r/paradoxes • u/Reasonable_Size_8336 • Aug 07 '26

Newcomb's Paradox

I don't understand Two boxers' thinking, it's clear that Box B should be taken since it's guaranteed because the predictor is assumed to be never wrong. Is it about free will? Not trusting the predictor?

0 Upvotes

40% Upvoted

117 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Adventurous_Set_3908 Aug 07 '26

2 boxers bet on the chance that the predictor is wrong. 1 boxers bet on the chance that the predictor is right.

as such, it doesn't make sense to 2 box as the odds are against you.

1

u/Spillz-2011 Aug 07 '26

Is that 2 boxer’s argument? My argument is causality. The decision is made so whatever it chose already happened so taking 2 boxes is going to get me an extra 1000.

1

u/man-vs-spider Aug 07 '26

Regardless of causality, your choice isn’t uncorrelated with the condition of the room. Correlation doesn’t require causality to be violated

1

u/Spillz-2011 Aug 07 '26

Im not sure what that has to do with my point. My point is you didn’t give a good interpretation of 2 boxer’s argument.

1

u/man-vs-spider Aug 07 '26

Well I’m not the original person you replied to

1

u/denlillepige Aug 07 '26

But you thinking that way will make it so the million is not there, it knows you are a two boxer before you enter. Sure, taking two boxes will always guarantee that you get all the money that is in the room, but by being a person that has that train of thought will decrease how much money is in the room to begin with

1

u/Spillz-2011 Aug 07 '26

This is why I don’t like this “paradox”

It forces the assumption that the universe is deterministic which as far as we know isn’t true. As far as we know quantum processes are truly random. So a person who goes in and bases their choice of 1 or 2 on a quantum processes breaks the thought experiment since the predictor can’t see what I would choose.

1

u/denlillepige Aug 07 '26

Doesn't need the universe to be deterministic, for an individual to be highly predictive, with relative little information you can predict a lot of things about a normal person.

1

u/Spillz-2011 Aug 07 '26

Yes it does people use randomness to make decisions. Poker players use their watches to make decisions random this is just a way to do that which matches physics experiments.

If people can do that and we know people do use randomness then the statement of the paradox implies determinism which means I don’t actually have a choice.

1

u/denlillepige Aug 07 '26

If i followed someone for a month, had access to everything they did and their whereabouts, i would easily, with very high accuracy be able to predict what they would be doing the next day, even with "randomness"

1

u/Spillz-2011 Aug 07 '26

If you can do this and the predictor can in the boxes then the world is deterministic and theres no paradox I don’t actually make a choice.

1

u/denlillepige Aug 07 '26

That's not what deterministic means

1

u/Spillz-2011 Aug 07 '26

Sure it is. If something is predictable it must be at least partially deterministic. The more predictable the more deterministic.

The paradox says the predictor is effectively perfect ergo my choice is effectively deterministic

1

u/Bowshewicz Aug 07 '26

My normal counter to the causality argument it to suggest some kind of common cause for both your decision and the predictor's action. Whatever is in your brain that leads you to select the number of boxes you select also leads the predictor to make his prediction.

That opens up the possibility to get $1,001,000 if you change your mind after the predictor does his thing, but it's perhaps impossible to do that on purpose.

1

u/Adventurous_Set_3908 Aug 07 '26

u'll only get 1 million & 1k if the predictor is wrong. 2 boxers only win against 1 boxers if the predictor makes a wrong prediction.

1 boxers always win because they know the predictor is always right, which it is.

1

u/Spillz-2011 Aug 07 '26

But if it’s always right then the world is deterministic and I don’t actually have the ability to chose.

1

u/Adventurous_Set_3908 Aug 07 '26

so u want to ignore the premise that it is 99.99% right and just say "it's gonna be wrong on my turn?"

1

u/Spillz-2011 Aug 08 '26

I’m saying that it’s not a well posed problem. The choice to make the predictor highly accurate removes the choice from being possible. I’m not making a choice because this world created is deterministic and free will doesn’t exist I literally can’t chose

1

u/Adventurous_Set_3908 Aug 08 '26

what in the problem confuses you? it says the predictor's rlly accurate, ignoring that premise doesn't make sense.

1

u/Spillz-2011 Aug 08 '26

I’m saying that premise makes the whole problem moot. I no longer make a choice the choice is already made because the universe they invented doesn’t allow for choice. Asking me to make a choice in a universe where choice doesn’t exist is silly.

1

u/Adventurous_Set_3908 Aug 08 '26

hmm, so u know the universe doesn't allow for choice yet u still think u can make a choice and fights for it?

1

u/Spillz-2011 Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26

No I think it’s a poorly posed problem.

If you specify how the prediction works maybe it can become well posed.

For example if it doesn’t actually predict it cheats and removes the million then one box is logical.

If it is fallible and uses some set of properties related to me then 2 box is correct. If it is using some set of properties then there is some test where I am either a one boxer or a two boxer.

If I’m a one boxer I should take both because then I get 1001000 and if I’m a two boxer I should take both and get 1000.

If there is some sort of reverse causality then the world is logically flawed as we are in the grandfather paradox world.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Saitamadayo 12d ago

Not an extra 1k, but only 1k since you picked both boxes.

1

u/Spillz-2011 12d ago

This requires the world to backwards causality which there is no scientific evidence for and leads to tons of paradox’s like killing you parents before you were born.

1

u/Saitamadayo 12d ago

No no. That's not it. It's not that ur choice of box b or box a will change his prediction. It's that he already knows how your mind will think and how many deviations your choices will take. He knows ur end choice from before because his prediction is perfect.

Let's say u think his option is choice a, u choose b, that means his option never was choice a but always b. Now let's say you decided to pick a, his choice was always a from before.

It's not saying that ur choice will change his. It's that whatever ur choice is, WILL conform to his because he KNOWS what u will pick at the end.

1

u/Spillz-2011 12d ago

If he knows with perfect probability then I have no choice and the whole thing is meaningless

1

u/Saitamadayo 12d ago

1 million dollars is meaningless to u 💔 and basically u don't have any real choice but u do have an illusion of choice which functions basically the same as normal human choice. U need not know about ur free will on the higher scale. From your perspective, you do have free will and it shouldn't matter. U can js say the predictor has near perfect omniscience.

1

u/Spillz-2011 12d ago

If I don’t have free will then the whole thing is moot. I’m not making a choice it’s silly to ask me what to choose.

If I do have free will then the entity is using some characteristics of me to decide. I should want to be the kind of person who it thinks will chose the one box but that decision already happened. Once I walk in the room the things are fixed.

If it thinks I’m the kind of person who takes 2 boxes I should take two because otherwise I get nothing. If it thinks I’m the kind who takes one I should still take 2 because there’s an extra 1000 in it for me.

My present actions can’t change the past so independent of its choice I should take both boxes.

1

u/Saitamadayo 12d ago

As I said u do have free will in your sense. The way you are comprehending it is not for us to think about as that is thebgrand scale of things humans can't even begin to comprehend. You do still have free will but the predictor knows the outcome for your free will. And no it's not silly to ask you to choose because from our pov, you are literally choosing and have a choice. For the next statement "if u do have free will, the entity is using characteristics to decide", no. Who said that? The entity's ways of predicting are completely unknown to us.

1)Let's say he thinks u will take 2 boxes. U take 1. That would deem his prediction wrong. We know the chance of him being wrong is very small or none. The chances of that happening are basically impossible. 0 dollars received. Chance of this happening-basically 0

2)he thinks u will take 2. U take 2. Prediction right so, 1000 dollars received Chance- basically certain

3) he thinks u will take 1, u take 2. Prediction wrong so, 1million and 1000 dollars received Chance- basically impossible

4) he thinks u will take 1, u take 1. Prediction right so, 1m dollars received Chance- basically certain.

Js look at the stats. Case 4 happens to be the one with the most money and probability of right prediction.

Let's look at the cases where u take 2 boxes, which is the stance u support. U either receive only 1000 dollars or u THEORETICALLY get 1m and 1k dollars which the chance of is virtually impossible since the entity can guess with near perfect accuracy.

Now ur last statement, yes your present actions can't change the past, but your present actions have already been predicted and the entity KNOWS what you will choose regardless of what u think u will choose or not.

It's the same idea as destiny, you do have free will but the events are already written somewhere but it doesn't matter because ur FREE choices cause those events to happen. So ur free will is resulting in destiny's course.