Even a wicked ruler is preferable to anarchy. Now we seem to have the worst of both worlds — leadership that institutionalizes chaos. Thank you for your comment, TG.

]]>For all the faults of the Roman Empire, they always had a god-emperor who could assert moral authority to contain the chaos. What does modern secular society have to stay the chaos?

Thanks for the insightful piece.

]]>Here’s the mental exercise to demonstrate that:

I’m going to illustrate the situation where there’s a car (that you want) behind one door and nothing behind the other doors (to avoid the wise guy answer–http://xkcd.com/1282/)

1. Hall offers you a choice of opening one door or opening two doors. You have a 2/3 chance of getting the car if you open two doors, so you pick that.

2. Different scenario: You pick one door, then Hall offers you the choice of sticking to your door, or opening the other two doors. You have a 2/3 chance of winning if you switch.

3. Same scenario as 2, but Hall adds: “I can look behind the doors, and I can see that only one of the two doors that you didn’t pick has a car”. You already knew that (there’s only one car), so that doesn’t change your decision. You should still switch.

4. Same scenario as 3, but Hall then opens the door to the empty room (remember, he knows what door has what). Still doesn’t change your knowledge, or the probabilities. You still should switch.

Scenario 4 is the Monty Hall paradox. The paradox arises from the apparent inconsistency between your choice initially and Hall’s perfect knowledge and reaction to your choice (if you initially picked the goat, then he wouldn’t show you that door).

Any parallel to this paradox and Rabbi Akiva’s paradox of הכול צפוי, והרשות נתונה is left to you as the Rabbinic Authority.

Danny Wachsstock

]]>