Newcomb's problem - Wikipedia
READ THIS.
IT IS VERY, VER INTERESTING.
(If you don't understand, watch Vertasium's Youtube video on it. It's great.)
NEWCOMB'S PROBLEM.
AN IMPOSSIBILITY...?
PERHAPS, PERHAPS NOT.
WE SHALL SEE.
@JACKOBLACKOLANTERN @EvilandHomophobicKnight @Xanderjedi11 @PokemonfanR @PlayTheColorfulCreature @RykerNightshard @Random_Kirby_Fan938 @Echoescreates @TECrusher12 @KockaAdmiralac
(The effects are only visible when a large amount of people participate.)
In the standard version of Newcomb's problem, two boxes are designated A and B. The player is given a choice between taking only box B or taking both boxes A and B. The player knows the following:
- Box A is transparent, or open, and always contains a visible $1,000.
- Box B is opaque, or closed, and its content has already been set by the predictor:
- If the predictor has predicted that the player will take both boxes A and B, then box B contains nothing.
- If the predictor has predicted that the player will take only box B, then box B contains $1,000,000.
The player does not know what the predictor predicted or what box B contains while making the choice.
This just sounds like "always bet on box B" to me
Taken from the Wikipedia article Palladium posted
Yeah, but you could get $1001000! So keep gambling!
What's 1000 dollars compared to a million though? ONE THOUSANDTH.
Erm actually its one thousandth
Hi guys
LET IT RIDE!
GALACTA
NO
CHOOSE THE ONE BOX
DON'T GAMBLE
LLLLETS GO GAMBLING!
AW DANG IT
Well you seem to not account for the fact that the observer is essentially perfectly accurate. Therefore...
It becomes not a matter of gambling, but straight logic. And math, if you want it to be.
This is why I choose Box B
The algorithm predicts so, however.
And because I only chose the 1 box and they predicted I would do so, I get 1 million dollars
Did you misread the article?
I discovered this through Vertasium's video, you should see it.
Anyways-
OMG I FOUND A DIEM REF
(MYBE)