Newcomb's Paradox

Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
141

There is no prediction for the clone. It’s just asked to make a choice and then destroyed. Its answer is the prediction for your game.

You said I could be the clone, how could I be the clone and play the game if I don’t play the game. But whatever.

Then your clone will almost certainly reason the same way, and so you will almost certainly walk away with $1,000.

Whereas I will choose to one-box, my clone will almost certainly reason the same way, and so I will almost certainly walk away with $1,000,000.

Indeed but this doesn’t disprove what I say. Your clone already reasoned and came to either one-box or two-box. If your clone came to one-box, then you should two-box and gain $1000 more. If your clone came to two-box then you should two-box and gain $1000 more. You believe your clone will have said one-box, fine, you should still two-box and gain $1,001,000.

The choice you make now isn’t the reason your clone decided to one-box or two-box. It’s at best your “rational profile” but in the room, you cannot affect this rational profile or the way your clone played. So two-boxing always give you $1000 more.

But let’s consider a variation: the clone makes its choice after you, but nonetheless determines the contents of your second box. Does this change your answer?

So when I choose, the content isn’t determined yet? the prediction hasn’t happened yet? But my actions now will not affect the prediction in any way?

If the answer to those three questions is yes then yeah still two-boxing. It doesn’t really change anything, the content is already virtually determined when I enter the room if the prediction is made with info only before I enter the room.

142

If you take one box, it means it’s possible or probable you were the kind of person to have the rationality profile to take one box.

If you take a strong version like “taking one box means having the rationality profile to take one box” then it collapses to a perfect predictor situation where the rationality profile already determines what you do and there is no choice.

143

We want the possibility that once you enter the room, it can go both way. If it can’t, there isn’t a choice to begin with.

144

What does you wanting that possibility have to do with anything?

The scenario is what it is. And one boxers reliably leave with more money, yet two boxers insist on being called the rational ones, insist everyone else is stupid :joy: It’s actually absurd.

145

What does you wanting that possibility have to do with anything?

Well it’s the whole premise of making a decision, to have a choice.

And one boxers reliably leave with more money, yet two boxers insist on being called the rational ones, insist everyone else is stupid :joy: It’s actually absurd.

And once we are in the room, two-boxers always leave with more money than one-boxers, yet one-boxers insist on being the correct ones, insist everyone else will be poor :joy: It’s actually absurd

146

As I keep explaining, this is misleading.

If you choose to two-box then your clone almost certainly chose (or will choose) to two-box, and so you will walk away with $1,000.

If you choose to one-box then your clone almost certainly chose (or will choose) to one-box, and so you will walk away with $1,000,000.

Given your reasoning, this will almost certainly happen:

Real Suny: my clone will one-box, so I will two-box and win $1,001,000.
Clone Suny: my clone will one-box, so I will two-box and win $1,001,000.

Given that you both two-box, the real Suny walks away with $1,000.

Whereas given my reasoning, this will almost certainly happen:

Real Michael: my clone will one-box, so I will one-box and win $1,000,000.
Clone Michael: my clone will one-box, so I will one-box and win $1,000,000.

Given that we both one-box, the real Michael walks away with $1,000,000.

147

Think about it this way. It made its choice on what you’re going to choose before you entered the room. let’s assume the bot predicted you’d chose ob. If i chose ob i get 1mil but if i chose tb i still get that 1mil and a extra $1000,so by choosing tb im better off. Now lets assume the bot predicted id choose tb. If i chose ob id still get 0 but if i chose tb id get $1000. Im always better off since i can not change the past of what the bot predicted.

148

What?

Lol what I’m saying is pretty clear. We can look at all the one boxers, look at all the two boxers, compare how much money they have… One boxers have a lot more.

Not so clear what you’re saying.

149

What’s the point of saying ‘almost certain’, you will just copy the thinking and say the clone does the same, so let’s look at the case of the perfect clone.

If the clone played in the past and is literally the same as me, it’s the same perfect predictor problem. The clone already played what I will play and there is no choice to make.

But the perfect clone case is interesting if the clone plays after. It’s possible the clone plays the same way as me because we are from the same rational profile but then there is no choice again as the rational profile will then always lead to a specific outcome. Or it’s not because of the rational profile and there is just this magical connection between me and the clone such that we’ll act the same way. Then, for all intent and purposes, I cause the clone to act and therefore I would one-box indeed because I know for a fact that this will lead to the clone one-boxing and giving me $1,000,000. The $1000 and $1,001,000 simply aren’t logically possible.

But this means the answer to my question “But my actions now will not affect the prediction in any way?” is NO so I haven’t contradicted myself here (yet).

If the clone isn’t perfect, you are doing retro-causality. The fact that I chose to two-box or one-box gives us evidence that the clone might have done the same indeed but there is no strong link, so two-boxing will give you $1000 more. I will answer the rest assuming a non-perfect clone.

If you choose to two-box then your clone almost certainly chose (or will choose) to two-box, and so you will walk away with $1,000.

If you choose to one-box then your clone almost certainly chose (or will choose) to one-box, and so you will walk away with $1,000,000.

Yes but again, you are switching situations. Either my clone chose one-box or two-box. In both of those cases, I should two-box. That I myself chose one or the other gives us potential evidence but doesn’t change the fact that the clone has already played and we are already in only one of those situations whatever decision I take myself.

Given your reasoning, this will almost certainly happen:

Indeed but we are talking about what to do in the situation presented, not a global view of how things go in general.

Given that you both two-box, the real Suny walks away with $1,000.

Given that we both one-box, the real Michael walks away with $1,000,000.

Same as before, switching scenarios. Either your clone will one-box or two-box, your decision might be evidence of what your clone did (or will do) but nonetheless it doesn’t affect what your clone did (or will do) and therefore two-boxing gives you more money in the situation.

150

Let me say it again.

In any situation described in the problem, i.e. being in the room after the prediction and having to choose between one box and two boxes, two-boxers always leave with more money than one-boxers. In fact there are only two situations, when the prediction is ‘one-box’ and when the prediction is ‘two-box’.

The fact that one-boxers have more money in general is an artifact of the rational profile that you cannot change when you are in the room, so it is meaningless for the question at hand. Saying otherwise would involve retro-causality.

151

We don’t need to change it when we’re in the room. I’m already the kind of person that one boxes. You could be too.

It feels like you’re shooting yourself in the foot just to not be a one boxer so you can call yourself “rational” despite knowing one boxers get more money. There’s not any part of you that thinks, wow, those people h have more money because of a really easily available decision, that seems like maybe it’s a rational decision… Not a single part of you thinks that? That doesn’t give you even a moment of pause? Like… maybe making the choice that consistently gets you a million might be rational?

My flabs are ghasted, not that you’re a two boxer but that you don’t seem to have any second thoughts about it, despite literally losing.

152

There’s not any part of you that thinks, wow, those people h have more money because of a really easily available decision, that seems like maybe it’s a rational decision

What decision? It can’t be taking one-box as it would imply, as I said, retro-causality. So believing one-boxing is good?

Not a single part of you thinks that? That doesn’t give you even a moment of pause? Like… maybe making the choice that consistently gets you a million might be rational?

Well, this conflates phase 1 and phase 2. I am all for appearing as a one-boxer before the game or even changing your rational profile if you can. That is the choice that gives you the million, it is the rational thing to do even. So I am not sure what you think I believe.

What I don’t understand is one-boxers who insist that in the room, you should one-box when everything has already been decided and you can just take all the money but shouldn’t.

153

No, taking one box is just taking one box. It’s not magic.

154

yeah and taking one box isn’t the decision that makes it so there is a million dollar in the box.

155

And you see all the people who one boxed with a million, and you see all the people who two boxed with only a thousand, and you still don’t second guess that at all?

I don’t think that’s rational. I don’t think holding to your guns despite seeing the massive success of the alternative choice - which is, I stress, a choice available to you that you can make - is rational

I think calling it rational at this point is a massive cope of some kind.

Don’t cope. One box and get the million. A million is better than coping.

156

Are you saying taking one box is the decision that makes it so there is a million dollar in the box?

157

I’m saying one boxers have a million, so be a one boxer

158

I pick one box and I get $0. What does that tell you?

159

Unlucky mate, maybe next time. Wipes away tears with my own cash

160

Seriously though, some small few will be unlucky. Whatever. Hell I’ll give you a thousand out of my million to make you feel better.