>Newcomb's problem: A predictor who has been highly accurate at anticipating people's behavior in this scenario presents two boxes. Box A is transparent and contains $1,000. Box B is opaque and contains either $1,000,000 or nothing, depending on what the predictor expected you to do. If they expected you to take only Box B, they put $1M in it. If they expected you to take both, they left it empty. The boxes are already filled before you choose.>You can take both boxes, or only Box B. What do you do?If you one box in Newcomb's problem you should be legally viewed as mentally challenged.There's no coherent reason to one box. EDT is fallacious crankery. Two boxers will always end up richer under the conditions of the problem.One boxers think their actions can influence the past in a retrocausal way. They have the mentality of a children or a person with psychosis.EDT is nonsense because it assumes you have a probability distribution on your own actions, those exact actions that you're trying to use the probability distribution to decide. It presupposes you can calculate P(your own choice is X) as an actual concrete number to decide your actual concrete choice. That is the most retarded shit imaginable. Two boxers of course won't tell you this because they don't understand the math they pretend to use, because they are mathematically and philosophically illiterate idiots.
The most convincing argument I know for 1-box is that you don't know if you're the real you or a temporary simulation by the predictor. If there's a 50% chance you're the simulation, it could make sense to take one box so that the real version gets the million. Of course this hinges on all sorts of questions, like whether the simulation would be conscious, and whether such a simulation would have any interest in granting the person it was based on the money.
What does the predictor do if he predicts you'll use a coin to decide?
Okay but I'm still picking box B and walk away a millionaire
>>16966779Yes, only people that don't think about the problem or don't understand it (are too dumb) one-box.The predictor will NOT warp out the $1000 bill out of the box. It's a predictor, not a Star Trek teleporter.
Here's a version that is a bit easier to grok, I think:If the AI predicted you'd one one box, there's $1m in box A.If the AI predicted you'd two box, there's a bomb in box A.
>>16966779two-boxers don't understand the concept of epistemic regretpick one box: potentially miss out on $1,000pick two boxes: potentially miss out on $1,000,000even the tiniest probability that the predictor is genuinely accurate means you one-box.
>>16966779This is a thought experiment designed to cause pointless arguments because it wouldn't happen in real life. It's like arguing over who would win in a fight between Superman and Goku.
>>16966796He predicts the starting face and the amount of force you'll use to flip said coin.
>>16967105To generate "pure" or true randomness, you must rely on uncontrollable, unpredictable physical phenomena rather than mathematical formulas (which only produce pseudo-random numbers).I'll get the weather app up and generate a random number and use it to select the box.
>>16966779Would two-boxers also two box if the transparent box contained not $1k but $100? $10? $0? A used condom? A bomb that will detonate when they pick up the box? At which point would they consider the gain compared to $1M to be irrelevant to even bother with?
>>16967064>epistemic regretAI brain rot.
>>16967102>i-i dun like thinking about hypotheticals becuz its too HARD!!!!
>>16966779>choose only box B>get $1MM or nothing>choose both boxes>get $1,001,000 or $1000Hm yes tough decision.
>>16967350>It's 50/50 cuz either it do or it don't
>>16966993The problem states that there's something making a 100% accurate prediction about what you will do. That thing is what's important here.>>16966779>One boxers think their actions can influence the past in a retrocausal way.It can. That's the premise. The thing making the prediction is magic. Whatever you choose that's what it will predict, you can think of it as being in the future at the point you decide, then goes back in time to set up the boxes.
>>16967362>It can. That's the premise. The thing making the prediction is magic. Whatever you choose that's what it will predict, you can think of it as being in the future at the point you decide, then goes back in time to set up the boxes.That's not part of the premise. Only that it has a, let's say, 100% accuracy of being right.It can't do anything else beside predicting. It can't rearrange the contents of the boxes after the fact. One boxers get filtered by this fact: they are unable to think physically.
>>16967420It results from the premise. How else would you get a 100% accuracy than it being magic?
>>16967420Like it sounds like you're saying that when the prediction is 100% guaranteed to be right, you still think you're gonna fool it by taking both boxes, which is delusional.
>>16967465>>16967462The experiment is meant to demonstrate via a philosophical technique called "reductio ad absurdum" as well as contradiction, that the 100% accuracy can therefore not be correct, precisely because it would imply the predictor can retrocausally affect the past.That's the entire idea.
>>16966779>think their actions can influence the past in a retrocausal wayNo. I made up my mind first. Then the predictor figured it out. Then you asked me your stupid question. Then I found out about my choice for your stupid question. It seems like I chose one box. And now you know too.
>>16967320OK then explain a realistic mechanism for it to be reliably making two-boxers walk away with $1000 despite the fact that it can't alter the past. Go ahead, do some "hard thinking".
>>16967527reading their forum posts
>>16967527mind control
>>16966779so roko's box-ilisk?
>>16966779>EDT is fallacious crankerywhy would Eastern Daylight Time be fallacious crankery?
>>16967697Because daylight savings are an outdated, pointless practice that should be abandoned.
