this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
118 points (87.8% liked)
Asklemmy
44157 readers
1446 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Newcombβs paradox is my favourite. You have two boxes in front of you. Box B contains $1000. You can either pick box A only, or both boxes A and B. Sounds simple, right? No matter what's in box A, picking both will always net you $1000 more, so why would anyone pick only box A?
The twist is that there's a predictor in play. If the predictor predicted that you would pick only box A, it will have put $1,000,000 in box A. If it predicted that you would pick both, it will have left box A empty. You don't know how the predictor works, but you know that so far it has been 100% accurate with everyone else who took the test before you.
What do you pick?
I pick box A, then later pay the predictor his cut, which will work because he would have predicted I would do so.
I do not believe that the premise includes the stipulation that the predictor is human.
That's what I've read so far. I mean, I've never heard of the predictor being human. Usually it's described as a super computer or some other "being". I e. No one that cares about your feelings or about being compensated π
Robots need money too
The box with $1,000,000?
To some people the answer is obviously box A β you get $1,000,000 because the predictor is perfect. To others, the answer is obviously to pick both, because no matter what the predictor said, it's already done and your decision can't change the past, so picking both boxes will always net you $1000 more than picking just one. Neither argument has any obvious flaw. That's the paradox.
My flaw with the two-box choice is that the predictor is - in some way or another - always described as "perfect". Two-boxer people are contrarians!
~ Firm One-boxer
It's only the one-boxers who describe the predictor as βperfectβ, presumably interpolating from the observation that the predictor has always been right so far. Two-boxers might argue that you have no idea if the predictor is perfect or whether they've just been incredibly lucky so far, but also, they will argue that this is irrelevant because the boxes have already been set up and your choice cannot change it anymore.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing that perspective π€
Also, thanks for taking me down an interesting rabbit hole. I'd never heard of that paradox before and enjoyed reading up on it.