• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Newcomb's Paradox- Are you a one-boxer or a two-boxer?

Vader

Vader

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
8,421
Location
Ingerland
Newcomb's paradox basically runs like this:
You are playing a game against the Predictor. You are presented with two boxes, Box A and Box B. You may choose to take Box A alone, or or both boxes. Box B contains £1,000. The Predictor has already made a prediction about whether you will take one or both boxes; if he thinks you will choose to take only Box A, he has placed £100,000 in that box. If he has predicted that you will choose both boxes, then Box A contains nothing. The Predictor has never been wrong. So, what would your choice be? (It would be nice if you could explain why rather than posting a one word answer).

I feel obliged to take both boxes, even though I know that if I do so, I can be almost certain that I will be worse off for the choice. This is stupid, of course: I am doing so because it is rational to take both boxes. After all, there is no backwards causation. However, how can it be rational to act in a way that you know is against your best interests?

I have some things to say about this paradox with regards to morality and predetermination, but that can wait.
 
the highest money certainty is $1000 by picking both boxes.

because we don't know the predictor's history, never being wrong could be from only a few predictions.

i'd gamble, and pick box a.
 
^The premise is that the Predictor has played the game many, many times and never lost. He is so skilled at making predictions that the chances of him being wrong are basically negligible.
 
Hmm... this is an intriguing one!


I'd pick box A. There is no backwards causality, true; but there is a necessary correlation between your behavior and the Predictor's predictions, and between his predictions and the prizes offered; so there is a correlation between your behavior and the prize you're given.


Think about it -- causality is just a special type of correlation.



I think it's only a paradox if seen through the distorting lens of free will... :p
 
Yes the problem in this paradox is that a person facing this "game" usually makes a silent assumption that he/she has a free choice of taking either one or two boxes, even when its clearly stated that the Predictor is able to predetermine that choice.

I would probably take only one box.
 
if the predictor thinks i will choose box a, and i choose box a, i get $100,000.

i choose box a.

if i have 100% faith in the predictor, which is premised, he will know i will chose box a, and have placed the money in it. i don't see how its rational to chose both boxes if the predictor is assumed to be infallible.

gotta love non classical correlations.
 
i don't see how its rational to chose both boxes if the predictor is assumed to be infallible.
Click to expand...
Because he's already made his decision. The boxes are already sealed; how is it rational to give up an additional £1,000?

To all you one-boxers:
Calvinist theology has it that your fate after life is predetermined. If you are going to Heaven, no amount of evil-doing can change that, and if you are going to Hell then living a saintly life will not save you. As a two-boxer, I would feel comfortable committing evil deeds, confident in the knowledge that my destiny is set regardless. Would you behave yourselves, given that God is unlikely to have chosen the kind of person who would act immorally to be part of the Elect?
 
^^ When I first read the paradox, I didn't understand that the boxes have already been filled before you make the choice to open either box A or both boxes... In that case, by causality, your choice can't of course affect what the predictor has chosen to do beforehand. Maybe I would open both boxes...

The theological problem you present seems to assume completely selfish decision-making, i.e. you can do any sins you want and harm others as long as there are no consequences to yourself.
 
i would reach across with my left, and grab the box on the right - seems things work well this way - and i feel inclined enough to reach that direction from here.


i would only behave myself as much as much i felt that thoughts of such existed anymore, its hard to dictate towards your conscience and there is a difference between foolishness and pre/meditated deception.


am i right? am i wrong? i suppose only i will find that out and thats ok.
 
The theological problem you present seems to assume completely selfish decision-making, i.e. you can do any sins you want and harm others as long as there are no consequences to yourself.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was the assumption. I'm not saying that I would really go around doing evil things if I believed it wouldn't make a difference to my fate after life (in fact, I don't believe that it will, and I behave myself (most of the time)).
read the wikipedia page on this problem - it explains it very well
Click to expand...
Better than I did!
 
^Probably not...there's also not really £101,000 up for grabs, I'm sorry to say, it's all for the sake of argument.
 
Vader said:
Because he's already made his decision. The boxes are already sealed; how is it rational to give up an additional £1,000?

To all you one-boxers:
Calvinist theology has it that your fate after life is predetermined. If you are going to Heaven, no amount of evil-doing can change that, and if you are going to Hell then living a saintly life will not save you. As a two-boxer, I would feel comfortable committing evil deeds, confident in the knowledge that my destiny is set regardless. Would you behave yourselves, given that God is unlikely to have chosen the kind of person who would act immorally to be part of the Elect?
Click to expand...

ah, i don't interpret this theologically, i interpret it as something akin to quantum entnaglement. say myself and the predictor were prepared so that when measured, we always do the same thing. quantum theory allows such correlations and throws up quetsions about free will, see the delayed choice experiments.

its rational to give up the extra grand because if i take it, the guy knew i would have taken it, and hence never put the 100,000 in the first box. i can just accept the rules of the game and not worry about HOW the predictor works, just accept the statistics.

recent experiments showed (sorry i don't have a reference was an issue of new scientist...) that we start implementing decisions before we've consciously made them so free will looks more and more like an illusion. i haven't believed in free will since i stopped believing in personal identity, i think one presupposes the other, but wont go into it now.

does no freedom of will give us license to act horribly? doubt it. if you have a conscience, regardless of whether everything you do is pre ordained, you will still try not to do stuff you'll feel bad about later. if we know we did everything in our power to stop them, surely the bad acts we commited without the freedom to choose them will weigh less heavily on us?
 
I pick one box because the game is rigged in a way as to force the person to want two boxes:
Most people like the idea of gaining more money without risk of losing any, therefore chances are high that most will pick both boxes.
So in that case I pick one box in order to thumb my nose at the infallible box-person as to throw him off.
 
So maybe I've missed something ? Do we ( the players) know that there's any money in any boxes or only if there's money in one box or does only the predictor know?

Despite that query ( which might be obvious to you but is oblivious to me) I'd assign heads and tails to boxes A & B respectively & flip a coin twice, if tails came up twice I'd only choose box B if heads came up once & tails once I'd choose both etc
 
Yes, and you also know that Box A contains either £100,000 or nothing, and that it will be the former if the Predictor predicted that you would only take Box A, and the latter if he predicted that you would take both.

You also wouldn't just take Box B. Box A alone or both boxes. Although I have to admit it's a novel answer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top