Newcomb Paradox: A solid problem that has not been solved since 1969

This paradox, first introduced by Californian physicist William Newcomb, is really kind of confusing.
the thing is
A group of advanced aliens offers you two boxes: boxes a and b. Box B has $ 1000, Box A has either $ 1 million or nothing. Now, the aliens' princess asks: "Do you just want to buy box A, or both box A and Box B?"
The complicated thing is:
this princess is able to predict us people's choice with 99.999% accuracy. if he only predicted that you would buy box a, he puts $ 1 million there. otherwise, it doesn't put anything there.
Now, according to all probability rules, if you want to increase the expectation, you only get box a. On the other hand, money is put there or not, what would you lose by taking the two?
First of two different views about paradox
if that alien, or mahmut brother, or god, was not trained, but gifted, if he did not give up his purpose to test people's behavior despite this sudden drop in mental abilities; again, if he predicts that we will only buy box a, put a million dollars there, if he greed and predicts that we will get both box a and box b, then leave a blank - and if this time the success rate in his predictions is 0.01%, what would you do when you were asked?

If you were to choose A, this Denyo creature would probably have left the box A thinking that you would get both of them, and you would choose A and lick your palm. No, if you are the type to get both of them, this time the creature will say "just take a" and put a million dollars there, and you will have two boxes and a million thousand dollars.

Would it be a paradox if this was the case? I mean, if your preference was pointless. If you are the only one to choose a, you would in any case be left without money, but if you were going to get both, you would have a million dollars. Which stage (s) does your preference gain meaning? Are you making your choice now or have you made the choice of how much money you will make based on how you are? If you had been informed 50 years ago that you would be subject to such a test, would you be able to guarantee a 99.99% probability of becoming a dollar millionaire if you thought and educated yourself during these 50 years? Is there really any choice at the beginning of the boxes or is the preference already made?

another question; you roll a dice, but the technique has progressed so much that there are machines that calculate what the dice will come to, and these machines can immediately calculate what will come when you are told who will roll the dice; if I am going to roll the dice, they know what height, at what speed and at what angle I will throw it. I took the dice in my hand, the machines said six will come, is it possible that I will not throw six? If I lay the dice in the mud and shake the table, will five come? Did the machines take into account that I would shake the table? What happens if I don't shake if they did? can they also calculate whether to think about shaking?
can i do something that cannot be calculated?

To me, it is the obvious determinism and free will paradox, and it is also a character test that examines how life is perceived from this paradox framework.

The question is very simple: can you go beyond calculability.
can you go
The second of two different views about paradox
When we do not exclude the creature that predicts the future and we want to relate the situation with the paradox of determinism and free will, the problem is only and only annoying. Instead of eliminating the creature that predicts the future, instead of eliminating the human being, an annoying creature, the problem turns into a process repetition that lasts only and only forever and needs infinite time and energy. When we choose a computer as the creature that predicts the future, it will be understood what I mean by saying "process". Before I attempt to explain further, I would like to present as a preliminary information that man is a creature that predicts the future, the past, any unknown.

First, let's examine the people in the incident, and what they do and what they think. there are two people in the incident. one is human, the other is creature that predicts the future. What the creature predicting the future does is to make a move by guessing what the human will do. What man does is to make a choice. What does "to choose" mean? making choices is to evaluate the conditions and decide the appropriate move. the condition here is the creature's move. What makes the event look like a paradox is that the free choice of the human being is free from the fact that the creature's move has already been made in the "past". what is not taken into account here is the "processing time" that the creature spends in guessing, that is, the time spent thinking. the purpose of choosing this creature as a "creature" rather than as a god is to save the event from metaphysics. The creature that predicts the future is either an alien, a computer, or a similar "high-capacity" brain. and no matter how high capacity it will take a while to think and decide on his move. we neglect the time of thinking in our experiment and count the move of the creature as "made", hence "in the past" for our human being. The reason we consider the creature's move to be done is that we do not doubt that man will ultimately make a choice. eventually, a person makes a choice, either he will either fall into one of the risk-benefit options in the experiment, or after a while, he will be bored because of the fall. in other words, it is a preliminary acceptance for human beings. if we put a creature that is both annoying and not emotionally reacting to the choice of risk-benefit instead of our human being, and of a creature that deserves absolute absolute value (which will of course be the "free will" of course, this humanoid creature will be able to choose) will think long. and even unfortunately he will think forever. Because his choice will determine the move of the creature that predicts the future, he will turn back and think over and over again. so if I choose this, then let me choose it, but then it happens like this, then let me choose it, but then it happens, then let me choose ... well, since the creature that predicts the future is already making the move, why would the humanoid creature do these calculations? here is the essence of the matter: the human creature doesn't actually think of them, the creature that predicts the future thinks when calculating the selection of the humanoid creature. If the humanoid creature is going to delay making a choice, the time that the creature who predicts the future will spend to make his move will also increase. If the humanoid creature is so emotional and long-lasting that it can constantly think without making a choice for an infinite period of time, it is clear that the thinking time of the creature that predicts the future will be infinite. especially if the human creature is a bit more intelligent than the human, for example, if the creature that predicts the future is as intelligent as the creature, the situation predicts the behavior of the creature that predicts the future, so it is better understood why the process will extend forever. that is, in the purely logical plane, the creature that predicts the future can only predict the future. this is also impossible. Assuming that the creature that predicts the future is a computer, the probable consequences are that the window will execute an invalid process, shut down, the processor will burn, the electricity will go away, or the sun will be a red giant, devour the world and melt the computer.
If the humanoid creature is not going to carry out infinite operations, calculate a real benefit and make a choice, or considering that the infinite process will run out of batteries and make a random choice, the creature that predicts the future will finish thinking before eternity and will know the choice that the human creature will make. The human creature will undoubtedly not be afraid of this, as he will not be upset that he has predicted behavior while gaining real benefit, but will also be aware that the true and true free will to make a completely random choice.

In my opinion, in order for a paradox to become a paradox, it must lead to contradiction in purely logical conditions. In order to achieve this, the thought experiment must be free from all kinds of human emotional sensuality. The newcomb paradox needs to be relieved of both gambling feelings about risk-benefit selection, depressive feelings created by choice, and nihilist feelings created by the meaninglessness of choice.

the newcomb paradox is not primarily about determinism and the free will paradox, but about the paradox in which man falls between his logic and his emotions.


Popular posts from this blog

How to delete swarm account?

What is Paper Chromatography and Electrophoresis?

3 Beyond the Dimension: Exploring Other Dimensions in a Nano Scale