Books on Amazon
|Newcomb’s Paradox||I 373
Newcomb's Paradox/Poundstone: clairvoyant claiming to predict your actions to 90% - Box A: definitely a thousand mark note - B: 1 million or nothing - clairvoyant has predicted what you will do 24 h before - he will leave the box empty when he foresaw that you take both.
Good reasons to take only box B - when he is right in 90%, you get nothing but a gullible idiot gets 1 million - probability calculation: game-value: 10% of 1 million (that the clairvoyant is wrong) - if he is 99% right, higher reward: 990,000.
Rule: like prisoner's dilemma: one should never be the first to be disloyal.
Variant: with glass boxes ...
The one who takes both boxes, thinks he is smarter than the rules allow - Newcombe/Poundstone: both pro "Just B"
Newcomb's Paradox/Nozick: here two strategies are pitted against each other: 1. of dominance: what is better in all circumstances, dominates - 2. principle of the expected benefits: what promises higher benefits?
Dominance varies depending on whether one takes the horse or the player into account at a horse bet - in the world, nothing changes. - Solution: in this the variant, the situation is not dependent on the decision- Principle of the dominance is only applicable if the decision is not affected by the result.
Influence of Newcomb's Paradox would only be possible with retroactive causality. NozickVsNewcombe: take both boxes - under any conditions always the dominant strategy.
Newcomb's Paradox/Martin Gardner: the prediction must be a fraud - as I cannot believe that 91 (13x7) is a prime number - I would just take the offered 10 cents for the correct answer.
I W. Poundstone Im Labyrinth des Denkens, Reinbek 1995