Newcomb's Paradox - the modern version of the determinism vs non-determinism

[Skepdick]

Yeah, you're right. But those who are blind cannot see.

Apparently blindness isn't your only problem.

Can't even tell right and wrong apart.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's right to one-box, determinist or not.

But if you're blind and don't know the difference between right and wrong, you won't see that.

(can we stop this whole "blind" passive agressive bullshit yet please skepdick? we can maybe just chat about why we think what we think without the childish nonsense, I'll stop when you stop)

[Skepdick]

(can we stop this whole "blind" passive agressive bullshit yet please skepdick? we can maybe just chat about why we think what we think without the childish nonsense, I'll stop when you stop)

It's not passive aggressive. You are actually an idiot.

This is not true...

It's right to one-box, determinist or not.

Because...

You can't simultaneously believe:

* The boxes have definite contents prior to you choosing
* Your choice cannot affect the definite contents of the boxes.
* You should one-box

[phyllo]

The boxes have a definite state that your choice cannot alter.

Either the opaque box is empty; or it's not empty. By taking both you'll get $1000 over whatever's already in the opaque box.

If that's the case, then the situation is :

Some dingbat put $1000 in a clear box and maybe a million dollars or maybe nothing in an opaque box.

You can pick one box or both.

Obviously, pick both boxes because you get either $1000 or $1000 plus one million.

But the way you worded the problem suggests that somehow in the future, a million dollars will be inserted or teleported into the opaque box based on the selection you have made.

Specifically this phrase ... "If Omega had already predicted you'll take only Box B, they will put $1,000,000 in it." ... suggests some future change in the state of the opaque box.
What you are now saying is ... "If Omega had already predicted you'll take only Box B, Omega had put $1,000,000 in it.

[Skepdick]

But the way you worded the problem suggests that somehow in the future, a million dollars will be inserted or teleported into the opaque box based on the selection you have made.

Specifically this phrase ... "If Omega had already predicted you'll take only Box B, they will put $1,000,000 in it before you get to make your choice" ... suggests some future change in the state of the opaque box.
What you are now saying is ... "If Omega had already predicted you'll take only Box B, Omega had put $1,000,000 in it.

Let me help your confusion. See the additional clarification in red.

To simplify this is the order of events:

1. Omega makes prediction about you.
2. Omega puts money in the boxes.
3. Omega places boxes before you.
4. You choose.

[Flannel Jesus]

(can we stop this whole "blind" passive agressive bullshit yet please skepdick? we can maybe just chat about why we think what we think without the childish nonsense, I'll stop when you stop)

It's not passive aggressive. You are actually an idiot.

k idiot

[Flannel Jesus]

The distinction between the two arguments has nothing to do with determinism vs indeterminism. An indeterminist may also reason that the future can't affect the past, that taking both boxes will always give me $1,000 more than taking just Box B. And on the other side of the coin, I can point you to thousands of determinists who would one-box.

Do indeterminists think the future can affect the past? That's not my view of them. And in fact retrocausality can itself be deterministic.

I don't think the two arguments should be labeled 'non-determinist' and 'determinist' for those reasons.

Agree with all of this. I don't see a paradox at all, and I don't see where it matters if one is a determinist or not.

Take the one box since all that do so have more money than those that choose both. That's the obvious choice regardless of what sort of xxx-ist one considers himself to be.


Side note: Determinism is not incompatible with retro-causality, but I don't see retro-causality playing any role in this supposed 'paradox'.

Anyway, back to chatting with non-idiots:

The best argument for one-boxing seems to me to be, that rationality is about *winning* and one-boxers historically win more often (or, 100% of the time). So, in general, --being the kind of person who one-boxes-- gets you the bigger prize, and --being the kind of person who two-boxes-- gets you the smaller prize, and you can't be the kind of person who one-boxes without one-boxing.

[Skepdick]

k idiot

Not much of an insult coming from an empty vessel who can't address the contradiction in their argument.

[Flannel Jesus]

k idiot

Not much of an insult coming from an empty vessel who can't address the contradiction in their argument.

Not much coming from you who literally responded to me with insults instead of talking to me about ideas like a grown up. Cry more idiot.

[Skepdick]

Anyway, back to chatting with non-idiots:

So that's two idiots chatting then?

The best argument for one-boxing seems to me to be, that rationality is about *winning* and one-boxers historically win more often (or, 100% of the time). So, in general, --being the kind of person who one-boxes-- gets you the bigger prize, and --being the kind of person who two-boxes-- gets you the smaller prize, and you can't be the kind of person who one-boxes without one-boxing.

If you want to one-box - fine. But then you can't hold onto realism/causality in your metaphysic.
You can't simultaneously believe:

* The boxes have definite contents prior to you choosing
* Your choice cannot affect the definite contents of the boxes.
* You should one-box

[Skepdick]

k idiot

Not much of an insult coming from an empty vessel who can't address the contradiction in their argument.

Not much coming from you who literally responded to me with insults instead of talking to me about ideas like a grown up. Cry more idiot.

Why are you lying? There's no "instead".

I did both of those things. Insulted you (because you are an idiot) AND gave you a grown up answer.

Try doing both.

[Flannel Jesus]

Idiot wants to yap without addressing what I said. Keep yapping cry baby idiot.

[Skepdick]

Idiot wants to yap without addressing what I said. Keep yapping cry baby idiot.

Are you yapping because you failed to comprehend the address?

Must be. Because you aren an idiot.

[Flannel Jesus]

Look how fucking stupid these conversations get. Skepdick is a magnet for this low brain bullshit. No ideas, just idiot idiot idiot. What an idiot.

[Skepdick]

Look how fucking stupid these conversations get. Skepdick is a magnet for this low brain bullshit. No ideas, just idiot idiot idiot. What an idiot.

You skillfully side-stepped all the ideas.

LIke an idiot. That's why these conversations get stupid.

Good job!

If I am a magnet for low brain bullshit...I'd like to know how to repel you next time.