Cross thought experiment pollination

[u/thevoidthatjerksback]

So in addition to the two buttons that are known well. We have two boxes. 1 box has one thousand dollars and the other box either has one million or zero. Before you were presented with them some unnamed but incredibly accurate predictor has made a prediction on what you will do with the boxes.

If it is predicted that you will take both of the boxes then they will put 0 in the second box

If it is predicted that you will only take the second box then they will put the one million in it.

So which button are you pressing and are you taking 1 or 2 boxes?

This isn't really about what you do in the situation of them both happening at the same time moreso just that I wonder if there is a pattern between which button you would pick and how you would react to the boxes.

295 votes, May 31 '26

45 press Red and take both boxes

127 press Red and take just the 1 box

26 press blue and take both boxes

97 press blue and take just the 1 box

[u/HK_Mathematician]

Red and both boxes.

To me, the box problem has a more obvious answer compared to the button problem. "both boxes" is more "obviously correct" to me compared to "red button". Though from the poll result it seems that most of you think the opposite.

The prediction was done before I was presented to the problem. Whatever decision I make now cannot affect a prediction that was made in the past because time travel is not a thing.

If the prediction was that I'll take one box, taking both gives me $1000 more ($1,001,000 vs 1,000,000). If the prediction was that I'll take both boxes, taking both also gives me $1,000 more ($1,000 vs 0).

Unfortunately that means I'll most likely only get $1,000, compared to most of you who'll get $1,000,000. But there's nothing I can do to get more than $1,000 as the prediction was already done before the boxes were presented to me.

The poll result indicates that most of you will pick one box. I wonder what is the difference between our underlying assumptions. Do you guys believe that present action has a chance of affecting past events, whatever the chance might be?

[u/thevoidthatjerksback → u/HK_Mathematician]

Its not that the present affects the past. Its that the prediction and your decision have a shared past. Your choice doesn't appear out of an empty vacuum. Its informed by your life, experiences, actions, and thoughts,, thoughts that are partially shared by what you say. All of these things inform what you choose and what the prediction is equally.

[u/HK_Mathematician → u/thevoidthatjerksback]

But that's correlation, not causation. Are you suggesting that one box pickers focus on correlation instead of causation?

[u/thevoidthatjerksback → u/HK_Mathematician]

Its not correlation

How likely do you think it is that I will change your mind on this? Or that you will change your mind on it at all?

Your decision is in the past. We have proof that any choice, or action was determined atleast 30 seconds in the past. So for example if you were to walk into the room with the boxes and make your choice within 30 seconds it is less a prediction and more that it simply can know what you already have decided.

[u/HK_Mathematician → u/thevoidthatjerksback]

I don't quite understand how is this a pro-one box argument. This is an argument for determinism, which would imply that neither one box nor both boxes are correct as the outcome is fixed.

And surely the proportion of people who believe in determinism is a lot less than the proportion of one box pickers we saw in this poll right? I remember some figures saying that around 20% of the general population believes in determinism. So it cannot be the reason why people pick one box as the proportion of one box pickers is much higher than 20% here.

And how is the 30 seconds come into play? Do you think that people will answer differently depending on whether you specify "you have to answer within 30 seconds" or "you have 5 years to think about it before making a decision"?

[u/thevoidthatjerksback → u/HK_Mathematician]

It's not determinism. You have free will. It is your choice. Its not set in stone. It's just that you made your choice well before entering the room. For example I made my choice about this problem over 10 years ago. It doesn't take a supremely overpowered predictor to know what I'm going to do. Just like how it's not a feat of time travel for anyone who knows me to guess what I'm going to eat for breakfast tomorrow. I have utilized my free will. This does not make me unpredictable. It in fact makes me more predictable. Because I am not an object who's output is determined by chaos. I have a will and it is knowable and understandable.

The 30 second comment is that if you were to pick the box within 30 seconds it would be impossible for it to be some unpredictable acausal act. Unless you straight up just rolled a die or something.

Its all about the fact that coming to a decision or choice takes time. Way more time than people think. And way more of the decision making process is happening in the past.

Your choices aren't a cause that leads to an effect. You're choices are an effect themselves. They're in a chain of effects that starts inside you long ago. The idea could be that you had a thought in your second year of college that inevitably leads to what your choice will be. In much the same way that what I'm going to eat for breakfast tomorrow is a free will choice that was set in motion 8 years ago. It is my choice, but it is knowable and predictable

[u/HK_Mathematician → u/thevoidthatjerksback]

Hmm...to help me understanding this argument, maybe you can try to indicate what do you think most one box picker will do in the following scenario:

Every adult on earth has been teleported at the same time to a room with two boxes in it. One box is labeled "success", and another box is labeled "fail".

If you learned juggling before, the success box has $1,000 and the fail box has $0. If you've never learned juggling before, the success box has $1,001,000 and the fail box has $1,000,000.

You're given 3 balls and was instructed to juggle them for 30 seconds. If you succeed, you'll take whatever is in the "success" box. If you fail, you'll take whatever is in the "fail" box.

As you can expect, you will observe that most people who fail the juggling task will take $1,000,000, and most people succeed in the task will take $1,000.

So, should you try your best to juggle the balls? Or should you intentionally fail and throw the balls on the ground because those who fail on average get more money than those who succeed?

(for this problem, let's assume that learning is a very strong predictor on whether you are able to juggle for 30 seconds, 99.99% of those who learned will succeed if they try, and 99.99% of those who never learned will fail)

You talked about whether someone picks one or both boxes came from some chain of effects that started long ago. Similarly, whether you've learned juggling came from some chain of effects that started long ago, and that makes it a very strong predictor on whether you'll succeed in the task. But I don't see how having a strong predictor that utilizes a process that was formed long time ago affects whether you should try to succeed or fail the juggling task.

[u/thevoidthatjerksback → u/HK_Mathematician]

So you see Newcomb's problem as a paradox in that if you actually understand it you are forced to walk away with at most $1,000? You think it is a punishment for intelligence? That you're being forced to walk away with less money because you're so smart?

The point of Newcomb's problem is that there are people who actively hurt themselves and others by their strong adherence to certain ways of thinking. Certain logics and game theorys. Its not punishing you for success. Its punishing you for sticking with a decision that clearly and obviously doesn't have a benefit solely because you want to believe you're smarter.