Q&A: Newcomb’s Paradox
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Newcomb’s Paradox
Question
In The Science of Freedom you brought Newcomb’s paradox to show that determinists believe in backward causation in time. I wondered what your answer would be to Ron Aharoni’s argument in The Cat That Isn’t There about this. Ostensibly, he shows that this isn’t true, that one can be a determinist without believing in backward causation in time.
Answer
Not true. One can be a determinist without backward causation. On the contrary, determinism is a possible way out in order to escape backward causation. Only if you are a libertarian and you think it is possible to know in advance the results of our choice do you need backward causation.
Not true. One can be a determinist without backward causation. On the contrary, determinism is a possible way out in order to escape backward causation. Only if you are a libertarian and you think it is possible to know in advance the results of our choice do you need backward causation.