What happens if we reverse Newcomb's Paradox and replace it with two negative sums? Doesn't it kinda maybe affirm Roko's Basilisk?
So Newcomb's Paradox becomes: > Box A is clear, and always contains a visible -$1,000. > Box B is opaque, and its content has already been set by the predictor: > If the predictor has predicted the player will take both boxes A and B, then box B contains nothing....
Jan 26, 20201
So for the point I made here:
To clarify, I'm trying to say that the opposite problem shows up, where it's kinda like a reverse of the Newcomb's Paradox. Here's what I'm thinking happens
... (read more)