>>13210230>because its a fucking hypothetical LOLAnd? How is the predictor always right in this hypothetical if your choice is not causally connected to the predictor?
>The original problem doesn't state the predictor is always right. Just that he's predicted 1000/1000It doesn't matter. The both boxes answer completely ignores the information given by the problem that the predictor is good at predicting your choice. This is why it fails.
>I have no fore knowledge, I have just been very lucky at guessing.Too bad the problem doesn't say this.
>Nothing has changed from the original problem.Incorrect. What has changed is that you can ignore the accuracy of the predictor. It's highly unlikely that the predictor would get this result by luck. In almost all cases, the predictor achieved that accuracy by causal relationship rather than random chance.
>He is not infallible.It doesn't matter whether he's infallible. Nothing I said depended on him being infallible.
