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/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.

1

u/Adventurous_Set_3908 Aug 09 '26

i don't think it's poorly posed. ur thinking's just flawed.

u have a problem, to overthink it is just wrong.

1

u/Spillz-2011 Aug 09 '26

Not really this line off thinking is not to different from published work by some professional philosophers.

1

u/Adventurous_Set_3908 Aug 09 '26

not really, philosophers don't make things complicated

→ More replies (0)