Prática de Shadowing: The Most Controversial Problem in Philosophy - Aprenda a falar inglês com vídeo

Do not hit the like button or the dislike button, at least not yet.

I want you to consider a problem that's been one of the most controversial in math

and philosophy over the past 20 years.

There is no consensus answer, so I want you to listen to the problem

and then vote for the answer you prefer using the like and dislike buttons.

Okay?

Here is the setup.

Sleeping Beauty volunteers to be the subject of an experiment.

And before it starts, she's informed of the procedure.

On Sunday night, she will be put to sleep.

And then, a fair coin will be flipped.

If that coin comes up heads, she'll be awakened on Monday and then put back to sleep.

If the coin comes up tails, she will also be awakened on Monday and put back to sleep.

But then she will be awakened on Tuesday as well and then put back to sleep.

Now, each time she gets put back to sleep, she will forget that she was ever awakened.

In the brief period, anytime she's awake, she will be told no information.

But she'll be asked one question.

What do you believe is the probability that the coin came up heads?

So how should she answer?

Feel free to pause the video and answer the question for yourself right now.

This was my reaction after hearing the problem for the first time.

I mean, the intuitive answer that pops into my head is clearly one in three.

It could be the Monday when it came up heads, or it could be the Monday when it came up tails,

or it could be the Tuesday when it came up tails.

But you know what's really interesting is you just answered that the probability of a coin coming up heads is 1 third.

I think a lot of this comes down to what specific question is asked of her.

What is the probability that a fair coin flipped gives heads?

That's 50%.

What is the probability that the coin came up heads?

I would say the answer is 1 third from her perspective.

It's remarkably the same question.

The simple reason why Sleeping Beauty should say the probability of heads is one half is

because she knows the coin is fair.

Nothing changes between when the coin is flipped and when she wakes up, and she knew for a fact that she would be woken up, and she receives no new information when that happens.

Imagine that instead of flipping the coin after she's asleep, the experimenters flip the coin first and ask her immediately.

what's the probability that the coin came up heads?

Well, she would certainly say one half.

So why should anything change after she goes to sleep and wakes up?

This is known as the halfer position.

But there is another way to look at it.

Others would argue that something does change when she's awakened.

I mean, it seems like she gets no new information, there are no calendars, no one tells her anything, and she knew that she would be woken up.

But she actually learns something important.

She learns that she's gone from existing in a reality where there are two possible states,

the coin came up either heads or tails to existing in a reality where there are three possible states, Monday heads, Monday tails, or Tuesday tails,

and therefore she should assign equal probability to each of these three outcomes where heads only occurred in one.

So the probability that the coin came up heads is one third.

This is known as the third-er position.

Now I know it seems wrong to suggest that a fair coin should have a one third probability of coming up heads, but that's because the question she's asked is subtly different.

The implied question is, given you're awake, what's the probability that the coin came up heads?

And that is one third.

Now halfers would counter that just because there are three possible outcomes doesn't mean they are each equally likely.

In the Monty Hall problem, for example, the contestant ultimately has to choose between two doors.

But it'd be wrong to assign them 50-50 odds, the prize is actually twice as likely to be behind one door than the other.

In the sleeping beauty problem, we know a heads outcome and a tails outcome are equally likely, so the chance of waking up on Monday with heads is 50%,

and the chance of waking up on Monday or Tuesday with tails should be 50%.

Therefore, the tails probability gets split across two days, 25% each.

But if you repeat the experiment over and over, which you can try for for yourself by repeatedly flipping a coin, you find she wakes up a third of the time Monday heads,

a third of the time Monday tails, and a third of the time Tuesday tails, not 50, 25, 25, like the previous analysis would suggest.

So if you were Sleeping Beauty and you were awakened and asked what's the probability the coin came up heads, what would you say?

If you would say one third, then hit the like button.

If you would say one half, hit the dislike button.

The answer may seem obvious to you, but you should know that to other people, the other answer seems equally obvious.

And that's why hundreds and hundreds of philosophy papers have been published on this problem over the past 22 years.

There have been many variations of this problem.

Like what if instead of being woken up twice of the coin lands tails, she's instead woken up a million times?

If the coin comes up heads, she's still woken only once.

Doesn't it seem absurd in this case when Sleeping Beauty wakes up to say

that it was just as likely that the coin landed heads as tails?

When we know there are a million more wake-ups in the tails case than in the heads case.

I mean, if you reach into a bag of one white marble and a million black marbles, what are the chances that you pull out that one white marble?

I was pretty convinced by this, and I considered myself a third-er, but this same argument is used to convince people that we're living in a simulation.

The thinking goes that our computing technology has improved so dramatically, even over just the last 40 years,

that we can imagine a time in the not-too-distant future when we can create a completely realistic simulation of our world.

And once that occurs, it should be trivial to make unlimited copies of that simulation.

And then if you were to ask someone if they're living in a simulation, they would have to admit that they probably are, because there are many more instances of that existence than the one true external reality.

But how do we know that this hasn't happened already, and that we're living inside a simulation?

I mean, if it can happen, then it probably has happened, and we are living in a simulation.

This seems like the logical conclusion of the third-er worldview.

Now I personally don't buy that I'm living in a simulation, and I think most people don't buy it, but maybe that's just a logical bias.

But there's another thought experiment that makes me seriously reconsider the third or position.

Let's say there's a soccer game between a really great team like Brazil and a less world-dominating team like Canada.

So the odds are 80-20 in Brazil's favor.

Now a researcher is going to put you to sleep before the game starts.

And if Brazil wins, they'll wake you up one time.

But if Canada wins, they'll wake you up 30 times in a row.

And just like Sleeping Beauty, you won't remember if you've been woken before.

Okay, so the game is about to start.

You fall asleep.

And now you're woken up.

Who do you think won the game?

The third-er would say Canada.

But I would almost certainly say Brazil.

I mean, why should I give any weight to what the researcher would have done if Canada had won

when I'm fairly confident that they won't?

To extend this, let's say Brazil plays Canada five times and we do this experiment each time.

Well then if you say Brazil each time you're woken up, you'll probably be right about four out of five of the games.

But if you said Canada every time, you would be wrong about those four games, but right 30 times in a row when you're repeatedly asked about Canada's won victory.

If you stand to win a bet by correctly answering the question, then by all means you should bet on Canada.

100

But if you want to correctly pick the winner of more of the games, well then you should say Brazil.

101

And this is what's at the heart of the dispute between halfers and thirders in the Sleeping Beauty problem.

102

If you want to be right about the outcome of the coin tosses, well, you should say the probability of heads is a half.

103

But if you want to answer more questionings correctly, well, then you should say one third.

104

I want to leave you with one last thought experiment.

105

Imagine that you know for a fact that before our universe began, there was a coin flip, and if it came up heads, only a single universe would be created.

106

But if it came up tails, a quasi-infinite multiverse would be created.

107

And in each of those multiverse universes, you'd find every possible variation of Earth and the people on it.

108

In some versions, there would be no Earth.

109

Now, you becoming conscious is just like Sleeping Beauty waking up.

110

There's no way to tell if you're in that single universe or in one of the multiverse universes, but you know there are a lot more of them.

111

So would you think that you're for sure in the multiverse?

112

Or are the chances 50-50?

113

The best way to develop intuition about probability is by working through scenarios or running simulations like we did for Sleeping Beauty.

114

This video's sponsor, Brilliant, offers probability courses that walk you through lots of situational probability questions.

115

Do you want to learn how to build your own simulations?

116

Go check out Brilliant.

117

You can try it free for 30 days at brilliant.org slash veritasium.

118

You know, to me, Brilliant is the best way to learn because it forces you to think critically.

119

And it's also a lot of fun.

120

I mean, I find learning new things and sharpening my thinking energizing.

121

In their lessons, you model the real world with math

122

and expand your understanding of cutting edge topics like AI and machine learning, technology that's transforming our world right now.

123

Are we actually living in a computer simulation or a multiverse? Who knows?

124

But with Brilliant, you might actually get started on your journey to figuring it out.

125

They already have thousands of lessons and new ones are added every month.

126

So if you wanna get started with Brilliant's annual premium subscription, they're giving 20% off to the first 200 people to sign up via my link, brilliant.org slash Veritasium.

127

I will put that down in the description.

128

So I wanna thank Brilliant for supporting Veritasium, and I wanna thank you for watching.

📺 Mesmo canal

Palavra	Pronúncia	Significado
probability substantivo	/ˌpɹɑ.bəˈbɪl.ə.ti/	probabilidade
simulation substantivo	/ˌsɪm.jəˈleɪ.ʃn̩/	simulação
awaken verbo	/əˈweɪkən/	acordar, despertar
multiverse substantivo	/ˈmʌltəˌvɝs/	multiverso
dislike verbo	/dɪsˈlaɪk/	não gostar de, desgostar de
marble substantivo	/ˈmɑɹ.bəl/	mármore
assign verbo	/əˈsaɪn/	designar, atribuir
researcher substantivo	/ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/	pesquisador, pesquisadora
variation substantivo	/ˌvɛəɹiˈeɪʃn̩/	variação
compute verbo	/kəmˈpjuːt/	computar, calcular
energize verbo	/ˈɛnəd͡ʒaɪz/	estimular
experimenter substantivo	/ɪkˈspɛɹ.ɪ.mɛn.tə/	experimentador, experimentadora
sharpen verbo	/ˈʃɑɹpən/	afiar, apontar
subtly advérbio	/ˈsʌt.l̩.li/	sutilmente
worldview substantivo		visão de mundo, mundividência

Palavra	Pronúncia	Significado
wake up verbo	/ˌweɪk ˈʌp/	acordar, despertar
check out verbo		verificar, sacar só
pull out verbo		retirar, retirar-se
sign up verbo		subscrever

Estrutura	No vídeo
Frases condicionais if + oração, will/would + verbo — uma condição e seu resultado	If that coin comes up heads, she'll be · if Brazil wins, they'll wake · if Canada wins, they'll wake
Voz passiva be + particípio passado — o foco está no que acontece, não em quem faz	will be put · will be flipped · be awakened
Present perfect have/has + particípio passado — uma ação passada que ainda importa agora	have been published · have been · has improved

Prática de Shadowing: The Most Controversial Problem in Philosophy - Aprenda a falar inglês com vídeo

We're trying something new...

Something is jamming GPS over Europe. Here's what we found

Why It Was Almost Impossible to Make the Blue LED

You've (Likely) Been Playing The Game Of Life Wrong

Why Life Seems to Speed Up as We Age

How does light 'know' the shortest path?

The CIA's new tech doesn't make sense

Why does every mammal get 1 billion heartbeats in their life?

Why Cold Drinks Were Deadly Before 1914

Exposing The Flaw In Our Phone System

Our Greatest Delusion

Why Boredom is Good For You

Why Are 96,000,000 Black Balls on This Reservoir?

We've Been Using The Wrong Science In Court For 50 years

Explaining Pi With Pizza

5 Fun Physics Phenomena

The Most Misunderstood Concept in Physics

Falling ladders - why does this happen?

How a slinky falls in slow motion #shorts

We're 99.9% sure this pattern is true, but no one can prove it

What science can’t answer, according to physicist Jim Al-Khalili | Big Think

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"

The Professor Who Taught People How To Think (1962)

Where Did Democracy Come From, and Does It Still Work?

How real are the real numbers, really?

AI Will End Philosophy, Physicist Claims

Kevin Spacey Breaks Down The Game Theory | 21

Superfluid Dark Matter

Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment??

"I loved every minute of it, however hard it had been"

Two Astrophysicists Debate Free Will

Vocabulário e dicas de fala para esta lição

Vocabulário principal deste vídeo

Phrasal verbs que você vai ouvir

Frases que vale a pena repetir

Gramática neste vídeo

Pronúncia para ficar de olho

Como praticar com este vídeo

O que é a Técnica de Shadowing?