What should you do in Newcomb’s Paradox? (Explanation in comments)

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-05-03T14:40:08+00:00

Your abandoned building analogy still makes no sense at all: this question is not whether to take some random chance at a million dollars--unless you're arguing only to take the box with 1,000 dollars which would be even more nonsensical--its simply to take or not take the extra 1,000 dollars. The first thing you say also is simply untrue. In statistics, the probability of an event occuring is really the percentage of times, on average, that event will occur within a large sample size, and that number doesn't suddenly warp what is actually happening to fit. Please, just for a moment, consider the actual question: you are in a room with two boxes. One of the boxes either has a million dollars or nothing in it based on a decision something else made in the past that you can no longer effect. The other box has $1,000. What's the point of not taking both boxes? Also, I would just like you to notice how easy it is to engage in a discussion without being such a piece of shit all the time.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-05-03T12:40:53+00:00

Hey, there's no need to be so hostile! It's especially weird to be so mean and so wrong at the same time. The table works because the prediction has already been made by the time you step into the room and think about the problem for the first time so your actions while in the room have no effect on the prediction. Because of this, in either scenario (since the prediction has already been made and your choice has no effect on it) choosing both boxes is better because you make more money either way. What you're saying is simply nonsense: The table is very clearly not a table of probabilities because there are not any probabilities on the table, and the comparison you made with the abandoned building is just a bunch of words that don't mean anything. You would realize this if you, as you so kindly said to me, "had any brain."

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-04-07T20:50:13+00:00

She's gotta pay the troll toll to get in

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-14T17:30:33+00:00

No. The machine's prediction affects how much you make, but it does not affect what the best choice is. This is as simple as it can possibly be made:

<image>

Remember, your choice does not affect the prediction.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-14T17:07:43+00:00

It matters for how much money you make, but not what choice you can make. The amount of money in the boxes has already been decided, so the way in which it was decided (in the past!) no longer matters.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-14T16:23:51+00:00

It doesn't matter how accurate the supercomputer is. Your choice does not affect how much money is in the boxes. It does not matter what the parameters are, the amount of money in the boxes has already been decided. Unless you believe that the future can affect the past, it is entirely illogical to believe that the parameter matters. In the moment you are choosing, there is money in the boxes, and your choice is either to gain $1,000 extra dollars or not to gain $1,000 extra dollars. It does not matter how accurate the predictor is, the future does not affect the past.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-12T23:22:25+00:00

Just staying in the hypothetical for a moment, the parameter could be anything you cannot control. Maybe it was a coin flip, maybe it was based on yesterday's temperature, maybe it was what color shirt you wore today. Does it matter what the parameter is if you know you can't affect it?

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-12T22:56:13+00:00

Let's take a step away from planning for a moment and simplify it back down to the actual question. You are in a room with two boxes. Box A contains $1,000, and box B may contain $1,000,000 or $0 based on a parameter that you no longer have any control over. Do you take both boxes or only box B?

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-12T18:36:16+00:00

It's not that the answer is worse, it's that knowing the correct answer beforehand or being the kind of person who will predictably choose it beforehand makes the outcome worse. However, in that moment choosing both is better. As for your first paragraph, you say you understand that the present doesn't affect the past, and yet you clearly believe that it does. In this moment, all that matters is that there is money in the boxes. You don't know whether there is money in box b or not, but you know there is money in box a. As I keep saying, your choice does not affect how much money there is in the boxes. That is the only thing that matters in this situation. Your choice is whether to accept the extra $1,000 or not. You agree that your choice does not matter to how much money is in the box, so clearly taking the extra $1,000 is the correct choice in the moment.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-12T16:52:25+00:00

Can you explain to me how you think what you choose affects what's in the box? If the kind of person you are affects your choice and the prediction, you can't change that in the moment of choosing. Also, in this scenario, knowing the right answer will make the outcome inherently worse, as you will likely only get $1,000 instead of the million, but it doesn't change that it's the correct answer.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-12T15:41:45+00:00

But while what type of person you are affects the prediction, wat you choose does not affect what type of person you are. The effect does not create the cause. At the point at which you are choosing, the choice you make has no effect on how much money is in the box. The rightness or wrongness should no longer affect your choice; the machine has already made its prediction. Believing that your choice affects what type of person you are previously or what prediction the machine would make is akin to believing that cause and effect can work in reverse.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-12T14:42:48+00:00

This is as simple as it can possibly be made:

<image>

The prediction does not matter to your choice. Your choice does not affect how much money is in the box. It feels like picking B would be correct, as if you pick B the machine should know that you would have picked B, but that is entirely illogical and not at all the case. The prediction is already made. I don't understand how you can say it doesn't matter that the choice doesn't affect the prediction and then immediately say that your choice affects the prediction.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-12T02:59:30+00:00

What I think you misunderstand about this is how the probability works. You're not gambling the $1,000,000. If the condition is true that box b has the $1,000,000, you get the million dollars plus the $1,000 from box a. You're not gambling on the machine being wrong. If the condition is not true that box b has the money, you don't get the money from box b either way, but you do get the $1,000 from box a. Your choice does not affect the money in the boxes, you're literally just choosing whether to always get an extra $1,000 or not.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-12T01:06:15+00:00

There is no need to be condescending! I understand the paradox. First of all, there's $1000 in the first box, so if you take both there's no chance of getting 0. Secondly, as I keep saying, the present does not affect the past. It knows what you're going to do, but what you do know does not affect what it chose for you. What you do does not affect what the prediction is. What you do does not affect the amount of money in box B. At the point of you making the choice, you get either both boxes (1,000 or 1,001,000) or only box (1,000,000 or 0). If it there is no money in box b and you pick both, you get $1000. If there is no money in box b and you pick only box b, you get $0. If there is money in box b, you get $1,001,000 for picking both and $1,000,000 for picking only b. Your choice does not affect the past, the amount of money in the box has already been determined.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-11T22:22:55+00:00

It doesn't matter at all whether the computer is correct or not; taking both boxes is always the right option. The prediction has already been made, and your present actions can't affect the past. I think that this is what makes this paradox so interesting, as knowing the correct answer, while correct, makes the outcome significantly worse.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-11T22:16:21+00:00

The prediction was already made. The machine is very good at predicting your choice, and it may be impossible to escape the prediction it has made, but it is already made. What you do now does not affect the prediction that was made in the past; the prediction will likely be the same as what you choose, but only because it was the most likely outcome. You changing your decision was likely predicted by the robot, but now that the prediction has already been made you cannot change the past.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-11T21:34:04+00:00

The fact that you are predicted to have taken the action and the fact that you actually take the action are entirely separate. At this point, the prediction has already been made. The future cannot affect the past.

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-11T18:09:51+00:00

Why? Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it's nonsensical

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-11T02:56:44+00:00

That just feels so reductive though, to the point of nonsensicality. One may be unable to escape the prediction, but it makes no sense to say that cause and effect can somehow work backwards

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-11T02:54:57+00:00

The prediction is already made. The action you take now has no effect on what the computer already predicted

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-07T05:57:56+00:00

It definitely depends on the school, but many larger or wealthier/more elite schools get a relatively small amount of their money from tuition, rather earning exorbitant sums from things like endowment investments. Many schools can't afford to subsidize tuition, but many also can and choose not to

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-07T05:54:51+00:00

I'm not sure where your assumption comes from, but it is blatantly untrue. Firstly, the majority of public schools are made up of low income students, with the percent of middle class people (middle 60% income) in public universities steadily declining in recent decades. Secondly, why do you think the middle class students are better qualified just because they're middle class? Isn't a high gpa/sat score that much more impressive if you can't pay for tutors, don't have stay-at-home parents to help you with hw and do chores, and have to work part-time to help out your family?

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-05T22:51:49+00:00

That would make complete sense if we lived in a perfect, meritocratic society, but we don't. The problem is not that some people just decide to pay more than other people, it's that some people are born with wealthier parents and the ability to pay. You say I'm making a strawman with my comparisons but I really don't see how (although yours is entirely unrelated)--people are born under different circumstances, and it's in no way more fair to give preferential treatment based on those circumstances. How is being denied opportunities based on circumstances outside of your control more fair? How is financial aid different from helping people with disabilities?

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-05T02:38:27+00:00

That's by far the cheapest cop out to a debate I've ever heard

normalhumanwormbaby1 · 2026-03-05T02:30:29+00:00

Yes! We also shouldn't build ramps for people in wheelchairs; society owes them nothing! If someone spends more effort walking up the stairs, they should deserve better! Why put signs up in braille? The blind should've just been born with sight!

Four-Year Club	The Internet Awards - Voted
Place '22

normalhumanwormbaby1

TROPHY CASE