Well, Nozick’s formulation in 1969, which popularized the problem in philosophy, went ahead and specified that “what you actually decide to do is not part of the explanation of why he made the prediction he made”.
Which means smuggling in a theory of unidirectional causality into the very setup itself, which explains how it winds up called “Newcomb’s Paradox” instead of Newcomb’s Problem.
That is not a specification, it is a supposition. It is the same supposition CDT makes (rejection of backwards causality) and leads to the same result of not playing Newcomb.
It’s like playing chess and saying “dude, my rook can go diagonal, too!”
Well, Nozick’s formulation in 1969, which popularized the problem in philosophy, went ahead and specified that “what you actually decide to do is not part of the explanation of why he made the prediction he made”.
Which means smuggling in a theory of unidirectional causality into the very setup itself, which explains how it winds up called “Newcomb’s Paradox” instead of Newcomb’s Problem.
That is not a specification, it is a supposition. It is the same supposition CDT makes (rejection of backwards causality) and leads to the same result of not playing Newcomb.
It’s like playing chess and saying “dude, my rook can go diagonal, too!”
At that point, you’re not playing chess anymore.