>>1151964>You are one of the people who choose to 1-box and who think that the alternative is sillyBear in mind that it's been stated multiple times in this thread that the exact wording of the question tells you whether the predictor is infallible or not (and "kinda infallible", "sorta infallible", "infallible in every case apart from this one", "infallible unless you try to trick him with this one weird trick", etc. etc. etc. are all examples of "not"), and there's an optimal strategy for either case. To paint someone who's repeatedly stated this as "You are one of the people who choose to 1-box" suggests that you've prepared your script ahead of time, are anticipating a one-way conversation where you're doing the enlightening, and aren't really paying attention to what's actually being said. To reiterate, the status of the predictor is either:
(infallible) - take one box
(not infallible) - take both boxes
and this is either stated or not stated in the problem. If it's not stated, then this becomes a more complicated game theory question, but still not one that's paradoxical.
Therefore, I assert that Newcomb's "paradox" is not a paradox, because the apparent contradictions come about from vagueness and misunderstandability of the question leading to people answering different contradictory questions, rather than an apparent contradiction between two apparently-valid deductions from the same understanding of the same question.
>>1151964I'm sorry, the existence of people who get a problem wrong and make elementary errors of logic and won't explain their position or the reasoning that led them to think they're right and won't even countenance the possibility they're wrong makes it a paradox?
>monty hall paradox Yeah okay, fine.
