Tutoriwell
Login Start Now

Game Theory · 11 questions

Newcomb's Problem

A predictor has already filled the boxes. One-boxers take only the sealed box. Two-boxers take the sealed box and the visible extra money. A higher percent is a one-box lean.

About this test

William Newcomb's problem, published by Robert Nozick in 1969, offers two boxes. A predictor who has been extraordinarily accurate has already put a large sum in a sealed box if and only if it predicted you would take only that box. If it predicted you would take both, the sealed box is empty. A transparent box contains a smaller sum either way. Causal decision theory tends to two-box: the contents are already fixed, so take both. Evidential decision theory tends to one-box: one-boxing is strong evidence the sealed box is full. These retellings are original. The percent is a one-box lean. Two-boxing is a live decision theory, not a greed score.

Question 1 of 11

What this test asks
  1. The predictor has been right about people like you nearly every time. The sealed box is already filled or already empty. Do you take only the sealed box, or the sealed box plus the visible extra money?
  2. The predictor is right only a little more often than a coin. The sums are the same.
  3. The predictor has never been wrong in a thousand public trials. You watched them.
  4. A friend who is bad at predicting people filled the boxes as a joke, using the same rules and no special skill.
  5. The dominance argument says: whatever is already in the sealed box, taking both gives you that amount plus the visible money. So take both. What do you do with the argument?
  6. The night before you see the boxes, you can sign a pledge to one-box, and the predictor will read the pledge. At the table you could still break it.
  7. You already admire the people who one-boxed and left rich. You also see the extra money. Which fact do you treat as a reason?
  8. You can decide your policy a year early, when no boxes are in the room. Which policy do you adopt?
  9. A version of the problem replaces the predictor with a gene that both causes a disease and causes people to one-box. Two-boxing is then evidence you do not have the gene. The structure feels related. What do you trust?
  10. The visible sum is life-changing. The sealed sum is a hundred times larger. The predictor is the accurate one. Does the size change your theory?
  11. Which sentence do you want as your reason?