Newcombs Paradox?

Question

Has anyone ever heard of newcombs paradox? If so, what do you think about it? What was your choice and why?

http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/newcomb.html

Answer 1

If I choose to take only the closed box, and do in fact win a million dollars, then I don’t really care much about the additional $1000. If the box comes up empty, then I will be pissed because I could have had at least $1000, but I have the satisfaction of proving the alien wrong, as well as proving to myself that I have free will (because if the alien is 100 percent accurate, then I have no free will). I think this shows that I am driven more by principles than practicality, and more by my sense of adventure than by a devotion to logic.

There is also a question of faith in the nature of causality and purely linear temporality. Taking both boxes would express faith that causal factors have determined that at this moment the closed box MUST be either empty or have a million dollars. The quantum paradox of Schrodinger’s Cat gives some hint of doubt about this. It is logically possible that the present is state of the closed box is actually indeterminate, which is to say, there is NO truly correct answer to the question “Does the box currently contain money or not?” It is possible that the answer is only determined at the moment I look into the box. Quantum theory does not typically allow this sort of indeterminism for macro-scale objects, but the paradox of Schrodinger’s Cat leaves some room for doubt.

Given my doubts about the determinate nature of reality, my lust for one million dollars, and my spirit of adventure (by the way, a true spirit of adventure always acknowledges that there are genuine RISKS involved – otherwise it is not a spirit of adventure, but sheer stupidity at work), I would choose the closed box.

For the convenience of other users, I am going to paste a few sentences about the paradox from the link you provided:

Newcomb's Paradox:
A highly superior being from another part of the galaxy presents you with two boxes, one open and one closed. In the open box there is a thousand-dollar bill. In the closed box there is either one million dollars or there is nothing. You are to choose between taking both boxes or taking the closed box only. But there's a catch.

The being claims that he is able to predict what any human being will decide to do. If he predicted you would take only the closed box, then he placed a million dollars in it. But if he predicted you would take both boxes, he left the closed box empty. Furthermore, he has run this experiment with 999 people before, and has been right every time.

What do you do?

On the one hand, the evidence is fairly obvious that if you choose to take only the closed box you will get one million dollars, whereas if you take both boxes you get only a measly thousand. You'd be stupid to take both boxes.

On the other hand, at the time you make your decision, the closed box already is empty or else contains a million dollars. Either way, if you take both boxes you get a thousand dollars more than if you take the closed box only.
*********

Based on a question concerning my answer, here is an additional explanation of Schrodinger's paradox:

Prior to quantum mechanics (QM), we assumed that reality existed independently of any experiments/observations. So, for example, when my refrigerator is closed, it is either true or false that there is a jug of milk in there. This is a logical statement that is supposed to cover all possibilities. Either I “got milk” or I don’t. No other options are possible. (In logic this is related to what is called the logical “law of excluded middle.”) I cannot both “have milk” and “not have milk” at the same time in the same way, and it must be the case that one or the other is true. But subatomic particles seem to violate the law of excluded middle. Given a box of a certain size, it is simply NOT the case that there is either an electron in there or there is not. QM allows a “superposition” of states, which means that there is simply no “fact of the matter” as to whether there is or is not an electron in that box. This is not just a question of our knowledge. It is NOT simply that we don’t know the answer, rather, it is that reality itself has not decided upon the answer so long as the superposition holds. Erwin Schrodinger found a way to link a superposition of a subatomic particles to a macro-scale state, namely, a contraption that either kills the cat, or lets it live. If the particle is in a superposition, and if the life of the cat depends on the state of the particle, then it seems that the cat itself must be in a superposition – neither dead nor alive – until an observation resolves the superposition. Now I want to be clear that most physicists would reject my suggestion that that this might have any relevance for Newcomb’s Paradox. Most would say that superpositions typically don’t happen on the scale of ordinary objects (despite Schodinger’s devious thought-experiment). But there are still a variety of deep metaphysical problems associate with interpreting QM, and frankly I am not convinced that reality is always determinate at the macro-level (i.e., that there is always a “fact of the matter” independent of observers in the ordinary world). So in the case Necomb’s paradox, I would be willing to take gamble. If there is no determinate answer as to whether or not the closed box contains money, then it might be the case that my choice determines the answer. And if THAT is true, and if the alien has in fact guessed correctly 999 time in a row, then my chances are good that if I take only the closed box I will get the million dollars, whereas if I take both, then I will only get $1000.

Answer 2

As a philosophical problem, the arguments are interesting and give us all sorts of mind-boggling what-ifs to think about.

As a practical problem, it's easy. I will take the closed box, because I am willing to wager the thousand dollars that the Being's prediction will once again be correct.

Now if the open box contains half a million dollars, then I will take both boxes. If the prediction is correct, I will have half a million. If the prediction is incorrect, I will have a million and a half.

The problem now for me is this: at what point between the thousand and the half a million do I switch my strategy? I wish someone would knock on my door to give me the opportunity to find out. ;-)
.

Answer 3

Just looked it up. Not dreadfully impressed.

Basically (for the audience), it's an attempt to build a logical proof that omniscience and free will are incompatible. Nicely put together, too, except that it assumes a mechanical God.

IF you do A, then God will take that into account in His own actions, and thus the whole world will be structured around your doing A.
BUT you have the power to do B. And if you do B, God will have done something different.
THEREFORE, if you have free will, you have the power to invalidate the whole state of the world.

As usual, it assumes that God has no choice but to do something based on YOUR choice. And that you know it and can manipulate Him by doing something else. In other words, it assumes that the Creator of your free will has no free will of His own.

But even in its own terms, it has problems.

As usual, it assumes that God KNOWS something at time X, and then time passes until Y. In other words, it assumes that God is as stuck in time as we are. The usual medieval/Thomist conception of God is that He created time as well as space. He is watching you (choosing freely to) do A in the same eternal moment that He is using to set the world up to accomodate your doing A. You could do B--there's nothing stopping you--but you DIDN'T. I mean you DON'T. And He is watching you choose not to do it while he's setting up the situation in which you chose--I mean are choosing--I mean--arrgh!

The problem is, once you take time out of the equation causality is extremely hard to talk about. "Post hoc" reasoning is a common logical problem simply because we CAN'T IMAGINE causality that doesn't involve time passing. Trying to describe causal chains that involve the One who CREATED time in the first place, and isn't bound by it at all--aieee!

Answer 4

there is no One single rule that is valid throughout the universe.
the rules change as the situations change.

murder and military invasion - technically the same thing but different in outcome.

When you excercise free will it is your life force that is changing the course of the world in its tiny way - however, the combined result of all the life forces will be the same no matter what each individual chooses to do.

Enjoy

Answer 5

the two are ideal to distinctive extents. Your 2d pal says you could smoke on the grounds which you like it, that's his theory. the different pal believes you mustn't smoke because of the fact that's going to wreck you, that's additionally, his theory. So the two are ideal, they are in basic terms finding at it from distinctive factors of the coin. edit; you are the COIN, you settle on WHAT area TO LAND ON.

Answer 6

I would take neither. I do not accept money from strangers.

:)

Answer 7

No I haven't but if it is important and/or worthwhile could you please post it on your question?