Q&A: Newcomb’s Paradox – Follow-up Question
Newcomb’s Paradox – Follow-up Question
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I previously tried to ask this as a continuation of the thread
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%a9%d7%90%d7%9C%d7%94-%d7%A2%d7%9C-%d7%94%d7%A4%d7%A8%d7%93%d7%95%D7%A7%D7%A1-%d7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%91#answer-75009&comment=74174
but it seems there is no longer any activity there, so I’m copying the question here.
I just reread this section in the second book of the trilogy, and the same question that was asked here occurred to me.
I read your first and second answers, and I still have a problem: it seems to me that there is some “playing” with the definitions of the paradox itself here. If we are talking about a true prophet who is right 100% of the time (even though in the original article that’s not exactly the case), I think there is no scenario like the one you describe—namely, that the person chooses the correct strategy: sincerely choosing the closed box with the million, opening it and taking the prize, and afterward getting the idea to take the second one too and add the thousand to the prize. It seems to me that in such a case, when the person opened the closed box he would find it empty—because if he is sincere, he would surely think that the prophet is a deceitful liar who never intended to pay him a million, but that’s not the point. If the prophet really knows the future, then he knows that the person is sincere in his first choice and that afterward the idea will occur to him, and he won’t be able to resist the temptation and will take the second one too; therefore, already when he opens the closed box it will be empty.
Isn’t that so?
Answer
That thread stopped for the reason explained there (the large gap). So you open a new thread with an even larger gap? Why do you think this hassle is helpful?
If you want to discuss it, post your question there, and don’t assume I remember what it was about.
Discussion on Answer
There is no such thing as an inactive thread. All threads are active. When a response comes in, I address it.
Opening several threads about the same thing after I’ve already responded is a hassle. I respond here to many inquiries, and I expect people at least to pay attention and not run me around.
Which threads are you referring to? In my experience, usually you don’t answer comments on old columns, and in question threads the topic doesn’t always fit the question one wants to ask. I completely understand the impatience in light of the load; I’ll try to ask fewer questions from now on.
As I said, I always answer every question or old column. There is no inactive thread. Sometimes a discussion gets interrupted and resumes after a long time, and then I don’t remember what was said, so one has to return to a specific point and not continue as if there had been no break.
There is no need to ask fewer questions; that wasn’t the claim. My claim was that if in that thread I wrote that I couldn’t go back and relate to it, I don’t understand why open another thread. Would I somehow be able to there? And if you nevertheless want to continue, then it should be done in the original thread and the point should be explained again.
I apologize for the tone if it was hurtful. But I really do expect consideration from questioners because of the load.
Sorry—I didn’t see your answer there.
I didn’t mean to hassle anyone, but I don’t understand the aggressiveness….