Newcomb's Problem

[warpus]

What? No, there is no sarcasm.

If you are presented with two boxes, and none of them have a million dollars in it...

and pick box B. You are not getting a million $.

 

[Elrohir]

What? No, there is no sarcasm.

If you are presented with two boxes, and none of them have a million dollars in it...

and pick box B. You are not getting a million $.

True. But you also effectively decide whether that million dollars will be there. How exactly, depends on how Omega makes his choice - time travel, computer simulation, specific knowledge of a deterministic universe, whatever - but in this thought experiment, that is so. You can argue that "in reality" Omega couldn't exist and you should pick A&B. But in this case, Omega does, and the choice you make - or the kind of person you are which determines what you'll do, or whatever - does determine how much money you get.

Whether this is a realistic scenario, and whether Omega could ever actually offer this problem is utterly irrelevant in regards to what the proper choice is, assuming you want to maximize the amount of money you get. Realistic or not, based on the information given here, that proper choice is B and B alone.

 

[warpus]

All I'm doing is presenting a scenario.

Once you're presented with two boxes, none of which contain a million dollars.. and you pick one box.. You are not getting a million.

Now, according to this "thought experiment", such a thing would not happen. Thus, I have to conclude that I do not really have a choice in the matter.. ie. if there's no money in the boxes, I *have* to pick both, and am for some reason unable to pick just one. (all assuming that the alien doesn't cheat)

Draw whatever conclusions from that you want.

That is all I'm saying. and now I must retreat into my humble alcove of rest. goodnight.

 

[LightFang]

Damn. Elrohir has just converted me to a one-boxer.

Looks like someone won the thread.

 

[scy12]

All I'm doing is presenting a scenario.

Once you're presented with two boxes, none of which contain a million dollars.. and you pick one box.. You are not getting a million.

Now, according to this "thought experiment", such a thing would not happen. Thus, I have to conclude that I do not really have a choice in the matter.. ie. if there's no money in the boxes, I *have* to pick both, and am for some reason unable to pick just one. (all assuming that the alien doesn't cheat)

Draw whatever conclusions from that you want.

That is all I'm saying. and now I must retreat into my humble alcove of rest. goodnight.

Well all my actions are because i am assuming that B has a million when i choose B but when i choose both something forces the Box B to not have any money . And i assume these because those are the rules of the game for 100% of the times it was played . I could be wrong and get nothing but i have no reason to think that i am wrong and that there are no money in either box.

So since i consider choosing B an easy decision what concerns me is the how Omega does it . And actually i think there some plausible explanations on how he could do it.

Whether this is a realistic scenario, and whether Omega could ever actually offer this problem is utterly irrelevant in regards to what the proper choice is, assuming you want to maximize the amount of money you get. Realistic or not, based on the information given here, that proper choice is B and B alone.

Actually i don't see anything wrong with attempting to make this scenario as realistic as possible by for example not fully believing some of the rules of the game. Even so there is nothing unrealistic with someone being correct 100% of times that the game was played regarding this : that if you choose something(B) you will always get X. This is a game that whether you attempt to believe to Omega unrealism or not , the best choice is still B.

 

[LightFang]

The point is that you should believe the rules. Philosophy often poses impossible or implausible scenarios, but you take them at face value because they lead into interesting ideas on what to do, not what is possible.

For example, if we were talking about a mythical device that could make a "copy" of a brain and rearrange neurons on another person's brain to discuss the issue of personal identity, you wouldn't just say "oh, such a machine could never be made!" You'd accept the premise of a machine that would do such things.

Similarly, you assume the alien is telling the truth. Even if it is implausible.

 

[scy12]

The point is that you should believe the rules. Philosophy often poses impossible or implausible scenarios, but you take them at face value because they lead into interesting ideas on what to do, not what is possible.

For example, if we were talking about a mythical device that could make a "copy" of a brain and rearrange neurons on another person's brain to discuss the issue of personal identity, you wouldn't just say "oh, such a machine could never be made!" You'd accept the premise of a machine that would do such things.

Similarly, you assume the alien is telling the truth. Even if it is implausible.

The point of rules is to make sense and be as plausible as possible. That is how i see it anyway. You should follow the rules until you reach a point where a rule is contradictory. Whether it is contradictory with reality or with the universe created for that rules is a decision you should make.



The rules are : Omega was always correct in his predictions and we know this. If you choose B you win a million if you choose A+B you win 1000. Omega predicts what you do before you do it but there is no proof. Omega is an alien , but there is no proof. The two last rules have nothing to do with the problem , lack needed explanation and do not make any sense and so i do not follow them.


Actually i assume that there can be a device that can copy a brain down to the last neuron. However i dispute the claim that the device is magical. (See how and why i do it ?).

You would do the same if one said that 1+1 =3 so why don't you do it in this scenario.

Then i proceed to answer the question. It doesn't have many rules involved that may not make sense (other than the device is magical) and so there are no rules that i may not follow.

 

[Mise]

The point is that you should believe the rules. Philosophy often poses impossible or implausible scenarios, but you take them at face value because they lead into interesting ideas on what to do, not what is possible.

For example, if we were talking about a mythical device that could make a "copy" of a brain and rearrange neurons on another person's brain to discuss the issue of personal identity, you wouldn't just say "oh, such a machine could never be made!" You'd accept the premise of a machine that would do such things.

Similarly, you assume the alien is telling the truth. Even if it is implausible.

In this case, accepting such a premise forces you to accept either (a) determinism, (b) violation of causality, or (c) some law of nature that requires there to be $1m or not in box B as a result of a choice you make.

I think it's reasonable to deny any or all of those on philosophical grounds.


Incidentally, I've thought of another way that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you chose to open box B only, and it turned out there was nothing inside, you would then instantaneously choose to take box A as well - and proceed to open it and take the $1,000. It wouldn't be particularly spectacular, but still...

 

[Samson]

In this case, accepting such a premise forces you to accept either (a) determinism, (b) violation of causality, or (c) some law of nature that requires there to be $1m or not in box B as a result of a choice you make.

I think it's reasonable to deny any or all of those on philosophical grounds.

Why? A and B seem eminently possible to me.

 

[Mise]

Why? A and B seem eminently possible to me.

I didn't say it was unreasonable to accept them.

(Though you'd have the entire body of Physics against you if you accepted (b).)

 

[Samson]

I didn't say it was unreasonable to accept them.

I read that wrong. I see that "it's reasonable to deny" =/= "unreasonable to accept".

(Though you'd have the entire body of Physics against you if you accepted (b).)

That is not my understanding. I thought there was very little in physics to dictate which direction time should go. ICBW.

 

[Elrohir]

Damn. Elrohir has just converted me to a one-boxer.

Looks like someone won the thread.

But not quite yet, I don't think.

In this case, accepting such a premise forces you to accept either (a) determinism, (b) violation of causality, or (c) some law of nature that requires there to be $1m or not in box B as a result of a choice you make.

I think it's reasonable to deny any or all of those on philosophical grounds.

So what you're effectively saying here is that the scenario is inherently flawed, correct? But that's an entirely different prospect from taking A&B.

If you want to say that this whole scenario is so inconsistent and illogical that there's no possible benefit in contemplating it, then fine. But by accepting one of the two choices put forward in the scenario, you have the accept the rules that make it interesting. You can't say "This is all utterly nonsensical. Also, A&B." You can't deny that the game is possible and play it at the same time. You need to make up your mind: do you say this doesn't matter, or isn't possible, and "walk away" from Omega? Or do you temporarily accept that this scenario is true - in which case, the answer really is B, and only B.

It seems to me that you guys (Mise and Warpus, among others) are having trouble separating this from a real life counterpart. If it were a human being guessing, then it would make sense to take both boxes, because you know that he can't know what you'll do, and you might as well get your $1000. But that's precisely why the character of Omega was invented - so you can get away from what you "know" is possible, and wrap your mind around an interesting problem. I don't think you guys are as much unable to accept the answer as you are unable to accept the question.

Incidentally, I've thought of another way that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you chose to open box B only, and it turned out there was nothing inside, you would then instantaneously choose to take box A as well - and proceed to open it and take the $1,000. It wouldn't be particularly spectacular, but still...

Well, the OP specifies that A vanishes in a puff of smoke if you take only B.

 

[Love]

What if the alien can travel in time and then see you picking both/ one and then putting money in the right chest?

 

[Mise]

I read that wrong. I see that "it's reasonable to deny" =/= "unreasonable to accept".

That is not my understanding. I thought there was very little in physics to dictate which direction time should go. ICBW.

There's a difference between time-symmetry and causality violation. The fact that the physical laws work perfectly when you play the universe in reverse (so long as you also flip Charge and Parity) doesn't mean that causality can be violated. Causality isn't violated by either Relativity or Quantum Mechanics either.

Anti-particles, for example, can be thought of as particles travelling backwards in time, because of time-symmetry (CPT symmetry to be precise). Yet they don't violate causality.

So what you're effectively saying here is that the scenario is inherently flawed, correct? But that's an entirely different prospect from taking A&B.

No, I'm saying that if you believe that any one of those things is possible (and, given the evidence of Omega's 100% success rate so far, at least one of them seems quite likely), you would take only box B.

If you don't accept any of them, then you'd pick box A.

It seems to me that you guys (Mise and Warpus, among others) are having trouble separating this from a real life counterpart.

I'm a one-boxer

Well, the OP specifies that A vanishes in a puff of smoke if you take only B.

Depends what you mean by "only take B" . But yeah you're right

 

[Elrohir]

No, I'm saying that if you believe that any one of those things is possible (and, given the evidence of Omega's 100% success rate so far, at least one of them seems quite likely), you would take only box B.

Probably, but it doesn't matter. Whether it's one of those things or none of them, Omega still does it.

I'm a one-boxer

My apologies, I thought you were a two-boxer. Nevermind then....

Depends what you mean by "only take B" . But yeah you're right

 

[Mise]

Probably, but it doesn't matter. Whether it's one of those things or none of them, Omega still does it.

Point is he'll only do it necessarily if (a) (b) or (c) is true. If none of those things are true, then he might do it, or he might not. But without (a) (b) or (c) there's no mechanism via which he can do it necessarily.

Personally I hope it's (c).

 

[Elrohir]

Point is he'll only do it necessarily if (a) (b) or (c) is true. If none of those things are true, then he might do it, or he might not. But without (a) (b) or (c) there's no mechanism via which he can do it necessarily.

Personally I hope it's (c).

Well, I think he has more options - the SimPerf idea floated earlier was really interesting - but I agree in theory that Omega is doing something wonky that at the very least we can't do, and may not even be possible.

 

[lovett]

The fact is, it's naive to believe that Omega is guessing; it's only rational to believe that he does indeed have a system, and a pretty darn good one as well. What that system is, be it time travel or computer simulations or just a wicked brain is utterly irrelevant - whatever it is, it works.

True. But you also effectively decide whether that million dollars will be there. How exactly, depends on how Omega makes his choice - time travel, computer simulation, specific knowledge of a deterministic universe, whatever - but in this thought experiment, that is so.

Doesn't the thought experiment dictate the after Omega has talked to you (but before you've made your choice) the money is already in (or not, as the case may be) Box B?

Thus, for your actual deciscion (As opposed to Omegas' prediction) to affect the contents of Box B Omega must, in someway, 'cheat'. He must either have lied about the rules (and to assume this is to rather invalidate the thought experiment) or he must have someway, like time travel, of changing the contents of box B after you have made your actual deciscion.

Correct?

Thus, surely one must decide which is probable: that Omega has a foolproof method of prediction (through whatever means) and maybe a healthy dose of luck, or that he has some very foreign and incomprehensible way of cheating hat does not violate the rules you were given?

 

[Elrohir]

Doesn't the thought experiment dictate the after Omega has talked to you (but before you've made your choice) the money is already in (or not, as the case may be) Box B?

Thus, for your actual deciscion (As opposed to Omegas' prediction) to affect the contents of Box B Omega must, in someway, 'cheat'. He must either have lied about the rules (and to assume this is to rather invalidate the thought experiment) or he must have someway, like time travel, of changing the contents of box B after you have made your actual deciscion.

Correct?

Thus, surely one must decide which is probable: that Omega has a foolproof method of prediction (through whatever means) and maybe a healthy dose of luck, or that he has some very foreign and incomprehensible way of cheating hat does not violate the rules you were given?

The only way for Omega to cheat would be to for him to change his mind and move (Or place) the money in box B, because he was wrong about what you would do. It's not cheating for Omega to have a good idea what you're going to do - it's built right into the rules. It's not cheating for him to use some arcane or incomprehensible method of divining your decision; that's as much part of the game as the boxes and the money.

His method really isn't important. What matters is that if you choose B, and only B, you will almost certainly receive $1m, while if you choose A&B, you will almost certainly receive only $1000. It's counterintuitive, because you're used to living in the real world and interacting with human beings, who can't know what you're about to do with 99-100% certainty. But taking only B is the logical answer, based on the rules of the game. If you want to say the game is dumb, or is rigged, or something of the sort, then fine. But I don't think that changes the answer. But if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will explain it to me.

 

[warpus]

Omega has to cheat.

You could just flip a coin when presented with the boxes.

How could he predict that without cheating?