Take the closed box, because if he guesses wrong, you win a million dollars.
I agree this is not a paradox but a dilemma.
Either you didn't read my explanation at the bottom of page 4 or you don't know the definitions of a paradox and a dilemma. This is clearly not a dilemma, as the term is understood.
Again, if your desire is to maximize utility (money) and you want to use decision theory, then there is a paradox as I've already explained.
Solution 1: Take both boxes The maximal utility here would be to have the opportunity to make $1,001,000, and the only way to do this is to take both boxes. Thus, I have overwhelming reason to take both boxes. But knowing the being has very likely predicted this, I have overwhelming reason to only take the closed box. But if the being has predicted this, I now have overwhelming reason to take both boxes - and so on. So if this strategy returns "Take both boxes" as true, it ends up being false (and then true and then false again...)
Solution 2: Take the closed box
In this case, I would expect there to be $1,000,000 in the closed box. But there would also be another $1,000 in the other box. So if I decide to take the closed box to achieve maximum utility, I would then have to decide to take both boxes. Thus "Take both boxes" under this interpretation is false. But then it becomes true and false and true and so on...
It is a determinist event. The being is predetermined to choose the correct choice. We are assuming that his prediction is always right. Therefore, his prediction is completely independent of the choice you make. If you're thinking of choosing the closed box, then change you're decision to take both boxes, the being's prediction should not have changed, it stays constant.
Thus, the choice you make does not at all affect the being or the situation. If you the the closed box, you will forfeit the 1 million because he will be right. If you take the both boxes, you again will again forfeit the 1 million, but will be left with 1000.
I have a way to prove this scientifically. In programming I would lay this situation out like this
bool beingsdecision = true; int openbox = 1000; int closebox; bool yourdecision; int income;
int closedbox(); int bothboxes(); int beings_predition_true();
int main() {
cout << "What you like to: 1. Take both boxes. 2. Take the closed box"; cin >> yourdecision;
switch (yourdecision) { case 1: bothboxes(); case 2: closedbox();
} cout << income;
system("PAUSE" return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
int is_beings_predition_true() { if (beingsdecision == true) { closebox = 0; } else closebox = 1000000;
return closebox; }
int bothboxes() { beings_predition_true(); income = openbox + closebox;
return income; }
int closedbox() { beings_predition_true(); income = closebox; return income; }
Outcome: if input is both boxes: 1000 if input is closed box: 0
I would take the Closed box, since 1000 dollars, while not being few, would pale considerably in the face of 1 million dollars. If the being was lying, than i'll have learned something, if he wasn't, i'll have learned something and gotton a million dollars In either case, you have a choice, so perhaps he's predicting that you have a choice, since he has given you two different options, and of course you aren't going to walk away, when if you are playing cautiously then you would at least get 1000 dollars.
It appears as though the concept of paradoxes, especially in philosophy, may be a bit beyond the understanding and/or education of quite a few users. I see quite a few taking this out of context and failing to realize that this IS a paradox, and only is a paradox insomuch as it is applied to Decision Theory. Let's try to keep it on that vein pl0x.
It appears as though the concept of paradoxes, especially in philosophy, may be a bit beyond the understanding and/or education of quite a few users. I see quite a few taking this out of context and failing to realize that this IS a paradox, and only is a paradox insomuch as it is applied to Decision Theory. Let's try to keep it on that vein pl0x.
If its given that this is a paradox, there is nothing more to discuss. Now I suggest that you instead reply to these such users who can't comprehend this concept of paradoxes.
A paradox is defined as "a true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies logic or intuition."
This does neither. Its a solvable problem as shown. Its horribly constructed. The "decision" aspect of it poses no contradiction. Whether you take the closed box or both boxes, it changes no variables whatsoever because the being is always right. The whole argument here is based on a misunderstanding on one of our parts. This bit specifically "But knowing the being has very likely predicted this, I have overwhelming reason to only take the closed box. But if the being has predicted this, I now have overwhelming reason to take both boxes - and so on."
Yes, there is a slight paradox, but only in the decision itself. And that's given if you're not understanding the situation. This paradox only lasts until you realize that whichever box you choose, the being will have guessed it.
Which side are you taking? Closed box or Both Boxes?
Both boxes. Because that's the only way you can even get anything.
If the being's decision in omniscient, there is no use in quarreling over which choice will grant you the million dollars. Its an impossible value to receive.
I'm mostly arguing on whether this is paradox or not, which it isn't. There certainly isn't a paradox in the outcome of the problem. ie, it has a logical, non repetitive outcome.
And for any contradiction to have come in effect in the decision making, one choice would have to somehow cause a different set of circumstances in the other choice. Instead, in this situation, they are completely independent things. Choosing choice A will not in anyway alter your decision or any variables of choice B.
if u pick the 1 instead of both and the higher power thought you were going to pick that box then u get 1 million...
if you pick the 1 and the higher power thought u were going to be greedy and take both then u'll get nothing
if you pick both and the higher power thought u were going to pick just the 1 then u get 1,100,000 dollars
if you pick both and the higher power thought u were going to pick both then u just get 1000
options... 1 million + 1 thousand, 1 million, 1 thousand, or zero
what it asks is... which do u pick? does the higher power actually get what you're going to pick right? by telling you what the possible outcomes are and that it knows what you'll do change what you would've done had you not been told that
It is a determinist event. The being is predetermined to choose the correct choice.
No, it's not at all predetermined. As Nozick puts it, the being will "almost certainly" be right, but that's a far cry from a determined event.
f you the the closed box, you will forfeit the 1 million because he will be right.
Try rereading the problem. If the being predicts that you will only take the closed box, it will put 1 million in it. So, if I take the closed box and the being's prediction is accurate, then I get 1 million.
In programming I would lay this situation out like this
Your program makes the content of the boxes dependent upon whether or not the being's prediction is right. That's not how this is run at all.
This does neither. Its a solvable problem as shown.
I would encourage you once again to read my post on page 4. I explain how this is a paradox for decision theory. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it any less paradoxical. I mean, be realistic for a second: is it more likely that I (and a bunch of other philosophers) have missed the boat completely where you have succeeded, or that you simply don't understand the issue?
If the being's decision in omniscient, there is no use in quarreling over which choice will grant you the million dollars. Its an impossible value to receive.
Again, if you chose the closed box and that's what the being predicted, then you'll get 1 million.
There certainly isn't a paradox in the outcome of the problem. ie, it has a logical, non repetitive outcome.
I'm just going to stop acknowledging those responders who clearly haven't read the relevant post on page 4.
I argue that taking both boxes is not adhering to the dominance principle since the decision is not independent of the contents of the closed box. The principle of utility invalidates the dominance principle in that it proves that there is a relationship between the decision and the possible outcomes for this situation. I would therefore take only the closed box.
I'm really just condensing things that have already been said, but I think I have a very simple explanation for why this is a paradox. The point of the paradox is to get $1,001,000, correct? Well, observe:
Fact one: one box always contains 1000 dollars. Fact two: It is possible for the other box to contain one million dollars. Fact 3: You are allowed to take both boxes.
From this, we can conclude the following: 1) It is possible for there to be 1,001,000 dollars on the table. 2) It is possible for you take both these boxes, and get 1,001,000 dollars.
However: 1)If you take both boxes, then you (almost certainly) only get 1,000 dollars. 2) In order to get $1,001,000, you must take both boxes. 3) Then it is impossible to get $1,001,000.
Note that this last statement directly contradicts conclusion number 2. Therefore, it is a paradox, because it is both possible and impossible to get 1,001,000 dollars.
Note that this last statement directly contradicts conclusion number 2. Therefore, it is a paradox, because it is both possible and impossible to get 1,001,000 dollars.
But if the being is always right you cannot get 100100 because that would mean the being was wrong.
There is actually a chance of the the predictor being wrong, it's just extremely unlikely.
Anyway this whole thing might make more sense with what wiki has to say on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox
The being claims that he is able to predict what any human being will decide to do. If he predicted you would take only the closed box, then he placed a million dollars in it. But if he predicted you would take both boxes, he left the closed box empty. Furthermore, he has run this experiment with 999 people before, and has been right every time.
That would mean at best there is a .1% chance the being is wrong. And the wiki page does not state the problem the same. The original link has the above paragraph which totally changes the problem.
