You are presented with two boxes, Box I and Box II. Box I always has one thousand dollars inside, but Box II either has one million dollars inside or is completely empty. The two options you have are to open Box II only, or to open both boxes. Whether Box II contains one million dollars or nothing is dependent on the action of a powerful predictor. If he believes you will only take Box II, he will put one million dollars inside it. however, if he predicts you will take both boxes, he will put nothing inside Box II. The predictor has never been wrong about anticipating your behavior in the past as well as what options participants will choose. Is the rational option choosing both boxes or only Box II?
The decision may seem pretty easy if a person …show more content…
When applying this dominance principle to the Newcomb Paradox, it seems as if it’s obvious to choose both boxes. For if the predictor believes you will choose Box II only, you will receive both the million he placed in that box and the thousand that is always in Box I. However, if the predictor believes you will choose to take both boxes, then you at least get the thousand. In both cases, you are always one thousand dollars better off than you would be if you chose to only take Box II, so it’s rational to choose two boxes. Although the dominance principle seems like a very rational decision, it is flawed because it does not regard the predictor’s decision as conditional on your method of thinking. For instance, if the predictor knew that you were a person who typically acts in a way that satisfies the dominance principle, then he will never put the million dollars in Box II because he knows you believe you have no incentive to choose only Box II. Even if you were to go into the room where you would make your decision intending to only take Box II, potentially trying to outsmart the predictor so there’s one million dollars in Box II, and at the last minute decided to take both boxes, you would end up with only one thousand dollars. Although this may seem
The decision may seem pretty easy if a person …show more content…
When applying this dominance principle to the Newcomb Paradox, it seems as if it’s obvious to choose both boxes. For if the predictor believes you will choose Box II only, you will receive both the million he placed in that box and the thousand that is always in Box I. However, if the predictor believes you will choose to take both boxes, then you at least get the thousand. In both cases, you are always one thousand dollars better off than you would be if you chose to only take Box II, so it’s rational to choose two boxes. Although the dominance principle seems like a very rational decision, it is flawed because it does not regard the predictor’s decision as conditional on your method of thinking. For instance, if the predictor knew that you were a person who typically acts in a way that satisfies the dominance principle, then he will never put the million dollars in Box II because he knows you believe you have no incentive to choose only Box II. Even if you were to go into the room where you would make your decision intending to only take Box II, potentially trying to outsmart the predictor so there’s one million dollars in Box II, and at the last minute decided to take both boxes, you would end up with only one thousand dollars. Although this may seem