Ok. Now I know you don’t actually understand how this dil MMA is framed…or you’re just messing with me.
There are only two outcomes to this thought experiment.
the majority of people press blue…and everyone lives.
or
the majority of people press red…everyone else dies.
There is NO scenario where everyone presses the same button. Blue or red. That is not possible.
That means…if the majority of people push red, then someone is going to die. How many people depends on the final outcome. It will be anywhere from 49.9% to less than 1%…but no matter what that final balance is…someone will die.
The only scenario where no one does, is if the majority presses blue. It’s just a simple majority. Any more than 50%, and everyone lives. Blue and red.
You keep insisting that it’s “logical” that everyone votes red…but that isn’t possible. That makes your argument completely irrational, no matter how you try to explain it. You are simply not engaging with reality, based on the rules of the game.
There is a scenario where everyone presses the same button. The one where they read the setup and realize how it works. Which is only people who press blue risk death. No one needs protection. No one need die because they 100% can protect themselves. They don’t need heroes. I did the spaceship shield thing to try and make it more plain and have been wracking my brains for a way to outlay it to make it more clear. Here is my new attempt:
Everyone has a button. One says live. One says die. If you press the live one you will 100% live. If you press the die one you may die. The system that brings death is limited though so if more than 50% of the people choose death the system cannot accomodate everyone and to be fair will not kill anyone. Which button do you push?
You get that just the fact that this is even being debated between you and I right now…let alone all the people who disagree with you online…literally proves your assertion wrong…right?
If you and I disagree on this, right now…how do you conclude that all 8 billion people on Earth are somehow going to unanimously press the red button? By all means, explain how that happens.
And you still don’t seem to understand the basic premise behind this scenario…
You keep insisting that the only way “everyone lives” is to unanimously press the red button. But that’s simply not true.
If 51% press the blue button…everyone lives.
As opposed to needing 100% to press the red button to achieve the same outcome.
“Everyone lives” if a simple majority presses blue…versus your prediction that everyone is going to magically press red, despite all the facts and evidence that says they won’t. You are banking on a break from reality to occur in order to “save everyone”.
Like I said, it doesn’t matter how you try to explain that…it simply isn’t rational.
Again im not making any assumptions of who will press red or blue outside of the logical thing to do is press red. If folks press blue it is for two reasons. They are not doing the logical choice. They want to die. Or they are following some misguided quest to save people who don’t need saving because they 100% do not need to put themselves in the possibility of death set (one of the many illogical choices). Heck you whole first paragarph is illogical as it equally applies to both yourself and I yet you act like its an argument for only you. Folks can press either button but choosing the death button is illogical if you want to live.
Lol! Ok. So, you really just don’t understand how this thought experiment works, then. The entire point is to anticipate how the majority will choose, in order to achieve a desired outcome.
If your objective is to only save yourself…then pressing the red button is the only logical choice.
But, if your objective is to save everyone…then pressing blue is the only logical choice.
If you don’t care what other people are pressing…then you’ve just admitted that you’re not actually trying to save everyone. You’re just trying to save yourself…and can’t understand why everyone isn’t making the same choice.
The prompt is clear. You are attributing things to the experiment that are not necessarily a part of it. Blue causes death. Red does not. People who press blue are trying to save people who press blue in misguided attempt to save people who are only at risk because they are trying to save people that don’t need saving. Indeed I am not trying to save everyone because no one needs saving. Absolutely 100% of everyone can save themselves. There is no risk of an innocent dying because they are effectively immune to harm if they choose to be. I can’t think of making it any more clear than the remarking the buttons as life and death thing.
There are only two conditions to the experiment…and you are repeatedly ignoring both of them.
if the majority presses blue…EVERYONE LIVES
if the majority chooses red…everyone who didn’t choose red, dies.
You are the one attributing things to those conditions that don’t exist.
Everyone choosing red is also not the “only way that everyone lives”. That is clearly stated in the first condition. This makes your primary assertion, wrong.
Choosing blue is a risk…but, it is also the only choice where everyone lives. It really is that simple. It is not “choosing death”. That’s just something else you keep saying, that simply isn’t true.
you are missing the key factor. Anyone choosing blue is the only way for someone to die because only those who choose blue will die. Blue is the choice of death. Death only occurs if people choose blue which they should not do. Choosing red causes no deaths. Only choosing blue can cause people to die. Choosing red never causes death it is in the choice of blue that death is allowed to occur. Im not saying choosing red is the only way for everyone to live. Im saying it is in choosing blue that death becomes something that can happen. It makes no sense to choose blue or death.
Choosing red is choosing for you not to die. But, it is also choosing to potentially sacrifice other people in the process. That means choosing red, is choosing to kill others in exchange for guaranteed survival. That is the definition of “causing death”.
The only way choosing red doesn’t directly cause the death of others, is if the majority chooses blue.
If the majority chooses blue, then everyone lives. That means that choosing blue isn’t “choosing death”…it’s choosing to risk death in order to save everyone. Something that choosing red simply can’t achieve.
Ok. Now I know you don’t actually understand how this dil MMA is framed…or you’re just messing with me.
There are only two outcomes to this thought experiment.
or
There is NO scenario where everyone presses the same button. Blue or red. That is not possible.
That means…if the majority of people push red, then someone is going to die. How many people depends on the final outcome. It will be anywhere from 49.9% to less than 1%…but no matter what that final balance is…someone will die.
The only scenario where no one does, is if the majority presses blue. It’s just a simple majority. Any more than 50%, and everyone lives. Blue and red.
You keep insisting that it’s “logical” that everyone votes red…but that isn’t possible. That makes your argument completely irrational, no matter how you try to explain it. You are simply not engaging with reality, based on the rules of the game.
There is a scenario where everyone presses the same button. The one where they read the setup and realize how it works. Which is only people who press blue risk death. No one needs protection. No one need die because they 100% can protect themselves. They don’t need heroes. I did the spaceship shield thing to try and make it more plain and have been wracking my brains for a way to outlay it to make it more clear. Here is my new attempt:
Everyone has a button. One says live. One says die. If you press the live one you will 100% live. If you press the die one you may die. The system that brings death is limited though so if more than 50% of the people choose death the system cannot accomodate everyone and to be fair will not kill anyone. Which button do you push?
You get that just the fact that this is even being debated between you and I right now…let alone all the people who disagree with you online…literally proves your assertion wrong…right?
If you and I disagree on this, right now…how do you conclude that all 8 billion people on Earth are somehow going to unanimously press the red button? By all means, explain how that happens.
And you still don’t seem to understand the basic premise behind this scenario…
You keep insisting that the only way “everyone lives” is to unanimously press the red button. But that’s simply not true.
If 51% press the blue button…everyone lives.
As opposed to needing 100% to press the red button to achieve the same outcome.
“Everyone lives” if a simple majority presses blue…versus your prediction that everyone is going to magically press red, despite all the facts and evidence that says they won’t. You are banking on a break from reality to occur in order to “save everyone”.
Like I said, it doesn’t matter how you try to explain that…it simply isn’t rational.
Again im not making any assumptions of who will press red or blue outside of the logical thing to do is press red. If folks press blue it is for two reasons. They are not doing the logical choice. They want to die. Or they are following some misguided quest to save people who don’t need saving because they 100% do not need to put themselves in the possibility of death set (one of the many illogical choices). Heck you whole first paragarph is illogical as it equally applies to both yourself and I yet you act like its an argument for only you. Folks can press either button but choosing the death button is illogical if you want to live.
Lol! Ok. So, you really just don’t understand how this thought experiment works, then. The entire point is to anticipate how the majority will choose, in order to achieve a desired outcome.
If your objective is to only save yourself…then pressing the red button is the only logical choice.
But, if your objective is to save everyone…then pressing blue is the only logical choice.
If you don’t care what other people are pressing…then you’ve just admitted that you’re not actually trying to save everyone. You’re just trying to save yourself…and can’t understand why everyone isn’t making the same choice.
The prompt is clear. You are attributing things to the experiment that are not necessarily a part of it. Blue causes death. Red does not. People who press blue are trying to save people who press blue in misguided attempt to save people who are only at risk because they are trying to save people that don’t need saving. Indeed I am not trying to save everyone because no one needs saving. Absolutely 100% of everyone can save themselves. There is no risk of an innocent dying because they are effectively immune to harm if they choose to be. I can’t think of making it any more clear than the remarking the buttons as life and death thing.
There are only two conditions to the experiment…and you are repeatedly ignoring both of them.
if the majority presses blue…EVERYONE LIVES
if the majority chooses red…everyone who didn’t choose red, dies.
You are the one attributing things to those conditions that don’t exist.
Everyone choosing red is also not the “only way that everyone lives”. That is clearly stated in the first condition. This makes your primary assertion, wrong.
Choosing blue is a risk…but, it is also the only choice where everyone lives. It really is that simple. It is not “choosing death”. That’s just something else you keep saying, that simply isn’t true.
you are missing the key factor. Anyone choosing blue is the only way for someone to die because only those who choose blue will die. Blue is the choice of death. Death only occurs if people choose blue which they should not do. Choosing red causes no deaths. Only choosing blue can cause people to die. Choosing red never causes death it is in the choice of blue that death is allowed to occur. Im not saying choosing red is the only way for everyone to live. Im saying it is in choosing blue that death becomes something that can happen. It makes no sense to choose blue or death.
No.
Choosing red is choosing for you not to die. But, it is also choosing to potentially sacrifice other people in the process. That means choosing red, is choosing to kill others in exchange for guaranteed survival. That is the definition of “causing death”.
The only way choosing red doesn’t directly cause the death of others, is if the majority chooses blue.
If the majority chooses blue, then everyone lives. That means that choosing blue isn’t “choosing death”…it’s choosing to risk death in order to save everyone. Something that choosing red simply can’t achieve.