RE: Newcomb's Paradox
January 28, 2023 at 10:25 pm
(This post was last modified: January 28, 2023 at 10:31 pm by GrandizerII.)
Let's consider the following:
Suppose you are familiar with puzzle and realize it's always better to two-box (since once you're in front of the two boxes, the prediction has already been made, and no matter what the prediction would be, you always net more by two-boxing).
One day, you actually end up in this scenario yourself. So since you're familiar with the puzzle, and you've already concluded that two-boxing is the way to go, you are most likely going to get $1000, which is better than nothing, of course. And if by luck, the Predictor ended up making a wrong prediction here, then you end up with the big gain of $1,001,000.
But this is about odds here as well, and not just about what nets the biggest gain. And you are more likely to get $1,000,000 by one-boxing than $1,001,000 by two-boxing.
Hence, I still go with one-boxing ... for now.
Though I'm seeing more and more what's tricky about this problem.
Suppose you are familiar with puzzle and realize it's always better to two-box (since once you're in front of the two boxes, the prediction has already been made, and no matter what the prediction would be, you always net more by two-boxing).
One day, you actually end up in this scenario yourself. So since you're familiar with the puzzle, and you've already concluded that two-boxing is the way to go, you are most likely going to get $1000, which is better than nothing, of course. And if by luck, the Predictor ended up making a wrong prediction here, then you end up with the big gain of $1,001,000.
But this is about odds here as well, and not just about what nets the biggest gain. And you are more likely to get $1,000,000 by one-boxing than $1,001,000 by two-boxing.
Hence, I still go with one-boxing ... for now.
Though I'm seeing more and more what's tricky about this problem.
