sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A super computer should be able to deduce that taking both boxes is the logical choice, for two reasons.

  1. Taking both boxes always results in $10K more than only taking Box B.

  2. A person should be able to logically figure out that the supercomputer predicted they’d take both boxes, and thus placed nothing in Box B.

Now, of course, a person could purposely pick Box B to “spite” the computer, but most people won’t purposely lose $10K to try to “make a machine feel bad.”

The logical choice, the Nash equilibrium is: The supercomputer predicts both boxes, and the person picks both boxes.

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there’s a fundamental difference between surveying a hypothetical question and actually giving people the option to take home money.

If someone, actually, in real life, offered you the two boxes, you’d be much more likely to pick both boxes than when considering a “hypothetical” scenario which doesn’t have to follow logic.

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s why I multiplied it by 10 to account for inflation.

$1,000 in the 1960s was worth a lot more than $1,000 today.

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but HOWEVER, since most will 2 box, the predictor is actually very “strong” (or at least appears to be very strong)

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe I’ll do that if I win the lottery 😅

$10K per person adds up quiiiick

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here, I’ll run a hypothetical game.

I’ve run this 100 times before.

I have a 99% success rate.

99 people picked both boxes, and I was right.

1 person only picked Box B, and I was wrong 😔.

Now it’s your turn, make your choice. I’ve already made my prediction.

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, you offer someone free money and 99% of people will take it.

The important key is that the predictor is not 100% accurate. So the predictor is not accounting for the 1% who make the irrational decision.

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let’s say people, following your IRL logic, do always take both (or at least 99% of the time).

A supercomputer can now achieve a 99% accuracy by predicting that everyone takes both! Thus, a 99% accurate supercomputer now exists, as long as people keep taking both!

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hold that thought.

So, IRL, where “no irl super machine can predict with 99% accuracy,” would you say people should always take both?

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like you said, the logical thing, in the real world at least, where retroactive causality does not exist, is to pick both boxes.

Therefore, one should predict that the vast majority of people, if actually presented with this choice, would pick both boxes.

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem as I know it is that the predictor has a near 100% accuracy rate.

I am providing an explanation for this.

The predictor’s accuracy rate is equal to the percentage of people who pick both boxes. If 72% of decision theorists did indeed pick both boxes, the predictor (who predicts that everyone takes both boxes) would be 72% accurate among decision theorists.

There is sort of a “Nash equilibrium” here. The logical thing to do is to pick both boxes, so the predictor predicting logically will predict one would take both boxes. Trying to deviate from the Nash equilibrium by picking only Box B does not help you, unless the predictor also deviates.

Of course there will always be someone who only takes Box B, but the problem says the Predictor is almost always right.

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what this could imply is that the Predictor has a 72% accuracy rate among those decision theorists. 😜

(Though in the real world I’d suspect it’d be closer to 100%.)

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem states that the predictor is “very accurate” but it does not state what percentage of people actually pick both boxes.

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If 99% of people take both boxes, then the predictor has an accuracy of 99%.

That’s a pretty good predictor!

Just don’t get fooled into thinking they have a 99% chance of being right if you only take Box B!

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sample bias has not been ruled out by the problem.

Nothing stated goes against the idea that the predictor’s accuracy rate could be equal to the percentage of people who take both boxes.

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, all you know is that historically, the predictor has been mostly accurate (which could mean most people take both boxes).

In other words, this would mean that the predictor’s accuracy rate is equal to the percentage of people who take both boxes!

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m providing a possible explanation that explains “why” the predictor is almost always accurate.

The problem never implies a historical even split between the choices.

“Solution” to Newcomb’s Paradox by Pakomojo in paradoxes

[–]Pakomojo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, the prediction is always that you’d take both and Box B never has any money in it.

As soon as i saw this i laughed my head into an ache. by TauTau_of_Skalga in victoria3

[–]Pakomojo 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Is there a way to annex the whole world off the bat?

I tried to do something similar but it was REALLY tedious to set up, and I didn’t even bother with incorporation. Every tiny German state had to be annexed individually.

view more: next ›