I one-box on Newcomb’s. I two-envelope on this. This situation, however, is absurd. [ETA: Now that I think about it more, I’m now inclined to one-envelope and also more irritated by the hidden assumptions in this whole hypothetical.]
Omega’s prediction is bizarre, because there’s no apparent way that the contents of the envelope are entangled with my decision to accept the money—whether I am the kind of person who two-boxes or one-boxes, the contents of the envelope were decided by a coin toss. It seems the only way for Omega to make a reliable prediction would be to predict my response to Omega’s deal, and then phrase the deal such that my predicted response is tied to the actual contents of the envelope. That is, Omega knows the envelope is empty, and he knows I will accept the offer, so he says “reject offer iff envelope is full.”
In other words, I don’t actually believe Omega can reliably make this same prediction, as he could theoretically do in Newcomb’s; this hypothetical is absurd. If you had a thousand people, roughly half of them would have opened envelopes full of money (or whatever percentage would emerge from Alpha’s random generator). It seems inconceivable that those half must also have rejected the ten pound note, and that the other half must have accepted it. If I saw a large enough sample illustrating this effect occurring consistently, I’d have to throw up my hands in confusion and reject the ten-pound note, but this outcome is outlandishly unlikely.
Am I right that if the money is in the envelope Omega only offers to one-boxers and if the money is not in the envelope Omega only offers to two-boxers?
On further analysis, I actually think it is totally different; I believe you responded to an earlier draft of my previous comment in which I said they were basically the same. Lest people get confused.
I one-box on Newcomb’s. I two-envelope on this. This situation, however, is absurd. [ETA: Now that I think about it more, I’m now inclined to one-envelope and also more irritated by the hidden assumptions in this whole hypothetical.]
Omega’s prediction is bizarre, because there’s no apparent way that the contents of the envelope are entangled with my decision to accept the money—whether I am the kind of person who two-boxes or one-boxes, the contents of the envelope were decided by a coin toss. It seems the only way for Omega to make a reliable prediction would be to predict my response to Omega’s deal, and then phrase the deal such that my predicted response is tied to the actual contents of the envelope. That is, Omega knows the envelope is empty, and he knows I will accept the offer, so he says “reject offer iff envelope is full.”
In other words, I don’t actually believe Omega can reliably make this same prediction, as he could theoretically do in Newcomb’s; this hypothetical is absurd. If you had a thousand people, roughly half of them would have opened envelopes full of money (or whatever percentage would emerge from Alpha’s random generator). It seems inconceivable that those half must also have rejected the ten pound note, and that the other half must have accepted it. If I saw a large enough sample illustrating this effect occurring consistently, I’d have to throw up my hands in confusion and reject the ten-pound note, but this outcome is outlandishly unlikely.
(replying to new version of comment) Yes, Omega could easily only offer the deal to those for whom his prediction is true.
Am I right that if the money is in the envelope Omega only offers to one-boxers and if the money is not in the envelope Omega only offers to two-boxers?
That’s the way I read it. (after some analysis)
Indeed, but it could be different enough to count as an “exercise” to those interested in doing the causal analysis for themselves.
ETA: responded to an earlier version of the comment in which Psychohistorian claimed this was the same as Newcomb
On further analysis, I actually think it is totally different; I believe you responded to an earlier draft of my previous comment in which I said they were basically the same. Lest people get confused.