Newcomb’s paradox is my favourite. You have two boxes in front of you. Box B contains $1000. You can either pick box A only, or both boxes A and B. Sounds simple, right? No matter what’s in box A, picking both will always net you $1000 more, so why would anyone pick only box A?
The twist is that there’s a predictor in play. If the predictor predicted that you would pick only box A, it will have put $1,000,000 in box A. If it predicted that you would pick both, it will have left box A empty. You don’t know how the predictor works, but you know that so far it has been 100% accurate with everyone else who took the test before you.
That’s what I’ve read so far. I mean, I’ve never heard of the predictor being human. Usually it’s described as a super computer or some other “being”. I e. No one that cares about your feelings or about being compensated 😂
To some people the answer is obviously box A — you get $1,000,000 because the predictor is perfect. To others, the answer is obviously to pick both, because no matter what the predictor said, it’s already done and your decision can’t change the past, so picking both boxes will always net you $1000 more than picking just one. Neither argument has any obvious flaw. That’s the paradox.
It’s only the one-boxers who describe the predictor as “perfect”, presumably interpolating from the observation that the predictor has always been right so far. Two-boxers might argue that you have no idea if the predictor is perfect or whether they’ve just been incredibly lucky so far, but also, they will argue that this is irrelevant because the boxes have already been set up and your choice cannot change it anymore.
Newcomb’s paradox is my favourite. You have two boxes in front of you. Box B contains $1000. You can either pick box A only, or both boxes A and B. Sounds simple, right? No matter what’s in box A, picking both will always net you $1000 more, so why would anyone pick only box A?
The twist is that there’s a predictor in play. If the predictor predicted that you would pick only box A, it will have put $1,000,000 in box A. If it predicted that you would pick both, it will have left box A empty. You don’t know how the predictor works, but you know that so far it has been 100% accurate with everyone else who took the test before you.
What do you pick?
I pick box A, then later pay the predictor his cut, which will work because he would have predicted I would do so.
I do not believe that the premise includes the stipulation that the predictor is human.
That’s what I’ve read so far. I mean, I’ve never heard of the predictor being human. Usually it’s described as a super computer or some other “being”. I e. No one that cares about your feelings or about being compensated 😂
Robots need money too
The box with $1,000,000?
To some people the answer is obviously box A — you get $1,000,000 because the predictor is perfect. To others, the answer is obviously to pick both, because no matter what the predictor said, it’s already done and your decision can’t change the past, so picking both boxes will always net you $1000 more than picking just one. Neither argument has any obvious flaw. That’s the paradox.
Also, thanks for taking me down an interesting rabbit hole. I’d never heard of that paradox before and enjoyed reading up on it.
My flaw with the two-box choice is that the predictor is - in some way or another - always described as “perfect”. Two-boxer people are contrarians!
~ Firm One-boxer
It’s only the one-boxers who describe the predictor as “perfect”, presumably interpolating from the observation that the predictor has always been right so far. Two-boxers might argue that you have no idea if the predictor is perfect or whether they’ve just been incredibly lucky so far, but also, they will argue that this is irrelevant because the boxes have already been set up and your choice cannot change it anymore.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing that perspective 🤔