Newcomb's problem splits people 50/50 in two camps, but the interesting thing is that both sides think the answer is obvious, and both sides think the other side is being silly. When I created a video criticizing Veritasium's video This Paradox Splits Smart People 50/50 I received a ton of feedback particularly from the two-box camp and I simply could not convince anyone of why they were wrong.
That lead me to believe there must be some cognitive trap at play: someone must be not seeing something clearly. After a ton of debates, reading the literature, considering similar problems, discussing with LLMs, and just thinking deeply, I believe the core of the problem is recursive thinking.
Some people are fluent in recursivity, and for them certain kind of problems are obvious, but not everyone thinks the same way.
My essay touches Newcomb's problem, but the real focus is on why some people are predisposed to a certain choice, and I contend free will, determinism, and the sense of self, all affect Newcomb's problem and recursivity fluency predisposes certain views, in particular a proper understanding of embedded agency must predispose a particular (correct) choice.
I do not see how any of this is not obvious, but that's part of the problem, because that's likely due to my prior commitments not being the same as the ones of people who pick two-boxes. But I would like to hear if any two-boxer can point out any flaw in my reasoning.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In the red/blue button debate, people sometimes argue that blue-pushers only say they push blue, but would actually push red if the experiment were carried out.
From this perspective, the blue/red debate is a misunderstanding:
Could Newcombe's problem just be a misunderstanding?
But that's not true in my personal case. I truly would push the blue button, even that means I die. I would still do it out of principle. It's not rhetoric.
It's not true in my case. I choose one-box because I truly believe that's what most likely to maximize my reward.
More options
Context Copy link
That's an interesting idea with the red/blue button scenario. I don't think it's entirely true, but there are probably some social dynamics things going on that are at least adjacent to it.
But I don't think it's true at all of Newcomb. (Empirically, personally: it's nothing to do with why I'd one-box, or why I say I'd one-box.)
One-boxers are literally answering what they would do, because it's the thing that gets you the most money by the very definition of the problem. We can argue that the problem isn't physically realisable or whatever, but if you accept the problem as stated, then two boxers are just incorrect.
More options
Context Copy link
The red blue button experiment is about morality, IMO morality only truly exists for practical, non-abstract, circumstances and the fact that people argue for a difference what people say and what they would do reinforces this conviction.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link