# Newcomb's Paradox

**URL:** <https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/newcombs-paradox/298>\
**Category:** Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics\
**Created:** [March 11, 2026, 3:09am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/newcombs-paradox/298 "2026-03-11T03:09:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 232

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AlveK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/alvek/32/594_2.png) [@AlveK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/AlveK)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2026, 3:28pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/newcombs-paradox/298/232 "2026-03-12T15:28:23Z")

</div>

Being a CDT theorist makes me **probably lose** Phase 1 of Version 1 of the Newcomb Game.

Being a CDT theorist makes me **definitely win** Phase 2 of the Newcomb Game.

Being a CDT theorist means I **uphold a truthful understanding** of _causality_, and of _correlation v. causation_.

Being a CDT theorist **helps me win in so many games.**

Being a CDT theorist **helps me win over** EDT / FDT / LDT whenever _ **not** _ conflating correlation and causation is necessary to win.

Being a CDT theorist is **worth it** , _despite_ the fact that I **lose** in _some_ versions of the Newcomb Game, a hypothetical, contrived game literally designed to challenge our notions of rationality.

Can you say the same, OBs? With your theory of decision-making: if you contort and bend it to allow you to **probably win those 1 million in Phase 1** … are you winning in the rest of life with such a departure from truth?

@Suny , @Michael , @FlannelJesus , @Pseudonym , @noAxioms , @Pierre-Normand , @Patterner

---

_[View the full topic](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/newcombs-paradox/298)._