# 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:** 348

<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 13, 2026, 2:46pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/newcombs-paradox/298/348 "2026-03-13T14:46:51Z")

</div>

> [@Sime](#):
>
> Personally, I do not know and am not qualified to make a principled distinction of what is or is not a decohered physical state with a definite history

Even if you go so far as to interpret the wave-collapsing measurement in Quantum Mechanics as necessarily being conscious perception by a lifeform (which is _not_ the normal stance), then the wave function of those $1M has **already been collapsed** (not that it was in a superposition in the first place), because the predictor had to grab those $1M and stuff them in the Box 2. Or maybe the predictor’s assistant. Or, alternatively, the predictor had to grab a fistful of air, and stuff it into Box 2. Doesn’t matter.

Researches hit a record of putting 6,100 qubits in a superpositional state in 2026 ([source](https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-team-sets-record-with-6100-qubit-array#:~:text=Quantum%20computers%20will%20need%20large,used%20in%20the%20new%20study.)). That’s 6,100 atoms.

**In a SINGLE dollar bill, there is roughly 10^{22} to 10^{23} atoms.** ([source](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174569/how-many-atoms-are-in-a-piece-of-paper#:~:text=2%20Answers,ecule.))

You are engaging in deepity here, my friend. There is no wiggle room. There is absolutely no reason to think quantum shenanigans are happening in this thought experiment. We live in the macroscopic world, not the nanoscopic world.

You are basically saying, “If we violate the laws of physics, then one-boxing works!” Okay great, you just said one-boxing doesn’t work then. You’re a two-boxer, just say that.

> [@Sime](#):
>
> Personally, I do not know and am not qualified (…)

This was the smartest thing you said in your post.

> [@Sime](#):
>
> On the other hand, in terms of qubits of polarised photons, it is possible for a predictor to create a quantum state that encodes only the diagonal outcomes of Newcomb’s pay off matrix.

Blah-blah-blah. If those qubits are going to determine whether the $1M is in Box 2, **THEY HAVE TO BE ENTANGLED WITH THE $1M.** But that would require putting ONE FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS INTO A SUPERPOSITION.

If you have way to do that, please let me know, and we won’t be millionaires, we’ll be trillionaires.

There is no getting around that, **because the crux of the the Newcomb Problem is that the $1M has ALREADY been (or not been) administered to the participant.** The only way to make that administering go into a superpositional state is to make the actual $1M go into a superpositional state. Impossible with our current physics.

---

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