You participate in a game show where you must choose between 3 doors. Behind 2 doors is a goat, but behind 1 door is a car. You pick a door, say door no. 1, but before you open the door, the host opens another door, say door no. 3, which has the car behind it. "Oops," says the host.
You lose.
Wow, people in that thread are so stubbornly and arrogantly wrong, it's insane. Normies having opinions slightly outside of normie-norm is even worse than normies being normal normies.
A lot of people are leaving out the point that the host KNOWS which door has the car behind it and is presenting you a much higher-quality choice by opening all the other doors. If the host doesn't know himself, it doesn't make sense and you get an outcome like the above.
Well, yes, a host would never choose randomly, for that reason (and that would be hilarious), but...even if he did choose randomly, but "randomly" chose a non-prize...it does still make sense to switch. Wild, but true.
It's not the knowledge that changes the odds.
The odds only change if what's behind the doors are fixed ahead of time.
If the host chooses a door, the game show rolls 1 out of ndoors chance of car behind it, and then puts the car or goat behind it before opening it then the odds don't change at all even if the host didn't know.
Switching your choice is the classical hidden-information answer, staying with your first choice is the quantum changes when-observed answer.
Yeah, but the assumption is that there is a right door. You're changing the fundamental rules of the problem and saying "guys, when you say the whole thing works differently, it works differently!" That's true, but it's not exactly insightful or useful.