Text File

Aharpo.524 net.math utzoo!decvax!harpo!jerry Thu Apr 15 20:05:44 1982 Re: Newcombe's paradox

This is such an interesting paradox because both answers have totally convincing arguments. Comments should address flaws in either of these arguments, (if there are any) rather than repeat one or the other.

With regard to Greg Guthries comments about quantum mechanics: There are no quantum effects involved. The placement of the money is a macroscopic event. It can be observed without any significant interactions between the money and the observer.

An interesting twist is to reverse the role of computer and human, and ask: If I was programming a robot to embody general intelligence and common sense, how would I want it to react if confronted with Newcombe's situation, and how do I write the program so that the robot reaches the desired answer.

Finally. The weakest point in the paradox seems to be the treatment of "random choices". If enough people make random choices, but deny it, the computer can never establish the required accuracy in prediction.

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.