From bddda1613c461aa96a3f5ee01b48f2456cdd6c62 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bryan Newbold Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:55:11 -0800 Subject: more tmp and misc stuff to scratch --- misc/newcomb-paradox.page | 69 ----------------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 69 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 misc/newcomb-paradox.page (limited to 'misc/newcomb-paradox.page') diff --git a/misc/newcomb-paradox.page b/misc/newcomb-paradox.page deleted file mode 100644 index 58ace89..0000000 --- a/misc/newcomb-paradox.page +++ /dev/null @@ -1,69 +0,0 @@ ---- -format: rst -toc: no -... -================== -Newcomb's Dialemma -================== - -Newcomb's paradox was thought up by a researcher named Newcomb; it was first -explored and written up by Robert Nozick in the 1969 paper -"Newcomb's Problem and Two principles of Choice". - -The Situation -------------- -As narrated by an all knowing "predictor":: - - I am going to give you a choice. It is important to know that I really - pretty much know what you are going to do. I have been watching their whole - life and am additionally an immortal being; i've been doing this a long - time and always guess correctly. It's also important to know that I am - unbiased and don't care which decision you make, I have nothing to gain - either way. - - Here are two boxes: a large and a small. The small has a 10 shekel coin - in it (show everybody). The large one may or may not have a thousand - shekels in it; you don't know. Your choice is to either take only the - large box or to take both the large and small boxes. The twist is that - I already knew which decision you will make and decided whether or not - to put the $1000 in the large box or not based on that knowledge. - If I knew you would "two box", then I left the large box empty. If I knew - you would "one box" then I filled it. - -Dominance Mindset ------------------ -Regardless of what decision was made previously, and whether or not there -is anything in the large box, the person is better off taking both boxes; -either they will get just $10 (better than none) or $1010 (better -than $1000). So two-box. - -Trusting Mindset ----------------- -The predictor is pretty much always right so we can just ignore the -possibility that they are wrong. In this case, choosing to one-box -implies that the Predictor knew you would and you get $1000; -choosing to two-box implies that the predictor knew you would and you -only get $10. - -The predictor doesn't even have to be perfectly accurate; say they are -90%: -If you one-box, your expected value is $900. -If you two-box, your expected value is $110. - -Discussion ----------- -It's disputed whether this is a paradox, and there are many deeper arguments -that I don't have time to go into here. Ultimately, I am a one-boxer -though this is something of a minority position. - -Afterword ---------- -The person who taught me this paradox, Professor Augustin Rayo, a -two-boxer, then had this to add. He was talking with his one-boxing friend -and accused her of letting irrationality undermine her logic: she is so -optimistic that if a statement S is unprovable, but it would be nicer if S -was true than false, then she pretens that S is proven. So basically, even -though there is no rationalization, she will accept a statement "just -because it would be nice", and this isn't how logic works. To which she -replied "but wouldn't it be nice if it was?". - -- cgit v1.2.3