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 <
[email protected]>
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.
