Mise
isle of lucy
(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.
Newcomb's Problem
- Thread starter Erik Mesoy
- Start date
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
(a) I'll use a random number generator based on quantum fluctuations then
The description of the 'thought experiment' in the OP gives us the impression that (b) and (c) won't happen.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
If 100 people go into this experiment with a true random number generator and the alien is still able to predict everything perfectly...
then yeah, there is def. cheating going on.
In the OP we are sort of lead to assume that the game is "proper".
then yeah, there is def. cheating going on.
In the OP we are sort of lead to assume that the game is "proper".
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
I'd agree. Predicting is not cheating. Cheating would be using some method of changing the result that does not rely on prediction.
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.
But isn't this claiming that you decision will affect the contents of the box after Omega has made his prediction, and therefore after he has put the money into the box?
I.e, Omegas' prediction is what matters in determing the contents of the box. Unless he cheats, Your actual decision is not.
Mise
isle of lucy
There's nothing about QM specifically that suggests that the universe is not (much less cannot be) deterministic. It all depends on what interpretation you choose...
As for the original problem, I'd say that Omega's 100% success rate is fairly strong evidence that at least one of (a), (b) or (c) is true.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
I don;t think anyone is going to dispute that. However, according to the evidence if you are in this situation it seems highly likely that Omega has you figured for a two boxer. What makes you think he'll be wrong about you? Particularly in view of the pages you've spent arguing the 2 box case...
1/2^100 = 1.26765 E+30 according to Excel. That's a 1 in 1,267,650,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that Omega's run of predictions is a fluke, yet you think you can beat his system?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
He has my number random generator figured out?
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Omega might refuse to play the game with people who use quantum random number generators, but that's probably "cheating" by sample selection bias. 
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Omega might refuse to play the game with people who use quantum random number generators, but that's probably "cheating" by sample selection bias.
Now you're changing the parameters of the game
Clearly, I have won the thread.
For the sake of argument, let's say that he does. What's your response?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
My response is..
"This is just a thought experiment and could not in any way, shape, or form actually work in real life.
So it's fun to think about, but none of the answers actually mean anything."
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Didn't you read my post?
Dude, I never read your posts.
I haven't changed from being a 2-boxer (both because it will get you more money whether box B has money or not and because it's the only way to get the MOST money) but from discussions both in and out of this thread I've definitely rethought it and I have a better understanding of the psychology behind picking only box B.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
I think you'll find that in the OP it requires you to choose between box B or both boxes. I see no option c) flip a coin. You might have a hard time convincing Omega's lawyers you had satisfied the contract if you tried to collect.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
See, I have a hard time understanding two boxers; when they are presented with 50 two-boxers in a row who are poorer than 50 one-boxers in a row to the tune of $999,000 each they insist that two boxing is the way to get rich. Explain.
This is the closest to the truth in this thread, as far as I can tell. The "problem" is a paradox and is designed to be.
The real issue is that there are different logical ways of approaching one's own solution. When I examined it, I mapped out the four possibilities based on whether or not Omega had put a million dollars in box b -- after all, he's done this before I even know the game exists, so this is the first thing to consider. Then by looking at the possible outcomes of my choice, I decided that I was always going to get more money by choosing A&B, no matter what Omega has done.
Another perfectly logical way to look at the problem is that since we trust Omega's predictive abilities, choosing box B will mean there will always be a million dollars in box B, and choosing both will always mean there is zero dollars in box B.
One solution is based on getting the most money possible given the circumstances, and the other is based on getting a predefined, guaranteed amount of money. However, at first glance mot people think that the former is choosing box B and the latter is choosing both, when it's exactly opposite.
Another point: I've found that I can explain the two-box position much better when having an actual conversation with someone in person, because I can more easily explain each step in the process by asking if they agree on certain principles as laid out by the problem, in order. In a forum like this, people just lack the patience to go through that kind of exchange (on both sides).
First, I'm not looking for the answer that's "the way to get rich". I'm looking for the answer that gives me personally the best result.
Given that Omega places the money in the box before I decide, and in fact before I even know I'm going to play the game; and given that the contents of box B cannot change once they are decided upon; and given that if I choose box B only, box A disappears: there can only be two possibilities. Either Omega has put a million dollars in box B or he hasnt. If he has, and I choose both boxes, I get $1,001,000. If he has, and I choose box B, I get $1,000,000. If he hasn't, and I choose both boxes, I get $1,000. if he hasn't, and I choose box B, I get $0.
You simply use a different logical process, one which I totally understand, that comes from a different way of interpreting the problem. The difference is, you believe that by taking box B you'll get more money than someone who chooses both boxes. I believe that by choosing both boxes I'll get more money than if I only choose box B.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
So far, who has won the big money: One-boxers or Two-boxers?
I don't understand. When has this game actually happened? And since when has past performance been the standard for predicting future results?
I picked both boxes and got $1,001,000, then, if that's your standard of logic.
Similar threads
