Any films about a hybrid Trolley Problem / Prisonner's Dilemma?

15

Read the filename, mobileposter.

Attached: trolleyMadness2.png (1000x1500, 560K)

it's 15

Convince the other person that you will steal the money and then agree to share it after the show by making the other person pick to share it. Then after thoroughly convincing them that you will steal it but pay them afterwards, you pick share as well.

It is impossible to solve. You have different sizes of drinks, different amounts of fries and different amounts of portions of fries.

Its 16 you moron

Burger is 5

Fries is 1

Drink is 10

Seems pretty possible to me

but the answer is 15.

so if it's like the Dark Knight then both of there switches are "switched" right?

not a film but this is basically golden balls, a UK game show but instead of people it's money

>he missed the multiplication

1 x 10 = 10. 10 + 5 = 15. it's 15.
PEMDAS

Pretty good. But try this for size.

Attached: z5f5wkawcpy21[1].png (800x600, 234K)

Why all this baiting?

Attached: 880.jpg (657x527, 38K)

>what is order of operations
Not taking into account the actual amount of fries in each container and the volume of liquids in the drink, the simple answer is 15.

Anecdotally we did this in a poli sci class I took. The first group to betray, and then continues to betray will win every time. Never trust the other group.

But you have to take that into account, because that is how the real world works.

70

Attached: 2F400B99-DA87-45C8-ABE4-A24F2CA02870.jpg (750x750, 127K)

>Why do they always have some complicated scenario aboout running people over?
because that's the trolley problem, the point is taking an action to take someone else's life

you're just describing a prisoner's dilemma

None of the drinks have the same volume and you assume that 1 portion of fry costs 1/2 of 2 portions.

The drinks are a different size. If this weren’t a purely bait picture only a 5th grader would be proud of solving it.

Attached: 4B316841-EE51-4372-A892-66C9D161D5FE.jpg (750x750, 150K)

McDonald’s has ALL size drinks for priced the same you stupid fuck. And yes it’s correct to assume that, as it’s not said otherwise.

> If this weren’t a purely bait picture only a 5th grader would be proud of solving it.

They are proud of it. That's why they try to solve it even though the filename literally says that it is impossible to solve.

And according to game theory, the best solution to the dilemma is always to act to get the best deal for yourself.

This assumes I have 6 people I love equally. It really all depends on who is in what situation.

>McDonald’s has ALL size drinks for priced the same you stupid fuck
Doubt

Attached: 61EDB94B-C3A3-493F-8CB1-159DFDA35BB5.jpg (600x581, 61K)

>adding conditions to a thought experiment
Why do retards always do this?

Are you some third worlders? McDonald’s drinks are $1 any size.

SOME

Their coffees are all $1, regardless of size. Don't know about sodas/fountain drinks since I don't get those.

Hey now..

Attached: train.jpg (518x768, 77K)

Kill the commie robot is the best choice. A machine with language synthesis is hardly the solution to the world's problems, but right here it will work.

anime and hope for gas gas gas

burgerlad.com/mcdonalds-prices-uk-2018/

Doing that gives you the worst possible results if other people also do that. Therefore that cannot be the best strategy.
Read up on superrationality and report back.

yes you see they have $1 any size soda so your losing money not getting large

Attached: real trolley.png (749x659, 173K)

There is no time to do anything but attempt to pull the lever, and hope that Mr Charlie is able to logically understand that any attempt to stop the pulling of the lever makes him personally responsible, and that that NTSB would investigate such an accident, not local authorities and as such not only would he be exposed not only for having the lever on his property and doing nothing to ensure it is able to be used as required in an emergency as well as his failure to use it, but that any attempt by him to use force against a person responding to the emergency situation so they could pull the lever would inevitably end with his arrest and incarceration by federal authorities.

that's just Nash equilibrium.
the purpose of the dilemma is to tackle a few different philosophies like Kantian ethics vs. Utilitarianism, but most commonly forgotten the difference between killing and letting die.

>the difference between killing and letting die

There is no difference. Not making a choice is itself a choice. If you see someone about to die and are capable of preventing that and do nothing to stop it, it's equivalent to having killed that person yourself.

Charlie has no responsibility to pull the lever, but he has a responsibility to not try to stop you from pulling the lever.

what do bros?

Attached: trolley loop.png (959x573, 126K)

Drink is 10
Burger is 5
Fries is 1
These are trivial to solve. The "trick" is the multiplication symbol that makes no sense in the context of fries and sodas.

easy 70

>the youtube video got comments disabled but none of the regular "this video is offensive blah blah blah"
pretty funny. they couldn't put a reason without making it obvious, so they pretended a six year old account logged in just to disable comments.

See, that's what makes it interesting. Unlike the other user's example which is incredibly boring once you understand the basics of game theory.

Why would you ever assume both parties are superrational

If you don't pull the lever, you lose 1 loved one

In order to get the average loved ones lost under 1 if you pull the lever, your opponent would have to pull the lever ONLY 20% or less times. VERY unlikely

Hence, the best course of action would have to be killing one loved one

many ethicists would disagree with that statement. can their deaths be tracked back to me because i didn't rescue them? why do i have a moral obligation to save you?
whether or not my decision to save you is conscious or not makes no difference since i hold no agency in this scenario. here're two papers that go over this. the second one is much shorter.

watermark.silverchair.com/52-2-354.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAkcwggJDBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggI0MIICMAIBADCCAikGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMM-P_E2e0tOy3zCrDAgEQgIIB-szARooeh2kPm-5F-J1Xp-SbrpNhir2Se0gGE9dWbDKqh5LYunZj2BjuU4d6L637rHPLVhvKX_xVeVxAPyylPnQCUXRBvAgB5qjzRir61sr5guhpDGf5OUyee7rWkOEv62HinJBS0AsWWDUWvcacd2dtUZTG3fMlivj78QrKZaNlDa8AgVuAr-ZP-w6s322bfrvNrjLEKOge2OAKc8q1Q_pxXk04Xyr3BDPKDICAL3u56XHdx0sTtKzZM-Nln_AkcRkxyrSEMnWs28I0lXWIXfRGMuYw3v3gufnMXamUT6UsAuQMvLCLavJPM5MY-mN6_9X0PVY71ww8tL-wSq930sP-pHQQpcGewJAAh6a-0L5uzDTUjdIH_lAyxXmkP7zx3ziLz97WfM-ZKngkxU8qx9yIZ1Qh9v3ASd3s6i1gcUPudbSF_osp32Vx4zu1yMeoK4HJcP6M5EaTSBPgmEBQoGk1pJZQ5c7kEvBTDfzQjXydKmobewk2xJW0ImHGvuSWm6y3PFcfDESMmg8Qf0BCnBWXtZBmlXAPzKntT61ozg7DpkILfcWGC0Qqu7dYAk0tZRxWfHme5_dXU9IqzgkjIYvO-RnItaHQyCIkCkX_D_mhUs6G0G1J7aYCoBsKryQgFwFIFmzkgMmA58raB4fNQKf68-GDx2fHVxxL

web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil 115/Foot-on-letting-die.htm

17

Wot?

haven't read the papers, but the issue, at least from a legal standpoint, is where does responsibility end?
does someone starving a block away from you, a city away, a country away? do you have the save the life of someone willfully endangering themselves, or only accidentally? so on.

christchurch shooter played gas gas gas

the second paper actually goes over this. it's barely a page.

>Burger is 5
>Fries is 1
then how come 2 fries and 1 burger = 9

it's 25 what are you all retarded?

4 fries.

Just read it. His concept of agency sounds good, but it merely shifts the result.
First of all, it's important to draw the difference between moral and legal. Legally, you must be allowed to be a bystander, because your right to freedom says that no one can compel you to do something, merely forbid.
Now onto the moral, which is really the important part. This is where the agency conception fails because the question becomes how tenuous the connection must be. If you run over someone on the road, sure, that seems reasonable. But what about the trolley? Does that count? What if someone jumps in front of your car, and you might be able to stop, but you don't. What if you can't stop. What if you breath on someone and they develop a deadly infection?
The better answer is to observe absolute events. Ok, so you kill one guy, but you save five more. There is no happy solution here. You have to make a sacrifice. It's the same reason I have never been, and will never be, an organ donor. You're allowing some doctor to potentially sacrifice you for the greater good.
Morally, if you do not try to the best of your ability, you are responsible. That technically means you are partially responsible for starving orphans, but if you're looking after starving orphans, you're sacrificing other people around you, and they are probably more important starving orphans.
Basically, you are guilty no matter what. But it's a necessary sacrifice, to the endpoint of morality, assuming all lives are equal.

The Good Place did an entire episode on the Trolley Problem, including a literal trolley.

>risk five family members dying
in this specific scenario its stated that they will be fine running over the strangers. read it again

This. The only people in studies who actually choose the selfish option in prisoner dilemma scenarios are economics majors.

Not if the other person pulls the lever, though.

oh hey, its just like my agency in real life

no, i wasnt addressing that. the poster tried to change that part of the explicit circumstances.

70

learn reading comprehension

Superrationality just brings in another assumption to the thought experiment. It would have to be explicitly stated, you can’t just assume two people, especially in the prisoners dilemma to be superrational. It’s like the trillionare thought experiment where a trillionare sends 20 random people a letter and says that if one and only one of them responds with a telegram, that person gets a billion dollars. You would have to explicitly state that it’s 20 superrationalist who are all going to roll a 20 sided die and only send if it comes up on a predetermined number for it to be feasible. In real life all 20 would be retarded not to send the telegram.

The implication that one fries is completely different than two fries is silly

Attached: 1 03301.jpg (800x450, 224K)

But what if you wanna exploit maximum suffering?

This is the clear answer.

Attached: DenshaDeD_ch01p16-17.png (1353x976, 328K)

This such a stupid reimagination of Nash equilibrium. A better way of making it a harder problem is if one person doesnt pull the lever and the other does, then the person who didnt pull the lever gets his trolley derailed and all the people riding it killed. This version makes it so not pulling it becomes the obvious choice, seeing that less people die and you dont risk your trolley

Attached: 2 03103.jpg (800x450, 175K)

Attached: 5 15269.jpg (800x450, 256K)

Attached: 6 17559.jpg (800x450, 274K)

Chidi is too indecisive to actually solve this issue.

In your scenario there are three possibilities. Superrationally, of course.
If you have no way of contacting the other players, you should send it in. Worst case scenario is nothing either way.
If you can contact other players after the game, you should not send anything in. The chance of winning is so astronomically tiny that it's far better to attempt some implicit understand, and collect some part after the fact.
If you can contact them before the game, you want to make it clear you are sending in, and splitting it evenly, because you can only trust yourself.
Literally none of those scenarios involve rolling a die, which is the absolute worst way of deciding something. The entire point of game theory is eliminating chance.

If I pull my lever before the other guy, wouldn't the he see me and decide not to pull his? And vice versa, if I see him pull his first, I wouldn't pull mine. Or should I assume we each don't know what the other side is doing?

If you choose not to decide

You still have made a choice

t. Rush

Always pull the lever because then it's a 2/3rds chance of hitting the strangers

The correct answer

Then I will choose Free Will.

Then wouldn't the other guy also always pull the lever? Then you lose 5 family members instead of just one and have shared guilt over the three dead strangers and the other guy's 5 family members.

prisoner's dilemma always has zero consequences for singular betrayal.

the problem with the hybridization is the three strangers. They're extraneous.

The problem should be arranged as:
three on tracks
two on trolleys
trollies are set to collide unless lever is pulled
pulling kills all five of opposing family because a fault in the track system will cause the other trolly to derail
double betrayal kills everyone on the tracks, but the trolleys don't derail because pulling both levers counteracts the rail fault
no betrayal kills both trolleys

that episode actually fixed an easy-out fault in the trolley problem. As a bystander, you aren't responsible for anything. Its a terrible accident until you walk up to the lever and decide to pull it, and doing so makes you a murderer.

By putting "you" on the trolley, "you" are involved no matter what.

Of you assume all players are superrational than rolling a die is the best chance for each individual to win since part of the thought experiment is not being able to contact each other. I was pointing out of superrationality is stupid to assume if you are framing these kinds of dilemmas and having them apply to real people.

>they simplified it, so it's better
and people wonder why tv gets worse every year

The trolley problem always tries to force "you" to be involved. But "you" aren't until "you" pull the lever. Until "you" pull the lever, "you" are just a bystander.

The trolley problem was trying to be the simplest possible moral dilemma without any sort of out for "you." But the jew who thought it up left in that out, because the actual point of it is "not getting involved is the best thing."

>pull them lever
>hold it over my one surviving loved one’s head that I killed 13 people just to save him
>mooch off him for life

Attached: 1DC3F739-A0AD-417C-917E-774449AF947E.gif (344x203, 3.88M)

I agree with you but it can be said that the fact that you had the option to act but didn’t is an action in-itself. It’s the same reasoning people use to explain that if god is real and omniscient but allows suffering to exist then he is evil because he is choosing not do stop something which is an action in-itself. No I’m not religious I was just giving you the other side of the argument.

why the FUCK am i having laughing fits with this shit??

Attached: 1555090370788.gif (517x328, 1.69M)

You are all small time

Attached: ultimate trolley problem.png (960x383, 137K)

and I'm saying you're a pleb that can't appreciate intricacy.

Unironically save my dick.

The way to finding the correct choice is to tweak the numbers

>Pull the lever, 1 guy dies
>Don't pull the lever, 10,000 dies
>LOL IM NOT GETTING INVOLVED SO I HAVE NO GUILT ABOUT IT HUEHUEHUEHUE

you're actually explaining why putting the active agent on the trolley simplifies the problem further and removes the "i'm just a bystander" out. As that is how omniscience+omnipotence works. If God is both, He is always involved in literally every situation, thus would be malevolent for allowing anything but the most minimum levels of necessary suffering.

can I choose who is on the tracks?

congratulations, you are one step closer to understanding the jew.

Incorrect. Dice rolls are both unpredictable, and very unlikely. I suppose you could make the argument that the payoff is bigger than zero, but there's another way to get a payoff bigger than zero: do nothing except write in. If other people do the dice, and you somehow win, you can just write in and get it. It literally makes no difference what you do.

don't pull the lever and orgasm from watching all those people die

save my 8 inch bwc.
ensure all the people strapped to the tracks are niggers.

Know that in 2019 the other guy will definitely cuck so pull my lever and all of my family survives. Eat shit, ethics.

Yeah I agree with you because the entire point of my argument was arguing against using superrationality. In real life you would write in and hope the other 19 people die somehow (near 0% chance.) If the same thought experiment was framed though and you assumed that all 20 people were 200 iq statistics teachers acting purely rational then rolling the dice would give you the highest chance of payoff. That’s why I think it’s stupid and breaks down under scrutiny. We are literally agreeing with each other.

> At first glance, one may be tempted to say that due to the sanctity of life, one should try to save as many people as possible, and the unwillingness to sacrifice the life of one to save the many means one is too much of a moral stickler for the “rules.” In truth, from a Jewish law perspective, the opposite is true. It is precisely due to the infinite value of a single soul that we are told not to even attempt to take an action that implies we can measure the value of that life.

> All not-Jews are individually and inclusively responsible for The Holocaust

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4372124/jewish/The-Trolley-Problem-in-Judaism.htm

I switch the lever back and forth to have the trolly derail.

Attached: 01bc7f20-f1a5-4922-8b13-1c8a77d353d1.jpg (660x350, 38K)

the point of the thought experiment is there is no dice roll. the "best outcome but with a chance of big failure" option is actually a 100% chance of failure. As everyone will always betray. So staying silent means you get fucked and betraying means you get fucked. As you can't give two people an option that implies zero consequences and expect either of them to not take it.

user, the point is, you either win, or you lose. It doesn't fucking matter what you do. Rolling the dice is the only way to fuck yourself over, and you hope other people come up with an equally retarded scheme because then you have a greater chance of winning.
You have a basic misunderstanding of game theory.

Gradually, I came to despise them.

which is all a roundabout way of validating "fuck you got mine" from the deepest possible cultural perspective.

Attached: 74612538[1].jpg (1719x1292, 994K)

>the point of the thought experiment is...

Jobs teaching a required "breadth" class at $1000 a unit.

derailing the trolley kills everyone on the tracks and on the trolley.

>whoa man you can't comprehend infinity and this is definitely infinity, me having seen a lot of infinity in my days
the absolute state of jewish intellectuals

>ah ain't need no schoolin ets jest a scam

>the people on B will die before seeing the totally sick loop-da-loop

Sad. But I’m sure they’ll understand why I’m still not pulling the lever.

10+10+10 = 30

10 + 5 + 5 = 20

5 + 2 + 2 = 9

5 + 1 • 10 = 60

Literally 4th grade math brainlet

Yes you either win or you lose which is why I am arguing AGAINST superrationality which implies that both agents without contact will make the highest probability move to have a chance at winning. The dice rolls ARE a higher chance of winning than just sending in and that’s the whole argument I was making. You are increasing your chance of winning by all 20 doing the dice rolls even if it is still near 0 and wouldn’t happen in 100 trillion years. We literally agree that sending in is the best option in real life.

order of operations is 5th grade math, my 4th grade drop-out friend.

you can't win a prisoner's dilemma. Your opposition is always going to betray, because he got the same deal you did.

No, user. Sending in is the best option is all situations.
You and I flip coins. Whoever gets heads wins. You flip and get tails. I don't bother flipping at all, I'm just going to pretend I got heads. Because you are stupid, you are honest to the judge and tell him you got tails. Now, I could have rolled and gotten heads, but it doesn't matter to me. Meanwhile, if I did roll, but got tails, you could have won, but you didn't, due to your insistence on following a silly system.

>8 inch bwc

lmao white people actually brag about only 8 inches?

Also there is a fry missing in the 3rd equation in each box compared to the second.

Attached: D286F802-1331-48A3-8C7B-5DAEED5834FC.jpg (540x720, 96K)

Attached: 1499614693155.jpg (598x543, 67K)

>burdening others with a longer trip just because you selfishly believe that things would improve if they saw you

Damn just gonna take that massive L and leave the thread

where's the one where pulling the lever kills an ethics professor teaching a class on the trolley problem?

They might pay us

Yes, the whole reply chain started out as me making an argument AGINST using superrationality in this thought experiment. You should always send in, it’s just theoretically you can have a higher chance even if it’s near 0 with 20 independent dice rolls influencing a binary send/don’t send conclusion that would result in a higher chance for each player.

>In the platonia dilemma introduced in Douglas Hofstadter's book Metamagical Themas,[1] an eccentric trillionaire gathers 20 people together, and tells them that if one and only one of them sends him a telegram (reverse charges) by noon the next day, that person will receive a billion dollars.

>In similar situations with more players, using a randomising device can be essential. One example discussed by Hofstadter is the platonia dilemma: an eccentric trillionaire contacts 20 people, and tells them that if one and only one of them sends him or her a telegram (assumed to cost nothing) by noon the next day, that person will receive a billion dollars. If they receive more than one telegram, or none at all, no one will get any money, and communication between players is forbidden. In this situation, the superrational thing to do (if it is known that all 20 are superrational) is to send a telegram with probability p=1/20 — that is, each recipient essentially rolls a 20-sided die and only sends a telegram if it comes up "1". This maximizes the probability that exactly one telegram is received.

Notice though that this is not the solution in a conventional game-theoretical analysis. Twenty game-theoretically rational players would each send in telegrams and therefore receive nothing. This is because sending telegrams is the dominant strategy; if an individual player sends telegrams they have a chance of receiving money, but if they send no telegrams they cannot get anything. (If all telegrams were guaranteed to arrive, they would only send one, and no one would expect to get any money.)

Is this show any good?

having a dick over 8 inches is like being over 7 feet tall. it's really fucking rare and it's inferior. sorry, penislet.

Yes, again we agree. The whole thing was an argument against the user claiming that not snitching/pulling the lever in a prisoners dilemma wasn’t always dominant and he just spouted off “muh superrationality.” The dominant choice is always to act!

See, the author is dumb. That maximizes the probably that SOMEONE will win. Not that YOU will win. In reality, it minimizes the chance you will win.

>le ebin '90s Shrek music meme song
I don't even like anime but that lever is going to the right.

We don't agree.
The correct strategy for prisoner's dilemma is dependent on the number of times it is played. More than once, and you want to cooperate. Once, you want to accuse. I don't know what the original point that user was talking about, but you fundamentally misunderstand your example, see

Attached: 1499640393439.jpg (638x542, 106K)

We agree. Hit ctrl-f and type “superrational” and find the first instance in this thread. That’s the user I was debating. I agree that sending in is the dominant strategy because I would use conventional game theory.

Attached: 1499819513915.png (500x517, 84K)

Attached: 1499640557087.png (507x612, 235K)

another issue with that... take... is game theory isn't about benefit, its about minimizing loss. because this all came up in during the cold war to explain a hypothetical situation where both sides launched their nuclear arsenal, and both sides had to decide whether or not to disarm mid-flight, and to explain why, in that situation, the world is fucked. If only one side disarms, and the other just says they did, then one side loses big, and the other wins. So both sides will always choose the option that seems like it will be a big win.

Attached: 1499640618846.png (1133x809, 351K)

We do agree. We both think that superrational game theory (dice rolling) is retarded and that was my entire point of this whole clusterfuck.
See:

Attached: 1499823048811.png (536x267, 93K)

Attached: 1499823241338.png (3180x2088, 984K)

He's retarded, but he's not wrong. It is the best strategy because if you betray, the next game you get betrayed, and then you're endlessly fucked. Betraying is prisoner's dilemma only works in a single instance. Which, if you are being superrational, will result in a betrayal by both players, since superrational does not imply omnipotence.

Attached: 1499910608959.jpg (852x960, 191K)

I completely understand game theory. Thank you, I was arguing against superrational meme game theory.

Attached: 1499842030250.jpg (852x960, 74K)

Attached: 1512846990084.jpg (767x468, 65K)

It does imply retarded extra assumptions.

Attached: 1512848638170.png (960x421, 244K)

To elaborate on this, the reason you do not betray in multiple instance games is because you can be punished for it. In a single instance, you cannot be punished. It would be nice if you could both get along, but if he thinks that, then you can fuck him over and maximize your personal payoff, and he has no repercussion. Therefore the only reasonable solution is to both betray.

Attached: 1512849137517.png (960x645, 386K)

there is a pleasent lack of utilitarianism in this thread, is Yea Forums getting smarter?

Attached: banana phone.png (500x500, 178K)

Attached: 1512889081193.jpg (451x960, 72K)

Attached: 1512904686288.png (600x691, 64K)

Attached: 1515624266605.jpg (645x429, 35K)

this is the best one

Attached: i don't even see the code.gif (800x792, 607K)

This is not a prisoners dillema because if they both pull the level they die

Utilitarianism and egalitarianism are both spooks. Based anime poster.

Attached: 1522226431253[1].png (824x999, 241K)

*blocks your paradox*

Attached: zeno.png (359x350, 6K)

The track is empty. I don't love anyone.

>when the kids on Yea Forums have better and more intelligent debate/discussion on ethics, morals and game theory than /sci/
based Yea Forums bros, best board

Time is infinite.

25
multiplication goes before addition

15

blackgirlscreate.org/blog/2018/6/avengers-infinity-war-trolley-problem

Attached: Fug.jpg (800x246, 97K)

shit I fucked up didn't notice two fries boxe

>drinks are the same size
>two fries boxes is 2, thus one fries box is 1
>order of operations - muliplication before addition
the answer is 15

then you kinda wasted your time. as superrationality still demands universal betrayal.

> “Thanos is the conductor in the basic scenario. He sees the universe's finite resources as the trolley, all the future lives of the universe on one track (the 5 workers) and chooses to throw the switch: kill half the universe (the 1 pedestrian) so that future generations will survive. “Thanos is a sympathetic villain, because the most common conclusion of the Trolley Problem is that saving the 5 workers is a moral obligation. This is how our movie begins.”

express.co.uk/entertainment/films/961182/Avengers-Infinity-War-trolley-problem

heh what a neat way to derail a shit thread
have a (You) user
also the answer is 15

Yes, but how can the trolley travel the first to the first halfway point if it first has to travel the halfway point of that, and before then the halfway point of that, and before that the halfway point of that. The trolley can never move from where it is. Therefore, your paradox if flawed.

This is by far my favorite.

Zeno eternally btfo

>ability to magically create a third track completely ignored
capeshitters just can't help themselves

He could also just create a second trolley

>but thanos, being a fictional character in a high budget manufactured blockbuster franchise, will only ever choose the option that gets the strongest reaction from test audiences.

>/sci/
>talking about philosophy

I would take Yea Forums over /sci/ to discuss philosphy.

Lol

>it is really rare
I am a big dick mega lanklet. It doesn't feel that special

This isn’t really the trolley problem though. The trolley problem is acting to kill one person and save three or letting things play out as they are.
Also the person acts like it is obvious that you would rather kill 3 strangers than 1 loved one which completely ignores their version of the trolley problem and makes this into just the “prisoners dilemma.” And this isn’t even the prisoners dilemma since there is no dominant strategy even if we assume that it is better to kill 3 strangers than 1 loved one.

see
Archimedes proved an infinite series can add up to a finite amount.

This is a great example as to how shitty this comic is. You have two people discussing the trolley problem but it never shows the trolley or the people tied on the tracks. Instead you just get he two people talking about it despite comics being a visual medium. But then starting in the third pannel the artist starts drawing what the conversation is about. The most important part of the comic to show visually, the one that establishes the scenario, is the one that he chooses not to draw. Fuck this dumbass pseud and his shitty walls of text disguised as a comic.

This comic is not about the trolley problem, it is about trolley problem discussion and the absurd lengths it goes. Seeing the conversationalists & and every other detail BUT the trolley problem is a good visual cue and imperative for establishing that. But you failed to see that user. How long have you been shitposting on this site? Why is your critique so flat and devoid of insight? Why do you suck so much user?
You know you should just end it. Clearly this is going no where for you, why go on? user just kill your self

Attached: 1558160677684.jpg (695x534, 97K)

Maybe if you stuck to it and charged ahead into grade 5 you'd know without brackets multiplication is always resolved first so no it's not 60 it's 1x10=10+5=15.

It's never too late to go back and pass elementary brainlet.

I regret saying these things and I hope you do OK user. I just disagree with what you have to say, please do not hurt your self.

Why are so many people having trouble solving this? 5 sodas+4 double cheeseburgers+5 fries=1 American meal.

Not a finite amount, however. That is an illusion presented by the limited number of pixels.

They got their summer soda deal going on right now. All drinks all sizes are just a dollar. I'm not drinking water until September

Attached: haaaaa (2).jpg (1100x733, 792K)

Just watched the first two episodes to answer your question user.

It’s pretty good I’m adding it to my watchlist.

You will only get a mistrial or re-trial in either case.

If only you had read the first response to that post.

It’s an amount less than x. Because infinitesimal recursion will never pass a certain number.

600 IQ right here lads

Hah, but I can kill myself. Fail problem.

just untie your loved one and move them away

Chinese Zeno’s quantum Theseusian fractalization of Pascal’s wager trolley problem when

Attached: trolley reimmanzeta.jpg (751x389, 38K)

Attached: trolley brain.png (680x714, 594K)

Attached: trolley transporter.png (528x570, 180K)

well done, you saw that youtube video too, fuck off

Ive only just suddenly realized teleporter is just space opera Theseus.

I feel dumb.

Do nothing.

Past a certain point, and not too extensive one, the trolley will derail because it will not be on a track, but on dead bodies.

>Youtube invented game theory
Talk to your doctor about mental retardation.

This just reads like an exercise in simplifying equations via canceling out variables, and the end result is just the basic trolley problem.

No, he's referring to a clip from the show Golden Balls where the exact same scenario happens. It's shared on Yea Forums every so often.

Negro, that shit was one of the first proposed “solutions” to prisoner’s dilemma. It’s older than your parents.

Good for you.

Attached: nobody_cares.png (1060x804, 248K)

>you are dumb and uneducated
>good for you
...?

And then you get reincarnated as another chump standing next to another switch. And this happens over and over and over and over again, ad infinitum.

I was just pointing out what he meant; that he thought you just watched the same youtube video he watched.
You though he meant that game theory was invented by Youtube because you're insecure and want to brag about knowing basic game theory on a Vietnamese candle-making forum.
You seem quite insecure.

not a movie but Virtue's Last Reward

Attached: 4a2bbb5c4f490f3ef1363ee8efa57df6.jpg (3508x4961, 450K)

>socialism
>better for society
pick one and only one

Or the idea I’m attempting to impress upon you is Byzantine rabbit holes of deception gambits to get the other to act against their best interests (betray) predates the final form of the prisoner dilemma and is specially why communication was removed from the equation. As no matter how complex the gambit becomes, the other side is thinking the exact same thing, so communication is entirely redundant, thus, irrelevant.

Excuse me, betray = not betray. As betraying is always the only viable option.