It's all about the framing. Most people will vote based on the framing. You will know what most people will vote based on how the question is framed. If it is framed to favor the red button, vote red. If it is framed to vote blue, then vote blue.
Neither? Load three bullets inside of a revolver and spin the chamber. God will decide for you.
I am at an impasse. As I understand it, which button is "responsible" is a determination that, for either side, depends on how you define "responsibility," relies on circular logic, and the entirety of the question itself is paradoxical in a way. Paradoxical in a sense that you can reach two opposite conclusions that are equally valid. And circular in the sense that, your reason for pressing the button is because other people press the same button.
You press the red button because other people might press the red button and you want to save yourself. You press the blue button because you want to save other people who might also press the blue button. Pressing the button creates the need to press the button.
Lastly, you can create analogies for the scenario that demonstrate that one choice introduces risk, however, those analogies can be flipped to favor a choice.
Hypothetical Blue 1 (blue does not introduce risk) --- Imagine there is only a red button. If you do nothing, you and those who made the same choice will die if >50% of people press the red button.
Hypothetical Blue 2 (blue does not introduce risk) --- Imagine everyone has spikes. If >50% of people place their spikes on the ceiling, the spikes will fall and those who did not place spikes will die. If you place a spike, you will live regardless of the outcome.
Hypothetical Red 1 (red does not introduce risk) --- Imagine that there is only a blue button. If you press it, you will die unless >50% of people also press the blue button.
Hypothetical Red 2 (red does not introduce risk) --- Everyone is standing on a platform next to train tracks. If >50% of people jump onto the train tracks, those who are on the train tricks will survive the incoming train.
The issue seems to me that: 1) Any analogy created where one choice introduces risk is circular, because it is already based on the presumption that one choice introduces risk, and the analogy is created around that presumption. 2) Any analogy that favors one side can be flipped to favor the other. 3) There is the possibility that no analogy will be perfect because they will always have additional hidden presumptions or elements that deviate from the original scenario.
One question I have is that, is there a perfect analogy that can prove one side correct?
But if the vote is split and you're the last vote, there is no risk to you as an individual if you choose either option. It's simply that with one option there are billions of deaths, and the other option there are no deaths. In the scenario that you push it, can you say that the red button caused the death of the blue button pushers? Or that you're responsible for those deaths? What would most people believe?
However, if we use the train anology from earlier, lets say the choice is split. 50% of people are on the platform, while 50% of people are on the train tracks. You are the last person to make the choice. If you decide to stay on the platform, even though going on the train tracks is no individual risk to you, are you responsible for the deaths of the people who decided to jump onto the train tracks?
If the answer is that "yes, the red button being pushed caused/is responsible for the deaths"---then does that prove that the red button in general is responsible for/causes the death risk in this scenario?
Tdlr; "red introduces risk" vs "blue introduces risk" are equally valid, but contradictory answers. Attempts to prove one side using analogies or mathematical representations have a host of issues. In either case, the logic is circular, based on presumptions, and despite claims having different answers, the situations are equivalent.
Terms: Analogous --- when I say "analogous," I don't just mean "comparable." I mean analogous in the sense that, if you come to a conclusion in one scenario, it holds true for the other scenario due to the identical parallel.
I am at an impasse. As I understand it, which button "introduces risk" is a determination that, for either side, depends on how you define "blame"/"introduces risk," relies on circular logic, and the entirety of the question itself is paradoxical in a way. Paradoxical in a sense that you can reach two opposite conclusions that are equally valid. And circular in the sense that, your reason for pressing the button is because other people press the same button.
You press the red button because other people might press the red button and you want to save yourself. You press the blue button because you want to save other people who might also press the blue button. Pressing the button creates the need to press the button.
Also, you can create analogies for the scenario that demonstrate that one choice introduces risk, however, those analogies can be flipped to favor on choice.
Lastly, you can create two different mathematical representations of the problem that are equivalent, but provide different answers as to what introduces risk.
I will present four brief hypotheticals to demonstrate why I'm struggling. These hypotheticals will swap the buttons with something else. Then I will go into the math (as best as I can, which isn't that good).
Hypothetical Blue 1 (blue does not introduce risk) --- Imagine there is only a red button. If you do nothing, you and those who made the same choice will die if >50% of people press the red button.
Hypothetical Blue 2 (blue does not introduce risk) --- Imagine everyone has spikes. If >50% of people place their spikes on the ceiling, the spikes will fall and those who did not place spikes will die. If you place a spike, you will live regardless of the outcome.
Hypothetical Red 1 (red does not introduce risk) --- Imagine that there is only a blue button. If you press it, you will die unless >50% of people also press the blue button.
Hypothetical Red 2 (red does not introduce risk) --- Everyone is standing on a platform next to train tracks. If >50% of people jump onto the train tracks, those who are on the train tricks will survive the incoming train.
These hypotheticals seem to be analogous to the original situation. The same function and outcome. And yet, depending on how it is framed, which choice introduces risk is different. I see three options. 1) One sides' hypotheticals are analogous while the other's aren't. 2) They are all analogous and therefore either answer is correct. 3) Or none of them are analogous due to the original question never having an original assumption of which choice introduces risk. 4) (The fourth one is that one side's/none of them are analogous, but not because there aren't any analogous scenario's in which one choice introduces risk for either side, but rather because I simply created flawed hypotheticals. Maybe regardless of them being flawed, they still help convey perspective).
The issue seems to me that: 1) Any analogy created where one choice introduces risk is circular, because it is already based on the presumption that one choice introduces risk, and the analogy is created around that presumption. 2) Any analogy that favors one side can be flipped to favor the other. 3) There is the possibility that no analogy will be perfect because they will always have additional hidden presumptions or elements that deviate from the original scenario.
It seems that in order to prove which choice (if either) introduces risk (at least with certainty), that you have to prove it within the question itself, which I don't know how you do that, or whether it's even provable. However, it hasn't stopped attempts from occurring.
Here is a mathematical representation that I found on reddit that demonstrates that the blue button introduces risk:
>Let's have the total population be represented by the variable "N". Let the number of people choosing red be "R" and the number choosing blue be "B", forming the equation "N = R + B". An individual selecting red possesses a definitive mortality probability of zero. A person selecting blue enters a conditional probability state. If "B >= 0.5N", casualties remain zero. If "B < 0.5N", every blue participant experiences a mortality probability of one.
>Evaluating the extremes isolates the source of fatality. When "R = N" and "B = 0", global casualties are precisely zero. Lethal outcomes manifest exclusively when "B > 0" alongside the specific condition "B < 0.5N". The mathematical formula for death explicitly requires the presence of blue participants failing to satisfy their own internal quota.
So yeah on an objective standard blue is the entity that introduces death.
I'm still in highschool, and I haven't studied math myself outside of school. So I'm not qualified to determine whether or not this math checks out. However, to me it seems like it works. And I see no flaws in it. Here is my attempt at creating an equivalent, but opposite, mathematical representation that shows that red introduces risk.
>Let the total population be N, where N = B + R. A person choosing blue is the only path toward a collective no-causality state that requires cooperation. A person selecting red enters a saboteur state.
>Casualties (D) occur if and only if the number of people choosing red (R) exceeds a specific threshold. D = 1 if R > 0.5N. When B = N and R = 0, the casualties are zero. Without the presence of red participants, the condition for death (R > 0.5N) can never be met.
>Therefore red is the entity that introduces death. Red participants are betting against the group, and if their number (R) becomes too high, they trigger the mortality of the blue participants.
I'm aware that this is probably very flawed because, again, I don't know math that well. So I tried to flip it and copy the first representation. If this is wrong, is it possible to create a flipped representation that shows red introduces risk? If not, why? If so, can you demonstrate a better example than mine?
Again, I don't have a deep understanding of math, but it seems like these mathematical representations themselves have underlying presumptions, or as it is referred to in math, axioms, the answer of which choice introduces risk depends on the axiom. So the question is, how do we prove that these axioms are inherently true? But from what I understand about axioms, they are just assumptions or premises you initially make to go forward. And that they necessarily can't be proven.
Secondly, despite these mathematical representations having different (contradictory?) conclusions, they are equivalent. What holds true for one holds true for the other. It's true that R > 0.5N results in casualties (second representation), just as B < 0.5N results in casualties (first representation).
My initial answer to this question was blue. I personally see it as the morally correct question, and the reason I saw it that way was because I thought red was the choice that introduced risk. However, I'm starting to believe that there is actually no correct answer, and that there is no objectively correct answer to this dillemma/problem.
For the first representation, I have a question for "blue enters a conditional probability state." Blue enters a conditional probability state, but why? Is that probability state inherent, or does it only exist because of red? And the question is, even if it is inherent, why would you want to trigger that condition by pressing red? Just like in the earlier analogy, why would you place spikes on the ceiling and create the risk of death in the first place?
Does the answer depend on how you define "introduce risk" and responsibility/blame? (Does the answer stay the same regardless of how you define anything, and I'm wrong about one side being equally valid)?
Are these mathematical representations correct (was mine)? Are they equivalent?
(In the scenario that either representation is flawed). Is it possible to create correct mathematical representations that show either choice introduces risk, or only one?
Is the relationship between the blue and red button ontological?
Is the danger a physical property of the choice or just a logical consequence of the rules?
Does the blue/red button create ontological risk (Is the risk created as a fundamental, built-in part of the button itself, regardless of how we describe it)?
Does the blue/red button have inherent risk (is it dangerous by its very nature)?
Can it be possible that the answer is both, and that they don't necessarily contradictory to eachother? If so, what does that mean?
Sorry if it was too long.