Newcomb's Paradox

[Objectivist]

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) really, really good 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.

I would choose box b.  If it contains $0, I've lost nothing.  I can get $1,000 dollars easily so it would not be a loss if box b had nothing in it.  It would not be a loss in any case because I don't seek the unearned.  I'd much rather skip the whole thing and work hard and make $1,000,000 myself.  Then and only then would it have value to me.

[HappySkeptic]

I would pick box B.

It has nothing to do with determinism, whether the predictor is in the causal chain, etc. All that matters is the odds of the predictor being correct.

[Disagreeable]

I'd choose box B.

It guarantees me a large amount of money.

Choosing both boxes means I get nothing when the predictor predicts my action.

[arewethereyet]

Administrator Notice
Old thread closed.