The Newcomb Paradox

[Jarsa]

From https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ne...fault.aspx 

The Game
The game has the following form. You will be presented with two boxes:

• Box A will contain $10,000.
  

• Box B will contain $1,000,000 or nothing.
  
  

You will not be able to see inside the boxes, so you won't know whether Box B contains $1,000,000 or nothing. You will then be given the choice between taking home both boxes or just Box B.

There are two crucial things to take into account when making your decision.

• The amount of money in Box B will be determined by Perfect Prediction's most accurate clairvoyant -  100% accuracy on the following basis. If she predicts that you will take home both boxes, then no money will be put into Box B. If she predicts that you will take home only Box B, then $1,000,000 will be placed into the box.
  

• The prediction will already have been made by the time the game starts, and the amount of money in Box B already fixed.
  
  

Assuming you want to win as much money as possible, should you take home both boxes or just Box B?

Obvious answer: Presumably you think that if you take home both boxes, then the clairvoyant would have known in advance that this is what you were going to do, and would have instructed that Box B should have no money in it. Therefore, the only way to ensure you get the $1,000,000 is to take home only Box B.

Not so obvious answer: Presumably you think that because the amount in the boxes has already been fixed by the time you come to make your choice, it makes no difference whether you take one or two boxes home, so you might as well take two.

This thing I don't get with this paradox is that in no possible future will you return home with 1 million and 10 thousand dollars, so why would you even try?

[Vorpal]

10K is better than zero.

[Dānu]

[Rhythmcs]

Right? Shoot the witch before she casts her spell to make a point, then pocket the 10k and burn down the building.

[Antonio]

I like boxes

Are the boxes made of cardboard or gold

[Vorpal]

Antonio: mmmmm, boxes!

[brewerb]

From https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ne...fault.aspx 

The Game
The game has the following form. You will be presented with two boxes:

• Box A will contain $10,000.
  

• Box B will contain $1,000,000 or nothing.
  
  

You will not be able to see inside the boxes, so you won't know whether Box B contains $1,000,000 or nothing. You will then be given the choice between taking home both boxes or just Box B.

There are two crucial things to take into account when making your decision.

• The amount of money in Box B will be determined by Perfect Prediction's most accurate clairvoyant -  100% accuracy on the following basis. If she predicts that you will take home both boxes, then no money will be put into Box B. If she predicts that you will take home only Box B, then $1,000,000 will be placed into the box.
  

• The prediction will already have been made by the time the game starts, and the amount of money in Box B already fixed.
  
  

Assuming you want to win as much money as possible, should you take home both boxes or just Box B?

Obvious answer: Presumably you think that if you take home both boxes, then the clairvoyant would have known in advance that this is what you were going to do, and would have instructed that Box B should have no money in it. Therefore, the only way to ensure you get the $1,000,000 is to take home only Box B.

Not so obvious answer: Presumably you think that because the amount in the boxes has already been fixed by the time you come to make your choice, it makes no difference whether you take one or two boxes home, so you might as well take two.

This thing I don't get with this paradox is that in no possible future will you return home with 1 million and 10 thousand dollars, so why would you even try?

Bold: I typically don't play much when magical woo is involved.

[SYZ]

From https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ne...fault.aspx 

The Game
The game has the following form. You will be presented with two boxes:

• Box A will contain $10,000.
  

• Box B will contain $1,000,000 or nothing.
  
  

You will not be able to see inside the boxes, so you won't know whether Box B contains $1,000,000 or nothing. You will then be given the choice between taking home both boxes or just Box B.

There are two crucial things to take into account when making your decision.

• The amount of money in Box B will be determined by Perfect Prediction's most accurate clairvoyant -  100% accuracy on the following basis. If she predicts that you will take home both boxes, then no money will be put into Box B. If she predicts that you will take home only Box B, then $1,000,000 will be placed into the box.
  

• The prediction will already have been made by the time the game starts, and the amount of money in Box B already fixed.
  
  

Assuming you want to win as much money as possible, should you take home both boxes or just Box B?

Obvious answer: Presumably you think that if you take home both boxes, then the clairvoyant would have known in advance that this is what you were going to do, and would have instructed that Box B should have no money in it. Therefore, the only way to ensure you get the $1,000,000 is to take home only Box B.

Not so obvious answer: Presumably you think that because the amount in the boxes has already been fixed by the time you come to make your choice, it makes no difference whether you take one or two boxes home, so you might as well take two.

This thing I don't get with this paradox is that in no possible future will you return home with 1 million and 10 thousand dollars, so why would you even try?

Bold: I typically don't play much when magical woo is involved.

This is a stupid, meaningless proposition, and a waste of anybody's
thinking time.  And I'm not in the least surprised that it appears on
the 'Philosophy Experiments' site, as we all know so-called philosophy
itself is largely bullshit.

There is no such thing as "clairvoyancy" and, by extension, no such
legitimate practitioners.

     

[Jarsa]

There is no such thing as "clairvoyancy" and, by extension, no such
legitimate practitioners.

     

No shit Sherlock, it's just a thought experiment. No one is claiming clairvoyance is real.

[Rhythmcs]

The main point of interest to researchers is that people split 50/50 on what to do, with both sides thinking the solution is plainly obvious. For philosophy, it's the why behind either decision.

Clairvoyance, the whole game setup, is a blind. You're actually being queried on your beliefs about free will, fatalism, and knowability.

[Paleophyte]

From https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ne...fault.aspx 

The Game
The game has the following form. You will be presented with two boxes:

• Box A will contain $10,000.
  

• Box B will contain $1,000,000 or nothing.
  
  

You will not be able to see inside the boxes, so you won't know whether Box B contains $1,000,000 or nothing. You will then be given the choice between taking home both boxes or just Box B.

There are two crucial things to take into account when making your decision.

• The amount of money in Box B will be determined by Perfect Prediction's most accurate clairvoyant -  100% accuracy on the following basis. If she predicts that you will take home both boxes, then no money will be put into Box B. If she predicts that you will take home only Box B, then $1,000,000 will be placed into the box.
  

• The prediction will already have been made by the time the game starts, and the amount of money in Box B already fixed.
  
  

Assuming you want to win as much money as possible, should you take home both boxes or just Box B?

Obvious answer: Presumably you think that if you take home both boxes, then the clairvoyant would have known in advance that this is what you were going to do, and would have instructed that Box B should have no money in it. Therefore, the only way to ensure you get the $1,000,000 is to take home only Box B.

Not so obvious answer: Presumably you think that because the amount in the boxes has already been fixed by the time you come to make your choice, it makes no difference whether you take one or two boxes home, so you might as well take two.

This thing I don't get with this paradox is that in no possible future will you return home with 1 million and 10 thousand dollars, so why would you even try?

The paradox occurs because there's some deliberately ambiguous language. If we accept that the oracle is always correct then there's no actual choice to be made. Your future is determined and you'll either take one or both boxes according to her prediction. A logical analysis of that scenario is as useful as a gear pondering its rotation about its spindle and if maybe it shouldn't spin in the opposite direction just for the hell of it.

The bit that entertains me the most is wondering what, if anything, is the causal relationship here. Does the oracle's prediction cause my future action, or does my choice of boxes determine the oracle's past prediction? Or does the presence/absence of money in Box B, which is the only material change in the set-up, force both the oracle and myself into both of our actions?

I suspect that the answer is that pure determinism and time travel mix poorly.

[SYZ]

There is no such thing as "clairvoyancy" and, by extension, no such
legitimate practitioners.

     

No shit Sherlock, it's just a thought experiment. No one is claiming clairvoyance is real.

LOL... a "thought experiment"? You truly are a wanker aren't you.

[jerry mcmasters]

From https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ne...fault.aspx 

The Game
The game has the following form. You will be presented with two boxes:

• Box A will contain $10,000.
  

• Box B will contain $1,000,000 or nothing.
  
  

You will not be able to see inside the boxes, so you won't know whether Box B contains $1,000,000 or nothing. You will then be given the choice between taking home both boxes or just Box B.

There are two crucial things to take into account when making your decision.

• The amount of money in Box B will be determined by Perfect Prediction's most accurate clairvoyant -  100% accuracy on the following basis. If she predicts that you will take home both boxes, then no money will be put into Box B. If she predicts that you will take home only Box B, then $1,000,000 will be placed into the box.
  

• The prediction will already have been made by the time the game starts, and the amount of money in Box B already fixed.
  
  

Assuming you want to win as much money as possible, should you take home both boxes or just Box B?

Obvious answer: Presumably you think that if you take home both boxes, then the clairvoyant would have known in advance that this is what you were going to do, and would have instructed that Box B should have no money in it. Therefore, the only way to ensure you get the $1,000,000 is to take home only Box B.

Not so obvious answer: Presumably you think that because the amount in the boxes has already been fixed by the time you come to make your choice, it makes no difference whether you take one or two boxes home, so you might as well take two.

This thing I don't get with this paradox is that in no possible future will you return home with 1 million and 10 thousand dollars, so why would you even try?

Yeah it seems just take box B.  I also don't get the "paradox."  All the terms are specified, so assuming everything is true and the box chooser knows them going in, the 1,000,000 is guaranteed.

[Jarsa]

No shit Sherlock, it's just a thought experiment. No one is claiming clairvoyance is real.

LOL... a "thought experiment"?  You truly are a wanker aren't you.

What, now you're denying that it's a thought experiment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox

"In philosophy and mathematics, Newcomb's paradox, also known as Newcomb's problem, is a thought experiment involving a game between two players, one of whom is able to predict the future."

[LastPoet]

I dunno, most of my days are wasted figuring out of the cat is dead or alive inside the box. Cats like boxes so I don't know. As Erwin, he knew how to be honest with thought experiments.

[Rhythmcs]

Throw the box in the building and make sure the cat is dead.

[brewerb]

Does the guy picking the box(s) have to report it for taxes? There may be motivations other than financial. What if the chooser has child support/alimony and it will ruin his 'dead beat' status?

[Mathilda]

No shit Sherlock, it's just a thought experiment. No one is claiming clairvoyance is real.

LOL... a "thought experiment"?  You truly are a wanker aren't you.

Please keep the conversation civil

[Kim]

10k please. Car payments.

[Cavebear]

From https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ne...fault.aspx 

The Game
The game has the following form. You will be presented with two boxes:

• Box A will contain $10,000.
  

• Box B will contain $1,000,000 or nothing.
  
  

You will not be able to see inside the boxes, so you won't know whether Box B contains $1,000,000 or nothing. You will then be given the choice between taking home both boxes or just Box B.

There are two crucial things to take into account when making your decision.

• The amount of money in Box B will be determined by Perfect Prediction's most accurate clairvoyant -  100% accuracy on the following basis. If she predicts that you will take home both boxes, then no money will be put into Box B. If she predicts that you will take home only Box B, then $1,000,000 will be placed into the box.
  

• The prediction will already have been made by the time the game starts, and the amount of money in Box B already fixed.
  
  

Assuming you want to win as much money as possible, should you take home both boxes or just Box B?

Obvious answer: Presumably you think that if you take home both boxes, then the clairvoyant would have known in advance that this is what you were going to do, and would have instructed that Box B should have no money in it. Therefore, the only way to ensure you get the $1,000,000 is to take home only Box B.

Not so obvious answer: Presumably you think that because the amount in the boxes has already been fixed by the time you come to make your choice, it makes no difference whether you take one or two boxes home, so you might as well take two.

This thing I don't get with this paradox is that in no possible future will you return home with 1 million and 10 thousand dollars, so why would you even try?

Bold: I typically don't play much when magical woo is involved.

Yes "woo", I save money everytime I don't play the lottery. Its a game for suckers. That's why I'm not poor. Invested all that lottery money into index funds.

[Cavebear]

From https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ne...fault.aspx 

The Game
The game has the following form. You will be presented with two boxes:

• Box A will contain $10,000.
  

• Box B will contain $1,000,000 or nothing.
  
  

You will not be able to see inside the boxes, so you won't know whether Box B contains $1,000,000 or nothing. You will then be given the choice between taking home both boxes or just Box B.

There are two crucial things to take into account when making your decision.

• The amount of money in Box B will be determined by Perfect Prediction's most accurate clairvoyant -  100% accuracy on the following basis. If she predicts that you will take home both boxes, then no money will be put into Box B. If she predicts that you will take home only Box B, then $1,000,000 will be placed into the box.
  

• The prediction will already have been made by the time the game starts, and the amount of money in Box B already fixed.
  
  

Assuming you want to win as much money as possible, should you take home both boxes or just Box B?

Obvious answer: Presumably you think that if you take home both boxes, then the clairvoyant would have known in advance that this is what you were going to do, and would have instructed that Box B should have no money in it. Therefore, the only way to ensure you get the $1,000,000 is to take home only Box B.

Not so obvious answer: Presumably you think that because the amount in the boxes has already been fixed by the time you come to make your choice, it makes no difference whether you take one or two boxes home, so you might as well take two.

This thing I don't get with this paradox is that in no possible future will you return home with 1 million and 10 thousand dollars, so why would you even try?

You assigned the clairvoyant the ability to decide the contents of Box B. That is a logic error. So the whole proposition is pooched. Did you perhaps quote the experiment wrong?

Besides, I already know that game. 'Let's Make A Deal' made a career of confusing contestants.

So you take the $10,000 and run. They aren't going to let you get the $1 million no matter what decision you all make. I mean in long-term on the game.