Does a Paradox Prove or Disprove the Existence of Free Will?

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael879
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of paradoxes, specifically Newcomb's Paradox, on the existence of free will. Participants explore whether a paradox that presupposes free will can serve as evidence for or against its existence, delving into philosophical and game-theoretical aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that if a paradox exists only under the assumption of free will, it could serve as a proof against free will.
  • Others argue that the validity of the paradox and its premises are crucial in determining its implications for free will.
  • Newcomb's Paradox is presented as a thought experiment involving a predictor who can foresee choices with high accuracy, raising questions about decision-making and free will.
  • One viewpoint emphasizes that if the predictor's ability to foresee choices is accepted, then the outcome is predetermined, challenging the notion of free will.
  • Another perspective posits that if the predictor's accuracy is doubted, then choices remain independent, allowing for free will to coexist with the paradox.
  • Some participants express that the paradox may not necessarily relate to free will, suggesting it is more of a dilemma based on belief in the predictor's abilities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the paradox proves or disproves free will, with multiple competing views remaining on the relationship between the paradox and the concept of free will.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on the assumptions regarding the predictor's abilities and the nature of the paradox itself, which remain unresolved.

michael879
Messages
696
Reaction score
7
I heard this paradox a while ago that is only a paradox if there is free will. Ill write it once I can find the exact details later.

Does a paradox that only exists if there's freewill count as a proof against free will?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Depends on the paradox and its validity. If it is valid and true then it would logically prove free will untrue and/or invalid.
 
its called newcomb's paradox:

Its a game theory thought experiment in which there are 2 players. One player predicts the choice that you will make between either choosing box B or choosing both A and B. He can predict with 100% accuracy. There is $100 in A no matter what the prediction is but if the prediction is that you will choose just B, he puts $1000 in B. You then make your choice and keep whatever is under the box(es) you chose.

If he predicts B and you choose B you get $1000. If you choose A and B you get $1100. If he predicts A and B and you choose B you get nothing. If you choose A and B you get $100. The question is, after he has made his prediction, what should you choose?

One argument is that choosing A and B will always get you $100 more than just B. However the other argument is that if you choose A and B, he would have predicted you choosing A and B and you will only get $100. If you choose just B he will have predicted it and you will get $1000. Both of these arguments make sense. Also, this paradox exists as long as the predictor can predict with 55% accuracy or greater. This makes it more than a thought experiment since it would be easy to make a real experiment out of it.

This only seems to be a paradox however under the assumption of freewill. Watching someone else play the game, you will see them make whatever decision that predictor has predicted. They will either end up with $1000 or $100. The paradox only really exists when you put yourself in the game and can't imagine not having freewill yourself.
 
michael879 said:
its called newcomb's paradox:

Its a game theory thought experiment in which there are 2 players. One player predicts the choice that you will make between either choosing box B or choosing both A and B. He can predict with 100% accuracy. There is $100 in A no matter what the prediction is but if the prediction is that you will choose just B, he puts $1000 in B. You then make your choice and keep whatever is under the box(es) you chose.

If he predicts B and you choose B you get $1000. If you choose A and B you get $1100. If he predicts A and B and you choose B you get nothing. If you choose A and B you get $100. The question is, after he has made his prediction, what should you choose?
I don't see it as a paradox - it's simply a dilemma.

"What you should choose" depends on whether you believe the premise that the predictor can accurately see the future (and is not simply making lucky guesses).

If this premise is true, then what is in box B is determined by your choice, hence you would be foolish to take both boxes (because by definition box B will be empty if you take both boxes, and you will get just the $100 in box A).

However if the predictor is simply making lucky guesses (and he cannot in fact see the future), then what is in box B is what it is and is NOT determined by your choice, and you would be foolish to NOT take both boxes (because no matter what he has put in box B, you will always get $100 extra if you take box A as well).

Thus, it's up to you - do you believe the predictor is genuine, or not?

I don't see that this has anything to do with free will - there is no inconsistency in the notion that we choose according to free will, but at the same time someone is able to know what we will choose.

Best Regards
 
Last edited:
michael879 said:
I heard this paradox a while ago that is only a paradox if there is free will. Ill write it once I can find the exact details later.

Does a paradox that only exists if there's freewill count as a proof against free will?
If the paradox which can exist only if there is freewill, then the fact that it exist proves freewill!
 

Similar threads

High School New Paradox Discovered, I Think
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
9K
Graduate Loophole-free test of local realism via Hardy's violation
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
Undergrad Solving Zeno's Paradox: The Flaw in the Notion of Infinity
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
Undergrad Bell's spaceship paradox unknown? Interpretation?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Finding support to complete a UK charity registration application
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
High School My paraphrased explanation of the Twin Paradox
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
Graduate Extended Wigner’s Friend Scenario and the existence of the reality
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad A paradox about energy balance and steady state
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Is Too Big to Fail a Flawed Concept in a Free Market?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
High School Question about the Entropy of a Black Hole Singularity
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K