To some people the answer is obviously box A — you get $1,000,000 because the predictor is perfect. To others, the answer is obviously to pick both, because no matter what the predictor said, it’s already done and your decision can’t change the past, so picking both boxes will always net you $1000 more than picking just one. Neither argument has any obvious flaw. That’s the paradox.
It’s only the one-boxers who describe the predictor as “perfect”, presumably interpolating from the observation that the predictor has always been right so far. Two-boxers might argue that you have no idea if the predictor is perfect or whether they’ve just been incredibly lucky so far, but also, they will argue that this is irrelevant because the boxes have already been set up and your choice cannot change it anymore.
The box with $1,000,000?
To some people the answer is obviously box A — you get $1,000,000 because the predictor is perfect. To others, the answer is obviously to pick both, because no matter what the predictor said, it’s already done and your decision can’t change the past, so picking both boxes will always net you $1000 more than picking just one. Neither argument has any obvious flaw. That’s the paradox.
Also, thanks for taking me down an interesting rabbit hole. I’d never heard of that paradox before and enjoyed reading up on it.
My flaw with the two-box choice is that the predictor is - in some way or another - always described as “perfect”. Two-boxer people are contrarians!
~ Firm One-boxer
It’s only the one-boxers who describe the predictor as “perfect”, presumably interpolating from the observation that the predictor has always been right so far. Two-boxers might argue that you have no idea if the predictor is perfect or whether they’ve just been incredibly lucky so far, but also, they will argue that this is irrelevant because the boxes have already been set up and your choice cannot change it anymore.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing that perspective 🤔