packbat | Newcomb

Reposted from my Facebook:

Imagine the following scenario (a variation on the classic dilemma known as Newcomb's Problem):

About six months ago, a crack team of psychologists came up with a brilliant new device, and decided to run a curious experiment to test it. The experiment takes the following form:

Each subject, chosen by lottery, is provided with the money to purchase two identical plain manilla envelopes.
They and their envelopes are given free transportation to the lab, where they (but not the envelopes) fill out a survey.
They wait approximately one hour, and then are ushered into the experiment room.
In that room, they are permitted to examine three stacks - one containing twenty U.S. fifty-dollar bills, one containing twenty fifty-dollar-bill-sized pieces of blank U.S. fifty-dollar-bill stock, and one containing one thousand U.S. one-thousand-dollar bills.
An attendant removes the stack of thousand-dollar bills. They are instructed to privately place one of the remaining stacks in each of their manilla envelopes, so that they would have two apparently-identical envelopes, and then signal.
On the signal, the attendant returns with a case, which either does or does not contain the million dollars. The subject then gives either of their two envelopes in return for the case.

There is only one catch in this procedure: the case either contains blank bills or the million, as follows. If the psychologists predict the subject would return the envelope with the thousand dollars, the case contains the million. But if the psychologists predict that the subject will return the envelope with the blank paper, the case contains blank paper. And in each of the one hundred trials so far, the psychologists have always gotten it right. Everyone has either left with the thousand or left with the million.

(Edit: Well, not quite. A few clever people thought to randomize the envelopes so that they didn't know whether they lost the thousand or not. About half of them walked away with a thousand, the other half with nothing.)

The experiment is valid - it has been tested by dozens of experts in experimental protocol, sleight of hand, hypnotism, and every other relevant field. They neither coerce your choice nor switch out the million if you choose to keep the thousand.

You are in the room, with your two envelopes, and the attendant is before you with his case.

Do you give him the thousand dollars or the blank paper?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes, but if you're aware of the results, then you'd be aware that returning the $1000 garners you the million, right? So convincing the psychologists would be easy; if you're aware of the system, then they'd be aware that you're guaranteed to return the $1000, so they would know that you were going to, and put the $1 000 000 in the box.

Some people would reason the way you do about the problem - they would return the $1000 and leave with the $1 000 000.

That said, some people argue that by the time they have to decide whether to return the envelope, the million will either be there or not, and therefore they don't have to return the $1000 to have a chance at the million - they claim their odds of getting the million cannot be affected by which envelope they do, in fact, return, because the million is either already there or already not there. Such a person may then choose to keep the thousand, being as keeping the thousand doesn't change what's in their case. And, so far, every person reasoning that way has opened the case and found it with blank paper.

Those people are idiots!

As far as I am aware, their position is actually pretty popular (see the link replying to

goblinpaladin). In fact, the split is verifiably strange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb's_paradox):

In his 1969 article, Nozick noted that "To almost everyone, it is perfectly clear and obvious what should be done. The difficulty is that these people seem to divide almost evenly on the problem, with large numbers thinking that the opposing half is just being silly."

I think you can read the beginning of Nozick's essay here. (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gjA-OLUWiSUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA207&dq=%22Nozick%22+%229.+Newcomb%27s+problem+and+two+principles+of+choice%22+&ots=Fy51ZWvvM3&sig=pm1WNxRic_wiswB3ibGW8zy9zq0#PPA209,M1)

If there was a bit of doubt somewhere, then yes, I'd be able to see the argument of the other side. But one of the conditions is that the psychologists have 100% accuracy. With that in mind, I can't possibly see any justification for the other argument. If it were a real-life issue, then sure, free will and all that, but given that the box-givers have essentially already seen what you're going to do, there's absolutely no grey area.

Like the guy said - both sides find their decisions perfectly obvious. I can't tell you why.

My sister and I will frequently have long conversation threads on livejournal, holding two conversations simultaneously; one in the "message", and another in the subject.

Occasionally the conversation in "message" will reach a natural end, while the "subject" conversation will keep going, leaving awkward half-hearted messages in the comments.

The opposite is never a problem; subjects are completely optional, so low-effort subjects are fine. They're a step up from "no" subjects, even.

Ha! I was wondering where the subject-line thing came from!

Yes, I decided a long time ago to try to use as much of the system as was available to me. I always include subjects in comments and entries, and I always fill out music, location, and mood.

At the party I had tonight, someone mentioned how annoying it was that I don't use tags, so I'll have to add that to the list.

Oh, and icons.

Newcomb

Or am I still missing something?

Not anything that'd get you in trouble during the game...

And they deserve to lose the $1000000!

Well, "idiot" is a strong term...

Well, $1 000 000 is a lot of money!

I'm not saying they aren't <em>losers</em>...

HTML does not work in subjects, good fellow!

Curse you, Red Baron! Must I be reduced to mere asterisks for emphasis?

I also intend to clear out my "memories" and redo them with my best entries. Not my actual memories.

I sometimes leave the "re:" in subjects, too, but I never leave them blank.