• 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?

What, pray tell, does this predictor's prediction power feel like? What are the extents of it, and can anyone give a nebulous explanation of how it works? Clearly I can't demand a rock solid explanation for it, because it's just a stage prop necessary to set up the paradox, of course. This is not to say I disbelieve in predicting the future -- I'm really undecided on the issue of free will vs. predetermination. But my answer to this paradox depends on how the predictor knows what he knows, and therefore, what else he's likely to know.

For example, suppose the predictor has never been wrong because he has a complex understanding of the most common, say, 20 factors that predispose a person to take no-risk-low-return over an all-or-nothing high return gamble. He has practiced for many years at quickly and discretely sizing people up according to these factors, by asking the right seemingly innocent questions and looking with detective's eye at subtle visual cues, such that his chances of guessing wrong are incredibly rare. Think of a seasoned carny who buys a big macho new SUV charging people to have their weight and age guessed, only more cerebral.

I know my chances of psyching such a predictor out are not good. Why? Because nobody likes losing more money than they absolutely have to, and if this guy has never guessed wrong, clearly he has some interest in not parting with $100,000 ever, even if he's a rich eccentric guy and his all-win and non-spendthrift reputation is the biggest thing on the line for him.

So I'll take the two boxes. Because that way, I walk away with something, for sure. The indignity of almost certainly incorrectly picking just box A and finding it empty would grate on me much more than making do with $1000, which I could invest in the market and grow over time.

If I were this canny predictor, I'd only invite people to play the game whom I felt sure would take box A. And it would of course be perpetually empty.
 
i find that different tellings of this problem explain the predictor's record in different ways. i've read "the predictions are almost always correct", "the predictions are almost certainly correct" and, in this telling, "The Predictor has never been wrong.".

for me, if the predictor has never been wrong, i have no reason to believe he'll be wrong when i pick. so i pick only box a.

alasdair
 
I think who the predictor is, and in what situation the game players encounter him and come to play his game, are non-negligible factors in making this call.
 
^ i disagree.

to me, there's a world of difference between a predictor who's been right every time up to now and a predictor who's been right almost every time up to now.

alasdair
 
^ You disagree with what? I basically said the same thing in my first post -- it depends how the predictor knows what he knows. If he knows because he reads minds, then all I'd have to do to break his win streak is make sure my metal plate is in securely. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top