Not a trick question, part 1

case 1: omega predicts you open onlyA If you open A you get 1000000 If you open both you get 1001000 Case 2: if omega predicts you open both If you open A only you get zero. If you open both you get 1000. So in both cases choosing to open both will give you the highest payoff.

why you take less while you can get more.Isn't $1,001,000 more than $1,000,000 ?

Try to get the best worst case scenario. Opening just box A gives you 0$, and opening both boxes gives 1000$. Hence both boxes should be opened

WTF? The main part of the "paradox", which is the part where the money in box A is based on how the agent predicts you will pick, is not mentioned at all here. There is only $1,000,000.00 in box A if the agent predicts that you will pick box A, according to the Wikipedia article. The agent is supposedly always right. Therefore, you should only pick box A or you will just get the $1000.00 from box B.

Or did I totally read the Wikipedia article wrong on this one? The question as stated is not interesting at all.

Here's what Wikipedia says:

Box B is clear, and always contains a visible $1,000. Box A 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 A contains nothing. * If the predictor has predicted that the player will take only box A, then box A contains $1,000,000.

Obviously open both - you can't lose. Seems too easy to me.

If there is $1,000,000 in box $A$ and $1000 in box $B$ , then opening just box $A$ will get you only $1,000,000, whereas opening both boxes will get you $1,001,000.

$1m + $1k > $1k

There's no reason not to maximize your odds of getting the most money.

Who don't want more money?

Maximise by taking both.

The questions suggests that Omega puts money in both boxes. Therefore to get the most you open both of the boxes.

omega has already put the money in . it's not in a superposition like quantum mechanics. therefore we are just adding a 1000$ more to our prize(0 or 1,000,000)

You will obviously get $1000 more if you open both boxes than if you just open one.

for me I have trouble in trust issues that's why I decided to open both boxes to reveal itself if it contains the money or not. Better safe than to be sorry hahaha

Its better to chose the option without the risk of getting 0

If you open one box, you get the contents of that box. If you open two boxes, you get the contents of both boxes. Since neither box contains less than $0, you can never reduce your returns by opening both boxes.

This problem is SO much easier than Newcomb's paradox, since we already know beforehand that there is $1000000 in box A! So it can easily be seen that taking both will give a $1000 higher payoff.

It has me foxed why this is a problem at all? There's no penalty for opening both boxes. However, if you introduced some sort of rate of return equation and probability of return for each of the boxes, then you could calculate your best return over time, which might be simply flipping one of the boxes only ...

Opening both you get all there is to be had regardless of what is in them.

If you get all the money from the ones you open. Open both, you get all the money there is no matter what.

Either way you get $1,000. Add even a tiny probability (not specified here) and you do a shade better, on average. Why not?

Given that the problem statement indicates there is money in both boxes, opening both maximizes wealth.

This is not just a logic question, it's also one of trusting your judgement in selection, It states it's not a trick question, but the mind is still un-trusting even though the logic screams at you........ Overcoming those thoughts and coming to a correct answer is half the battle.

Obviously open both boxes because it's a win win situation.

I m greedy!! Would definitely want both boxes to open.