
Newcomb's problem divides philosophers. Which side are you on? - CarolineW
https://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2016/nov/28/newcombs-problem-divides-philosophers-which-side-are-you-on
======
CarolineW
The thing I find interesting is this. For each possible choice there is a
single, simple, iron-clad line of reasoning to say that it's the right choice,
and people always seem to thing that the other line of reasoning is bunk, and
people who espouse it are stupid.

It will be interesting to see the results of the poll.

------
bumbledraven
To clarify the problem, consider this variation: instead of going into the
room yourself, you are to write a program which will output either 1 or 2,
corresponding to the number of boxes you take. The super-intelligent being
will analyze your program before putting money in the boxes, and will then run
it to determine your action.

How should you write the program in order to maximize your expected return?

------
danieltillett
Another example of the intellectual bankruptcy of modern philosophy. I dispare
when we have real philosophical problems to work on that intelligent people
waste their time in semantic arguments over impossible beings.

~~~
Cozumel
Way to miss the point! lol

~~~
danieltillett
No. You might find reading more about this particular 'problem' worthwhile [1]
especially the part about its applicability in the real world.

1\.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox)

~~~
Cozumel
It has plenty of real world applications, the fact that you don't understand
them doesn't disqualify them. The only 'intellectual bankruptcy' displayed
here is yours, and please don't EVER use wikipedia as a source, it
demonstrates that 1, that's your only source of information and 2, your
knowledge on the subject extends only to a 30 second wiki read.

~~~
danieltillett
Can we keep the personal attacks down - you have no idea what my understanding
or background is. We can disagree civilly about the importance of this thought
experiment without questioning each other's intentions and competency.

As for wiki it is a convenient resource for a simplified summary of issues.
You are not the only person I am addressing by writing.

More importantly have you have not addressed the problem that a Predictor is
immpossible in the real world. Any philosophical discussions that have at
their core an impossible being are 'intellectually bankrupt'.

------
Cozumel
Box B? There's no point taking both boxes, you take Box B, the intelligence
knows you'll take Box B so it gives you a million dollars. Maybe I'm missing
something but it seems pretty simple!

~~~
lifeformed
Okay, so you're sure there's a million dollars in Box B. Why not grab A as
well?

------
Terr_
What's the expected-value of surprising and "beating" a god?

