known by the chooser. _Something_ is going to be different. This places a constraint even on an infinity of possibilities (and this isn’t an infinity of possible future, just “a lot”):

But even at its most Brownian motion randomized, it’s at worst infinity – 1… except that probabilities don’t work like that.

===

For the sake of the thought experiment though, I can simplify it in good conscience to:

a) Known bad
b) Unknown worse
c) Unknown better

Not starting from a “neutral” 0 position still makes a difference. If however you *are* neutral about Hitler, then “choosing not to choose” seems like your answer.

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− four = 3

Leave a Reply