lol. because of the conditions offered. if the guy can lie about the being, then why isn't he lying about the 1000? even though you can see it doesnt' mean you'll get it. picking both boxes eliminates the chance at the million if he's not lying. if you believe he's telling the truth about the thousand, why not risk the thousand for the chance at the million? EDIT: the being "knows", according to the man you tentatively believe (the offeror) that you're smart enough to pick the most profitable solution, which must be the million, or he'd know you were going to choose both and short you the million... so faith tested reveals truth (whether or not you get the money) and gains you no information about the hypothetical being. it only tells you that when you opened it there was or wasn't money in the opaque box.... if you think he's lying about the being but not about the thousand, then both boxes is the better choice. if you think he doesn't intend on giving you anything really, but you want the entertainment, picking the opaque box is the better choice. no? Am I retarded?
Qwerty Mob: Raystown Lake is in Hunterdon County which is about 150-200 miles from Huntingdon Valley, although i am familiar with the area. Others: I made a stupid typo in one of my most recent posts to this thread. I hope it was recognized as such.
To be perfectly honest, I don't like paradoxes and am really not into this. To be even more honest, I've lost the desire to think at all. This hurts my brainpan. Sorry.
If you choose to believe you'll actually get the money based on an assumption the offeror proposes, why do you choose not to believe the being is as he says? Why? Is one less plausible than the other? Logically? If I believe people don't normally behave that way (as in, people don't normally hand out large sums of money for no personal gain), but I'm catholic, he's the pope and tells me jesus wants me rich... I'll choose accordingly. The argument in defense of one actions given the scenario is necessarily based on their judgement of whatever they see in the scenario (like how far to trust the offeror, or how much of a sucker he is, or whatever they percieve to be of concern at the time), which doesn't necessarily have a logical foundation. So logic only applies to the analysis as much as the person undergoing the test uses it... in their style, based on their world-view (meaning a resultant of their presumptions). Therefore, it is entirely defensible and entirely baseless, depending on your POV. Edit: And further: IF we are to examine the problem logically, we must accept the assumptions and follow them to their logical conclusion. As such, choosing the opaque box is gets you the most money. If more money is the profit goal, then choosing the opaque box is the correct choice. If you want to question the assumptions, that's an entirely different argument isn't it?
No, you are not, but I think I am. Stil, the paradox is ..... . I really couldn't find any paradox here. Only some religion moral. Should I be a theist in order to see the paradox ?
Great quote from Asimov. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! He was an extremely intelligent man. Personally, I would choose box 2. For a number of reasons. 1. As one person said, $1M would really make a difference, so there's simply the willingness to gamble. 2. If this being is nearly always correct, then he'll know I would choose box 2. Also, if I were to choose both, he would know that and NOT put the $1M into box 2. 3. It's all hypothetical anyway, so why not take 2?
Bruce In Time: In Martin Gardiner’s columns on this subject, he stated that both points of view have a logical basis. He further claimed that the paradox is not resolved unless you can refute the logical basis supporting the opposing view. He mentioned that most who consider the problem choose a point of view and stay with it. If presented with the opposing view, they merely restate the reasons for their view. Sometimes the restatement uses a different description of the same argument. Sometimes the description is the same, but a louder tone of voice is used. The view opposed to yours is as follows. No matter what is in the opaque box, you will get an extra thousand if you take both boxes. Zero plus one thousand is better than zero. One million plus one thousand is better than one million. Note that the box was loaded before you were given the choice, and reverse causality is not involved. An independent observer could see into the opaque box from the rear. In every case this observer said he rooted for the person to take both boxes. He said: "Why should anybody give up the extra up the extra thousand dollars?" Suppose the transparent box contained $500,000 instead of merely one thousand. Would you still take only the opaque box? Would you take only the opaque box if the transparent box contained $995,000? If the amount in the transparent box would change your choice, the logic of your view is shakey, if not refuted. In a previous post, I stated that I view the problem to be truly paradoxical. Due to this view, I consider the problem to be a reductio ad absurdum proof that the predicting entity can not exist. Id est: In some sense the problem asks an invalid question which does not have an answer. It is like trying to assign a truth value to the statement: "Every statement I make is false."
Actually the paradox has nothing to do with the being but your own thinking. See they tell you the box was loaded the day before so as their to be no cuasality. But there is. Whatever decision you were about to make is no influnce wheter or not you believe in this being or not. In fact even if you claim that it would not affect you decision it does becuase you might be like Asimove and choose both boxes and see it as a rebuttal against that being.
Dinosaur, I appreciate your intelligent response. I'm going to reread the problem description and think some more and then I'll try to answer your points. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I would select only Box II. If there were 500,000 USD in Box I, then I would choose both. But in neither case does this appear to be a true paradox...it is simply, like many things in day-to-day life, a situational scenario that requires an interjection of subjective considerations. If I was starving poor, for example, I might well consider choosing both boxes for the easy thousand. It all comes down to how much one wishes to gamble.
That's my thinking exactly. A thousand bucks? Big deal. Of course I'd risk a thousand to gain a million. If this omniscient being knows me at all, it knows I'd go for the million. The basic question is: Would you give up a guaranteed thousand dollars for the chance to get a million? What the hell, you're playing with the houses money anyway, go for it! With all due respect for Asimov, I don't find the ability to predict that someone would allow you to give him a miliion bucks that intimidating.
Ah ah ah! It ain't that easy. RESOLUTION TO NEWCOMB'S PARADOX by Chris Langan http://megasociety.org/noesis/44/newcomb.html I have no idea what it means but I think it works. This is all written by Langan himself http://www.megasociety.net/noesis/63.htm
Haha... well, you can make it as complicated as you like. He assumed a lot of things about me ('you' as he puts it). If the ND showed me repeatedly he could outsmart me, I'd clearly make the simple choice to maximize my profit. So I'd say it can be as simple or complicated as you like.
Funny, I just read down to the part where my "not so simple" answer is entirely in agreement with the results of his symbolic/computational analysis: " whatever self-interest remains to you will make you take the black box only. (Q.E.D.) " HA!
I still like my interpretation of this problem. There is no way to refute the logic leading to opposite choices. This constitutes a reducto ad absurdem proof that you will never be faced with this problem because the entity predicting your decision cannot exist. BTW: Do any here think this situation can occur?
No one is denying that the fictional situation is fictional. I suspect the resolution has implications beyong mere philosophical musings however. The importance of the problem lies not in its practicality but its theoretical application to logic. Not sure but I think I heard Langan worked it into his CTMU. Im not one to put any stock in it cause the guy has a 195 IQ though. But many people do.
How many of those who would take only the unkown box would take both boxes if the transparent box contained 950,000 instead of 1000?
