“Reversing things” is complicated. The other way the situation is reversed is that it the basilisk has to be made, instead of Omega already having made a prediction.
My thoughts on NP:
Also, Newcomb’s paradox is accompanied by the assumption that there are only 2 choices:
Taking the box with a lot of $$$
Taking the box with a lot of $$$, and the box with a little $.
However, if one can either take or not take each box, that’s 4 (mutually exclusive) choices.
The problem itself addresses taking both boxes (and says that the box with a lot of money will be empty if you do that). And this is where things get complicated (“If you would (take both boxes) if (they were both filled with money) then (only one box will have money in it).).
But what if you take the box with a little $? Instead of one answer, here are several:
1. The box not taken magically disappears.
2. The predictor only puts $$$ in the million dollar box if they predict you will take that box, and only that box.
3. The box not taken does not magically disappear. The choice doesn’t end. The prediction is made about your entire life.
4. This scenario is specifically undefined (perhaps because it doesn’t need to be—the game was made by a perfect predictor after all, which chose the players...), or something else weird happens.
What should be done in each situation?
1.
Let’s suppose we reason in such a fashion that:
1. Take ‘box A’.
2. The same as 1.
3. Likely the same as 1. Exceptions include “unless other people can pick up the $1,000 and we don’t like other people doing that more than we like getting $1,000,000” and “by means of using some other predictor game, we receive a message from our future self that the good we’ll do with the 1 million $, will be less than the evil that was done with the 1 thousand $.”.
4. Intentionally left not handled. (A writing prompt.)
My thoughts on Roko’s basilisk:
It doesn’t sound like there is a predictor in this scenario, but the solution is the same either way:
Kill the basilisk.
(You might enjoy an episode of Sherlock called “A case in pink.”)
“Reversing things” is complicated. The other way the situation is reversed is that it the basilisk has to be made, instead of Omega already having made a prediction.
My thoughts on NP:
Also, Newcomb’s paradox is accompanied by the assumption that there are only 2 choices:
Taking the box with a lot of $$$
Taking the box with a lot of $$$, and the box with a little $.
However, if one can either take or not take each box, that’s 4 (mutually exclusive) choices.
The problem itself addresses taking both boxes (and says that the box with a lot of money will be empty if you do that). And this is where things get complicated (“If you would (take both boxes) if (they were both filled with money) then (only one box will have money in it).).
But what if you take the box with a little $? Instead of one answer, here are several:
1. The box not taken magically disappears.
2. The predictor only puts $$$ in the million dollar box if they predict you will take that box, and only that box.
3. The box not taken does not magically disappear. The choice doesn’t end. The prediction is made about your entire life.
4. This scenario is specifically undefined (perhaps because it doesn’t need to be—the game was made by a perfect predictor after all, which chose the players...), or something else weird happens.
What should be done in each situation?
1.
Let’s suppose we reason in such a fashion that:
1. Take ‘box A’.
2. The same as 1.
3. Likely the same as 1. Exceptions include “unless other people can pick up the $1,000 and we don’t like other people doing that more than we like getting $1,000,000” and “by means of using some other predictor game, we receive a message from our future self that the good we’ll do with the 1 million $, will be less than the evil that was done with the 1 thousand $.”.
4. Intentionally left not handled. (A writing prompt.)
My thoughts on Roko’s basilisk:
It doesn’t sound like there is a predictor in this scenario, but the solution is the same either way:
Kill the basilisk.
(You might enjoy an episode of Sherlock called “A case in pink.”)