Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hounx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort
From: kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT)
Newsgroups: net.puzzle,net.philosophy,net.sci,net.religion
Subject: Re: Newcomb's Paradox
Message-ID: <754@hounx.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Mar-86 07:39:34 EST
Article-I.D.: hounx.754
Posted: Tue Mar 25 07:39:34 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 07:16:48 EST
References: <12518@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, <1480@mhuxt.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 13
Xref: watmath net.puzzle:1561 net.philosophy:4660 net.sci:647 net.religion:9769

I agree with Jeff Sonntag that Newcomb's Paradox suggests that
perfect precognition is impossible.  Another convincing proof
appears in a charming piece by Smullyan entitled Is God Stubborn?
Smullyan sets up a scenario where an omniscient God cannot *reveal*
his prediction of which breakfast cereal the stubbornly willful
and defiant mortal will select.  The mortal has vowed to select
the opposite choice from the prediction.

(Of course, if *I* were doing the prediction, I'd starve the
bastard into submission by predicting that he'd eat at least
one of his choices.)

--Barry Kort  ...ihnp4!hounx!kort