newcastle paradox

Newcomb Paradox

The Newcomb Paradox was first proposed by American philosopher and decision theorist, William Newcomb, in 1969. It serves as an interesting example of game theory, as well as an illustration of the classic conundrum of whether better outcomes are a result of causality, or mere chance. Although the paradox has been debated throughout the years, no definitive answer has been reached.

At the heart of the paradox is a thought experiment. In it, a powerful being named Omega approaches you and offers you a choice. Firstly, Omega will present you with two boxes. The first box is known as Box A – and when you open it, you will find $1,000 inside. The second box is known as Box B – and when you open it, you will find either $1,000,000 or nothing, depending on what you decide to do with Box A.

Before you open either box, Omega will explain how it arrived at these numbers. It claims to have correctly predicted what you would choose to do with Box A. If it predicted that you would take the contents of the box and keep them for yourself, Box B will not contain any money. However, if it predicted that you would leave the box untouched, Box B will have $1,000,000 inside.

Now, the paradox comes in when you are confronted with the choice of whether to take the known sum of cash in Box A, or to risk it and go for the unknown sum in Box B. This is because if Omega has been correct in its predictions of your behavior, taking whats in Box A actually limits the total sum of money you can earn as the maximum amount will be $1,001,000 if you choose right. However, if you choose to take whats in Box A, you are guaranteed at least the sum of $1,000.

The paradox does not have a clear-cut answer, since it is impossible to know for sure how to maximize your reward. On the one hand, some argue that selecting both boxes will result in the highest payout from Omega. But on the other hand, selecting Box A is the safe option, guaranteeing a minimum payout.

The Newcomb Paradox provides an interesting perspective on how decisions are made, and how the mind works. It raises questions about the power of human will and capabilities – as well as the possibility of overconfidence and other biases working against human reasoning. Ultimately, it shows that, no matter what decision is made, the outcome could always be affected by a combination of chance and causality.

The traditional statement of Newcombs paradox is as follows:

An entity, termed Omniscient has sealed two boxes, A and B. Box A contains a payment which is entirely predetermined. Box B either contains nothing or a larger payment, which depends on a crucial prediction: if Omniscient correctly predicts that the individual to whom the boxes are offered will take both boxes, then box B will contain the larger payment, and if Omniscient predicts that the individual will only take one box, then box B will contain nothing. The individual can only take one or both boxes.

Considering the situation from the point of view of the individual offered the boxes, it appears to be irrational not to take both boxes—the individual can only benefit from the prediction made by Omniscient. Under this reasoning, the individual should take both boxes.

However, when analyzed further, Newcombs paradox provides a challenge to classical decision theory. Traditional decision theory states that an individual should consider all available information in calculating the expected utility associated with each of their possible choices. However, in this case, the available information is mutually exclusive—either Omniscient has made an accurate prediction and only box B contains a payment, or Omniscient has made an inaccurate prediction and both boxes contain payments. Based on this, it appears that the individual should take only box A, as the expected utility associated with this action is greater than taking both boxes.

Newcombs Paradox has been explored by philosophers since the 1960s, and no consensus has been obtained—while some argue that the individual should take only box A, others suggest that taking both boxes is still the rational choice. Ultimately, Newcombs Paradox serves as a reminder that not all decision-making processes can be reduced to a set of equations, and that real life scenarios involve a variety of factors which must be assessed on an individual basis.