Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Newcomb's Paradox: a Subversive Interpretation

By K.Vela Velupillai

Abstract

A re-interpretation of the asymmetric roles assigned to the two agents in the genesis of Newcomb’s Paradox is suggested. The re-interpretation assigns a more active role for the 'rational' agent and a possible Turing Machine interpretation for the behaviour of the demon (alias 'being from another planet, with an advanced technology and science,..,etc.'). These modifications, while introducing new conundrums to an already diabolical interaction, do allow the 'rational' agent, as a computably behavioural agent, to make a clear decision, if any decision is possible at all. This latter caveat is necessary because in the Turing Machine formulation, the computably behavioural agent might have to face algorithmic undecidabilities

OAI identifier:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1982). A Note on Newcombmania,
  2. (2000). Computable Economics,
  3. (1981). Counterfactuals and Newcomb’s Problem,
  4. (1973). Free will revisited, with a mind-bending paradox by William Newcomb -
  5. (1992). Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems,
  6. (1972). Newcomb’s Paradox Revisited,
  7. (1970). Newcomb’s Problem and Two Principles of Choice, in:
  8. (1954). Solvable and Unsolvable Problems,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.