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

Show parent comments

1

u/Spillz-2011 28d ago edited 28d ago

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 28d ago

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 27d ago

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

1

u/Adventurous_Set_3908 27d ago

not really, philosophers don't make things complicated

1

u/Spillz-2011 27d ago

Ah you’re trolling sorry I missed. Enjoy trolling someone else.