I was recently introduced to a philosophical problem known as "Newcomb's Problem". Basically, the problem is this:
Suppose that there is a Being known as a "Superpredictor". The Superpredictor can examine a person and 99% of the time, correctly determine how a person will choose when faced with a series of options. Now suppose that, to test the Superpredictor, you participate in a test. This is the test: You have entered a room that contains two boxes. One of the boxes is clear, and contains $10,000. The other box is opaque, and may or may not have $1,000,000 in it. You may choose to take just the opaque box, or you can choose to take both boxes. But here's the catch: at some time before you enter the room, the Superpredictor examines you, and predicts whether you will take one box, or both boxes. If the Superpredictor predicts that you will take both boxes, she will not put $1,000,000 in the opaque box, and you will walk away with only the $10,000 in the clear box. If the Superpredictor predicts that you will take just the opaque box, she will place the $1,000,000 in the opaque box. How do you choose?
There is a great deal of literature on this problem, with some thinkers likening this to Prisoner's Dilemma (you and an accomplice are arrested and questioned in separate rooms; if one of you confesses but the other does not, the confessor gets one year in jail and the non-confessor gets a 30 year sentence; if you both confess, you get 15 year sentences, and if neither of you confesses, you are released without charges), and others applying various decisional value theories. The analyses tend to center on how one can rationally maximize one's return, by taking one box or two.
After discussing this paradox with my wife, she pointed out that if you attempt to apply reason to the problem, the paradox leads you into an endless loop. The trick is to simply believe that by taking the one box, you will be rewarded. She posited this analysis:
Newcomb's Problem describes the biblical injunction that "the meek shall inherit the Earth." In order for the meek to inherit the Earth, they must have faith that whatever trials they endure are part of the test and believe, even if it is irrational, that remaining humble will eventually earn them their just reward. Accordingly, they must be prepared to stand by their belief in spite of overwhelming pressure to abandon it, and be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice -- to die believing that their reward will come in the world to come (whether it's Heaven, or Eden, or whatever). In short, they must have faith, even when it is irrational. On the other hand, if a person is vain enough to believe that he, and not God, is in control, and therefore takes actions to "make" his own destiny, that person is, by definition, not the meek, will be adjudged unworthy of inheriting the Earth, and will be denied whatever heavenly reward would otherwise be his.
In the context of Newcomb's Problem, she continues, before you enter the room, you have been judged by a supreme being (the Superpredictor) that is capable of seeing into your pysche (or your soul). If you have lived a life believing that through humility, you will receive your just reward, you would naturally believe that in order to received the reward, you should not try to make your own destiny. Therefore, you would take only the opaque box containing the $1,000,000, but forego the $10,000 even though it means you might take nothing. For your belief, the supreme being will reward you by filling the opaque box with $1,000,000. On the other hand, if you have not lived a life of humility and therefore would naturally take both boxes in order to reduce the chance that you walk away with nothing, this too would be known, and the Superpredictor would not reward you with $1,000,000.
In a future post, I may return to this, since I am troubled by the implications of her analysis (I guess I don't have faith...), but in the meantime, if you're interested in more about Newcomb's Problem, try this website.
Suppose that there is a Being known as a "Superpredictor". The Superpredictor can examine a person and 99% of the time, correctly determine how a person will choose when faced with a series of options. Now suppose that, to test the Superpredictor, you participate in a test. This is the test: You have entered a room that contains two boxes. One of the boxes is clear, and contains $10,000. The other box is opaque, and may or may not have $1,000,000 in it. You may choose to take just the opaque box, or you can choose to take both boxes. But here's the catch: at some time before you enter the room, the Superpredictor examines you, and predicts whether you will take one box, or both boxes. If the Superpredictor predicts that you will take both boxes, she will not put $1,000,000 in the opaque box, and you will walk away with only the $10,000 in the clear box. If the Superpredictor predicts that you will take just the opaque box, she will place the $1,000,000 in the opaque box. How do you choose?
There is a great deal of literature on this problem, with some thinkers likening this to Prisoner's Dilemma (you and an accomplice are arrested and questioned in separate rooms; if one of you confesses but the other does not, the confessor gets one year in jail and the non-confessor gets a 30 year sentence; if you both confess, you get 15 year sentences, and if neither of you confesses, you are released without charges), and others applying various decisional value theories. The analyses tend to center on how one can rationally maximize one's return, by taking one box or two.
After discussing this paradox with my wife, she pointed out that if you attempt to apply reason to the problem, the paradox leads you into an endless loop. The trick is to simply believe that by taking the one box, you will be rewarded. She posited this analysis:
Newcomb's Problem describes the biblical injunction that "the meek shall inherit the Earth." In order for the meek to inherit the Earth, they must have faith that whatever trials they endure are part of the test and believe, even if it is irrational, that remaining humble will eventually earn them their just reward. Accordingly, they must be prepared to stand by their belief in spite of overwhelming pressure to abandon it, and be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice -- to die believing that their reward will come in the world to come (whether it's Heaven, or Eden, or whatever). In short, they must have faith, even when it is irrational. On the other hand, if a person is vain enough to believe that he, and not God, is in control, and therefore takes actions to "make" his own destiny, that person is, by definition, not the meek, will be adjudged unworthy of inheriting the Earth, and will be denied whatever heavenly reward would otherwise be his.
In the context of Newcomb's Problem, she continues, before you enter the room, you have been judged by a supreme being (the Superpredictor) that is capable of seeing into your pysche (or your soul). If you have lived a life believing that through humility, you will receive your just reward, you would naturally believe that in order to received the reward, you should not try to make your own destiny. Therefore, you would take only the opaque box containing the $1,000,000, but forego the $10,000 even though it means you might take nothing. For your belief, the supreme being will reward you by filling the opaque box with $1,000,000. On the other hand, if you have not lived a life of humility and therefore would naturally take both boxes in order to reduce the chance that you walk away with nothing, this too would be known, and the Superpredictor would not reward you with $1,000,000.
In a future post, I may return to this, since I am troubled by the implications of her analysis (I guess I don't have faith...), but in the meantime, if you're interested in more about Newcomb's Problem, try this website.
posted by Daniel at 12:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home