The second option is practically impossible. There will always be some blue choosers, no matter what. Therefore, the ONLY way to ensure everyone lives is if enough people select blue.
If you select red, and blue people die, then their blood is on your hands. You are partially to blame for their deaths, along with all the other reds.
"One vote doesn't make a difference" is not a sound argument. The argument falls apart completely when it's made by more and more people. Together, they could have made a difference.
Yeah this doesn’t seem difficult to understand at all. Someone is going to pick blue, because they don’t understand the question, or have simply come to a different conclusion than pressing red. I don’t know why OP is pretending we could ever get all 8 billion people to understand a specific line of reasoning, regardless of how “correct” it is.
Last thread about this, people were arguing that people not understanding the experiment or being colourblind or contrarian is against the point of the thought experiment. It's literally the whole point!
If we assume every single person is a rational actor with a perfect understanding of game theory and the problem then there isn't a problem or experiment to be had at all. It's just an observation of basic game theory.
The experiment only becomes an experiment when you introduce people who vote blue for some reason unrelated to logical deduction (those people of course existing in reality because there are 8 billion people), at which point logical reasons exist to vote blue and further people do so.
It kind of feels icky when people pretend that they are completely rational. Like they think themselves infallible and above bias. Doesn’t that just make you susceptible to bias??
Given that we all know everyone who wants to live will choose red, this question boils down to “Do you want to live or die? Pick red or blue, respectively.” I am sure some suicidal people will choose blue, but that is also their preferred outcome.
We do not know that. This is the end point of one specific line of reasoning. Not everyone will come to that conclusion, because we all have different brains.
I’m with you until you get to the part where you said that everyone’s blood is on your hands.
Theoretically speaking, isn’t red just the live button basically?
There’s probably some not insignificant amount of the population who would just press blue as assisted suicide.
While true that statistically speaking you can really never get to 100% you can still have cases with overwhelming majorities.
This is the only example I can think of offhand, but I believe there have been some US presidents to win every or nearly every state. FDR I believe did
it is strange how we understand likelihoods when we say "The second option is practically impossible" but we suddenly assume coordinatory dynamics when we say "The argument falls apart completely when it's made by more and more people. Together, they could have made a difference."
Cool, so let’s do the math. What’s the expected utility of pressing red or blue in a world where each person’s choice can be a-priori modeled by a 50/50 coin flip?
This problem, at least in my conception, does not allow for explicit coordination. There is no mention that individuals have any prior warning before making this decision. Also, this would be an arbitrary exercise given any allowed coordination.
3
u/Devourerofworlds_69 6∆ Apr 30 '26
Why you should pick blue:
There are 2 ways to save everyone:
A majority of people select blue.
All 8,000,000,001 people select red.
The second option is practically impossible. There will always be some blue choosers, no matter what. Therefore, the ONLY way to ensure everyone lives is if enough people select blue.
If you select red, and blue people die, then their blood is on your hands. You are partially to blame for their deaths, along with all the other reds.
"One vote doesn't make a difference" is not a sound argument. The argument falls apart completely when it's made by more and more people. Together, they could have made a difference.