You win a spot on a game show where you are presented with three doors numbered 1, 2, and 3. The host tells you that behind one of the three doors is a brand new sports car, while the other two doors hide nothing. The host tells you to choose a door, and if you pick the one with the car, it is yours. You pick door number 1. Now, the host opens door number 2 to show you that it is empty. He then gives you a choice: Do you want to stick with your fist choice and pick door number 1? Or, do you switch and pick door number 3? This is known as the Monty Hall Paradox. Popular theory would tell you that it doesn’t matter because you have a 50-50 chance to win the car because there are only two doors left. So, most people will stick with their original choice because they don’t want to lose the car if they had it picked originally. However, the correct choice is actually to switch doors, which will double your chances of winning the car. This may seem like nonsense, but the outcome is very real.

Originally when you make your first pick, there is an equal 1 in 3 chance of choosing the door with the car. So the door that you pick, number 1 in the case of the example, still has a 1/3 chance of having the car when you pick it. Now the two doors that you did not choose, numbers 2 and 3, also have 1/3 chance each for a combined total of 2/3 chance of having the car. When the host opens door number 2 to reveal that it is empty, he does so intentionally, knowing that there is no car behind it. The chance that the car is behind door number 2 or 3 is still 2/3, and since you know the car is not behind door number 2, there is a 2/3 chance that the car is behind door number 3. So, switching your choice from door number 1, which has a 1/3 chance of hiding the car, to door number three, which has a 2/3 chance of hiding the car, effectively doubles your chances of winning. Despite this idea sounding crazy, it has been proven time and time again both mathematically, and experimentally as shown in the links.monty

This idea may seem to go against the IMT theory that there is no influence. All of the initial conditions are set when the car gets placed behind one of the three doors. You know that through understanding all of the initial condition information and completely understanding the natural laws, you could predict the outcome and correctly choose the correct door. But you don’t know all of the information so you are forced to make a decision. The host opens one of the doors and asks you if you want to switch, and if you do, he must have influenced your decision, right? Not quite. All the host did was give you more information so that you could make a better decision using all the other information and natural laws that you observed. Now you still do not have all for the information, but that is okay because you are an observant type A person and you understand that you will never have ALL of the information. So you look at the two extremes: the car is behind door number 1, or the car is behind door number 3, and you ask, “Which one is more likely?” Using what you observed and know, you deduce that door 1 has a 1/3 chance of hiding the car, while door 3 has a 2/3 chance, which makes door 3 more likely. So, you choose door number 3, and you win a brand new sports car 2 out of 3 times.




Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Protected by WP Anti Spam