Newcomb's Paradox

[EliteNinja]

I choose only box B and get SOMEONE ELSE to open box A for me afterwards.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I choose only box B and get SOMEONE ELSE to open box A for me afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, if you try to do that, the predictor will totally know.

[EliteNinja]

[ QUOTE ]
The same reliable predictor has placed $100,000 in Box B if and only if he predicted that you will choose to open only Box B and leave Box A closed

[/ QUOTE ]

The key word is 'you'.
That means 'I' will choose to keep box A closed.
'My friend' will open box A.

[gaming_mouse]

Dude. You have know idea. Just trust me. He'll know.

[PoBoy321]

The reliable predictor is a fraud. It's like telephone psychics. If they're psychic, why didn't they call you?

[Bodhi]

Excellent reply.

[ QUOTE ]
...it seems paradoxical, but only because such things cannot be done in the real world. For the sake of this experiment though, the only laws are those of the assumptions, and it's by those we're bound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whenever I encounter a paradox I try to look for inconcistencies that will debunk it. Perhaps the paradox is generated because two-box people retain a real-world perspective on the problem, while one-box people are willing to idealize their assumptions? This ambiguity between two rational courses of action is what makes the question so tricky, I think.

Newcomb's paradox has been tormenting philosophers and economists for decades, and so far as a I know there is yet to be any academic concensus on it.

[fnord_too]

I have seen this question posed before in a couple of forms, and the real argument is "do we have free will or not." If so, then the predictor cannot be 100% accurate, if it is 100% accurate, then we don't. (Also, you could argue that there can be some randomness in our actions even if we don't have free will per se, if current theories surrounding quantum mechanics are correct. That is, that the theorized laws governing many events at the quantum level are purely probabalistic, not deterministic, but I digress.)

Having said that, I only open box B, hoping it is empty!

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen this question posed before in a couple of forms, and the real argument is "do we have free will or not."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy this. Free-will and the ability to predict the future are not mutually exclusive. You just have to have a more flexible concept of time to accomodate both concepts.

I am not religious myself, but I think this idea comes up alot for people who are. That is, people who need to reconcile the idea of an all-knowing god with the idea of free will. And I know lots of people believe these ideas can peacefully co-exist.

gm

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have seen this question posed before in a couple of forms, and the real argument is "do we have free will or not."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy this. Free-will and the ability to predict the future are not mutually exclusive. You just have to have a more flexible concept of time to accomodate both concepts.

I am not religious myself, but I think this idea comes up alot for people who are. That is, people who need to reconcile the idea of an all-knowing god with the idea of free will. And I know lots of people believe these ideas can peacefully co-exist.

gm

[/ QUOTE ]


The free will thing is where the argument most often gets to.

If the predictor is infallable, then what it predicts will happen, period. If there is only one possible outcome, there is no choice.

I don't think all-knowing necessarily includes the future.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
If the predictor is infallable, then what it predicts will happen, period. If there is only one possible outcome, there is no choice.


[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't understand my previous post, I think. The point is that free-choice and predetermination are not necessarily at odds, at least in many people's opinion. That is, many people believe that God is all-knowing, and knows everything that ever has happened and ever will happen. At the same time, they believe God gave human beings free choice. I am not religious at all myself, so I am certainly not proselytizing (sp?) -- my point is that this is a well known philosohpical debate and you are taking one side of it. The other side, as illogical as it may seem, has many proponents. It just requires one to adjust one's concept of past, future, and causality.

gm