Comment on Random Choice in Newcomb's Paradox
howrar@lemmy.ca 4 days agoI don’t know what you’re getting at. Did I say something to suggest I misunderstood this part?
Comment on Random Choice in Newcomb's Paradox
howrar@lemmy.ca 4 days agoI don’t know what you’re getting at. Did I say something to suggest I misunderstood this part?
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 3 days ago
You said this:
“This necessarily includes the results of that coin flip and the Geiger counter readings.”
The premise states the computer sets up the boxes BEFORE you enter the room. The OP states he flips the coin AFTER he enters the room.
The computer cannot change the boxes after he entered the room.
howrar@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
And you’re saying that those two things are somehow contradictory? Because if so, I don’t see how. If this super intelligent computer knows how you’re going to choose ahead of time, then it must also know how the coin is going to land ahead of time.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yes they are contradictory. The computer isn’t supernatural. The premise states the computer isn’t 100% accurate. It says 99.9% but it could say 75% without changing the problem. It says 99% to simplify the scenario for the reader so you assume the computer is accurate. The premise is the computer can reliably predict your behavior. The premise is not the computer can defy physics.