First off, if there’s a better place to ask this, I’d appreciate a nudge in that direction.
I’ve seen a lot of chatter on YouTube with Newcomb’s paradox lately (MinutePhysics Veritasium Wikipedia) and I’ve been dwelling on it more than I probably should.
To explain the problem briefly for the uninitiated: there is a super intelligent being that knows you to the core and can accurately (with 99.99+% accuracy) predict your actions/decisions. It has 2 boxes. You have the option to take either just the first box, or both boxes. In the first it always puts $1,000. In the second it will put either $1 million if it thinks you’ll take just the first box; or $0 if it thinks you’ll take both.
The apparent contradiction is explained in the videos.
So the solution to the problem I’ve come to is that you should remove your own ability to decide from your “decision” on whether to take the second box.
That is, you walk in the room, you flip a coin (or some similar random chooser) and on heads take both; on tails just take the first.
I think I’m failing to imagine all the consequences of this, but I can’t decide on what this would imply about the super intelligence’s choose of wether to put the $1 million into the box.
Any thoughts on this?
I don’t know what you’re getting at. Did I say something to suggest I misunderstood this part?
You said this:
“This necessarily includes the results of that coin flip and the Geiger counter readings.”
The premise states the computer sets up the boxes BEFORE you enter the room. The OP states he flips the coin AFTER he enters the room.
The computer cannot change the boxes after he entered the room. The computer cannot know the results of how you will respond to the coin flip because it happens AFTER it has fixed the boxes.
And you’re saying that those two things are somehow contradictory? Because if so, I don’t see how. If this super intelligent computer knows how you’re going to choose ahead of time, then it must also know how the coin is going to land ahead of time.
Yes they are contradictory. The computer isn’t supernatural. The premise states the computer isn’t 100% accurate. It says 99.9% but it could say 75% without changing the problem. It says 99% to simplify the scenario for the reader so you assume the computer is accurate. The premise is the computer can reliably predict your behavior. The premise is not the computer can defy physics.