what ever u want it 2 be!


TADA!


laters

well all i can say is it better not be another human head!

people, let's save surprises like that for halloween, ok?

I think it's an empty box

Lleena said:

the bow is nice, though, even if the box is empty.

and as long as it remains unopened it could be anything at all*


*heisenberg's uncertainty principle

Gwyneth Paltrow's head?

:crossedfingers:

if we ask mr. schrodinger there's a cat in the box. .. ..
and if we ask dr. seuss that cat is likely wearing a hat. .. ..

XxAxX said:

The thing is XxAxX, I'm certain it's empty. It cant possibly be anything but*

*Lleena's cheer up misery guts principle.

XxAxX said:

If there's a cat in there then I think someone should let it out, because it wont be able to breathe and it will suffocate and we are all doomed and I burnt a hole in my blouse with the Iron.

personally, i think it's we drop this discussion right now, lest we change whatever's inside through our speculations. why not leave well enough alone? let sleeping dogs lie quietly in the box. remember, curiosity killed the cat, and since the dang box seems to have no airholes it better not be a cat. unless it's a stuffed cat.

i don't know why but this thread is making my head hurt

I think it's got bugger all in it!!!!

Let sleeping dogs lie in the box? but you said it was a cat, is it a cat or a dog? I'm confused

wait! i found the answer:

Newcomb's paradox
Newcomb's Paradox is a paradox about playing games with an opponent who knows the future. It was created by William Newcomb of the University of California's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, spread to the philosophical community by Robert Nozick in 1969, and presented in Martin Gardner's Scientific American column in 1974.
Imagine two players, named Predictor and Chooser, playing the following game. Chooser is presented with two boxes: an open box containing $1000, and a closed box that contains either $1,000,000, or $0 (he doesn't know which). Chooser must decide whether he wants to be given the contents of both boxes, or just the contents of the closed box. The day before the choice, Predictor will predict whether Chooser will choose 1 box or 2 boxes. If he predicts 1, then he will put $1,000,000 in the closed box, otherwise he will leave that box empty. The question is: should Chooser choose 1 box or 2 boxes?

A game theory analysis is straightforward. If Chooser wants to maximize profit, and Predictor wants to maximize the accuracy of the predictions, then the Nash equilibrium is for Chooser to always take 2 boxes, and for Predictor to always predict that 2 boxes will be chosen. This gives a payout of $1000 and a perfect prediction every time. If Predictor's goal is to minimize payments (rather than maximize prediction accuracy), the equilibrium is the same. If two people played this game repeatedly, they would probably settle into this equilibrium fairly quickly.

Now add an additional assumption: Predictor can see the future. Not just a possible future, but the true, actual future. In other words, Predictor is replaced with a time machine and a robot. Chooser presses one of two buttons marked 1 and 2. The time machine automatically sends this information back in time one day. If a 1 is sent back, then the robot puts $1,000,000 in the closed box. If a 2 is sent back, then the robot cleans out the box and leaves it empty. Now, how should Chooser play?

Once again, the mathematical analysis is simple. If Chooser takes 1 box, then it will contain $1,000,000. If Chooser takes 2 boxes, then the closed box will be empty, and the profit will be only $1,000. Clearly the best choice is 1 box.

However, an argument can be made for choosing 2 boxes. At the time when Chooser walks up to the boxes, the contents have already been set. The closed box is either empty or full. It's too late for the contents of the boxes to change. Chooser might as well take whatever's in both boxes. Whether the closed box is empty or full, he'll clearly make $1000 more by choosing both boxes than by choosing just one box. Causation only goes forward. Events in the future can't cause results in the past, so there can't be any harm in choosing 2 boxes.

Philosophers have proposed many solutions to the paradox that avoid backward causation. Some have suggested that a rational person will choose 2, and an irrational person will choose 1, therefore irrational people do better at this game. Others have suggested that if such time machines can exist, then there is no free will, and Chooser will do whatever he's fated to do. Others have suggested that the paradox itself shows that it's impossible to ever know the future.

Other people have suggested that in a world with time machines, causation can go backwards. If a person truly knows the future, and that knowledge affects his actions, then events in the future will be causing effects in the past. If causation can go backwards, then the paradox is straightforward. Chooser can freely pick either 1 or 2. That information will then go back in time and cause the closed box to have been empty or full. It's therefore better to choose 1 box rather than 2. If Chooser tries picking 2 instead, he will later discover that his choice caused that box to have been empty all along, and he'll receive less money. This resolves this form of the paradox. However, there is still a modified form of the paradox that is problematic.

Suppose that the closed box is made of glass. Now what should Chooser do? If he sees $1,000,000 in the closed box, then he might as well choose both boxes, and get both the $1,000,000 and the $1,000. If he sees the closed box is empty, he would be angry at being deprived of a chance at the big prize, and so could choose just the 1 box to demonstrate that the game is a fraud. Either way, his actions will be the opposite of what was predicted, which contradicts the assumption that the prediction is always right.

This form of the paradox is equivalent to the grandfather paradox that arises in other forms of time travel. In the grandfather paradox, a person travels back in time, which leads to a chain of events preventing that from happening. In Newcomb's paradox with a glass box, the information about the choice travels back in time, which leads to a chain of events preventing that from happening. The various ways of resolving the two paradoxes are identical.

The paradox with the glass box could be taken as a proof that it is impossible to know the future. Or, perhaps knowledge of the future is only possible in cases where the knowledge itself won't prevent that future. Or, perhaps the universe will conspire to prevent self-contradictory causal loops (via the Novikov self-consistency principle, for example). Chooser might accidentally hit the wrong button, or he might misunderstand the rules, or the time machine might break. See Time travel and grandfather paradox for further discussion.

http://www.fact-index.com...radox.html

Lleena said:

i'm confused too. obviously i'm going to have to do some serious reading to resolve this issue. maybe we should just open the box?

http://www.prince.org/msg/100/117442

Steadwood said:

well, it could be. it really could be anything. for all we know the entire ORG is in the box and we just don't know it. what i'd really like to know at this point is why the moderators aren't all over this thread, moving it to the proper 'quantum physics and philosophy' forum, where it belongs.

why make us try to remember all that quantum physics and philosophy stuff and think hard about what's in there? why make us torture ourselves trying to find the answer here in the general discussion forum when this forum is supposed to be for lighthearted general discussion.

that's it. i'm reporting this thread.

Maybe it's nothing?

XxAxX said:

Open it but be careful. I just thought, it might be one of those persons that leap out of birthday cakes?

Maybe it's a a whole bunch of money!

HOOOOLD ON PEOPLE!!

It says it's from pandora!

Lleena said:

you're right it probably is! and they usually follow the box-popping-out bit with a lovely song and dance routine. quick! open it!

magnificentsynthesizer667 said:

She wears some mighty strange boots then

magnificentsynthesizer667 said:

oh crap leave it closed. she ain't exactly known for giving nice gifts. maybe someone could just take a quick peek inside before we do anything too drastic. just lift the lid up then quick slam it back down.

We cant tell how big the box is as there's nothing to compare it's size too. It could be huge, I mean we might need ladders etc to open it. Should I look for a ladder?

Steadwood said:

well, for the sake of keeping it real, i'm pretty sure those aren't actual boots for wearing. i think they're more like bookends boots, or boots for propping open doors, like. they're sure pretty though. ok. go on and open the box.

Lleena said:

Don't bother, I don't think it matters.

Who wants a present from AlJazeera anyway?

Aren't they terrorists?