Q&A: The Argument Against Determinism from Newcomb's Paradox
The Argument Against Determinism from Newcomb's Paradox
Question
To the honored Rabbi, greetings.
In the book The Science of Freedom, an argument against determinism is presented from Newcomb's paradox, as follows on p. 153 ("A Further Clarification of Newcomb's Paradox"):
"But further reflection shows that the determinist's difficulty still remains. Our problem is not the question of what the chooser will do in such a situation, but what it would be correct for him to do. This is a mathematical question about strategy, which belongs to game theory, and not a question about the chooser's psychology or about what will actually happen. Even within the deterministic picture, which holds that none of us has free choice, one can ask the following question: assuming that some being in some imaginary world has free choice, what would be more correct for him to do? There is no answer to this question, and that itself is the problem that arises within the deterministic picture," end quote.
And I didn't understand. After all, the determinist too would agree that "assuming that some being in some imaginary world has free choice," then the whole problem never gets off the ground, because even the prophet does not know what does not exist (and as explained earlier, that is what the libertarian holds). So where is there an argument here against the determinist? He is simply saying that our earth is different from that imaginary world.
Answer
But if the prophet does not know the future when there is choice, then the whole discussion never gets off the ground. Either way, you arrive at the conclusion that the existence of a strategy contradicts determinism. His argument is based on the idea that the prophet can know the future even when there is choice. Of course, if he is making a deterministic claim about our world, he can consistently remain trapped within his own position.
Discussion on Answer
Following the photo of the passage in the email.
You're right that there is no proof here against him on the logical plane, but it drains the question of what the correct strategy is in such a case of all content. Determinists too agree that the question about strategy is legitimate, except that in their view the choice of strategy is the result of a mechanical calculation and not of a decision. So the question still stands before them:
Given a deterministic world, you now have two boxes in front of you; how many of them should you take? Apparently, according to his view, one should take only one, but that doesn't make sense, because if he decides to take both, it cannot be that he loses. This is true in a deterministic world as well.
If there's anything this paradox proves, it's that there is no free choice.
Everything a person chooses stems from some interest.
In this question, the goal is to make more money.
Why wasn't the question asked: which box would someone with free choice choose?
Because that's a question only cats, who don't care about money, can answer.