(January 28, 2023 at 8:26 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:(January 28, 2023 at 12:40 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox
A lot of you would know about this already. The interesting thing about this puzzle is that even though it seems like there is a very clear correct answer here, there are a lot of people who insist that's not correct ... and I'm taking philosophers, mathematicians, game theorists, and not just laypeople. So I guess that's really where the "paradox" lies.
Anyway, here's the problem to consider:
You have two boxes in front of you. Behind these two boxes is the Predictor, some super-advanced being who is (at the very least)
at predicting beforehand what you would do.
Box A is transparent and contains $1000.
Box B is opaque and either contains $0 or $1000000
You have two options here:
Either choose both Box A and Box B, or
Choose Box B only
The Predictor has already predicted what option you would go for:
If they predicted you would choose both boxes, then Box B will contain $0.
If they predicted you would choose Box B only, then Box B will contain $1000000
Which option do you go for?
I suspect most of us here would choose Box B only, but it would be interesting to hear the different perspectives on this problem.
How good?
Incredibly close to 100% accurate, if not 100% accurate.
From the Wiki link:
Quote:Causality issues arise when the predictor is posited as infallible and incapable of error; Nozick avoids this issue by positing that the predictor's predictions are "almost certainly" correct, thus sidestepping any issues of infallibility and causality. Nozick also stipulates that if the predictor predicts that the player will choose randomly, then box B will contain nothing.
