|Newcomb’s Paradox: is a thought experiment, in which a subject should select one of two boxes and thereby has a secure option for a chance to win, but can significantly increase this chance by increasing the risk of losing everything. An omniscient being, who has usually correctly predicted the decision of the subject, tries to thwart the profit of the subject person. Should the subject choose the safe option or play risk? Can the subject still change its strategy during the experiment? See also freedom of will, backward causality, prisoner´‘s dilemma.|
Books on Amazon
Newcomb's Paradox/Poundstone: clairvoyant claiming to predict your actions to 90% - Box A: definitely a thousand mark note - B: 1 million or nothing - clairvoyant has predicted what you will do 24 h before - he will leave the box empty when he foresaw that you take both.
Good reasons to take only box B - when he is right in 90%, you get nothing but a gullible idiot gets 1 million - probability calculation: game-value: 10% of 1 million (that the clairvoyant is wrong) - if he is 99% right, higher reward: 990,000.
Rule: like prisoner's dilemma: one should never be the first to be disloyal.
Variant: with glass boxes ...
The one who takes both boxes, thinks he is smarter than the rules allow - Newcombe/Poundstone: both pro "Just B"
Newcomb's Paradox/Nozick: here two strategies are pitted against each other: 1. of dominance: what is better in all circumstances, dominates - 2. principle of the expected benefits: what promises higher benefits?
Dominance varies depending on whether one takes the horse or the player into account at a horse bet - in the world, nothing changes. - Solution: in this the variant, the situation is not dependent on the decision- Principle of the dominance is only applicable if the decision is not affected by the result.
Influence of Newcomb's Paradox would only be possible with retroactive causality. NozickVsNewcombe: take both boxes - under any conditions always the dominant strategy.
Newcomb's Paradox/Martin Gardner: the prediction must be a fraud - as I cannot believe that 91 (13x7) is a prime number - I would just take the offered 10 cents for the correct answer.
I W. Poundstone Im Labyrinth des Denkens, Reinbek 1995