= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Ingredients of Timeless Decision Theory - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (226)
Okay...
Omega comes along and says "I ran a simulation to see if you would one-box in Newcomb. The answer was yes, so I am now going to feed you to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. Have a nice day."
Doesn't this problem fit within your criteria?
If you reject it on the basis of "if you had told me the relevant facts up front, I would've made the right decision", can't you likewise reject the one where Omega flips a coin before telling you about the proposed bet?
If you have reason in advance to believe that either is likely to occur, you can make an advance decision about what to do.
Does either problem have some particular quality relevant for its classification here, that the other does not?
This is a statement about my global strategy, the strategy I consider winning. In this strategy, I one-box in the states of knowledge where I don't know about the monster, and two-box where I know. If Omega told me about the monster, I'd transition to a state of knowledge where I know about it, and, according to the fixed strategy above, I two-box.
In counterfactual mugging, for each instance of mugging, I give away $100 on the mugging side, and receive $10000 on the reward side. This is also a fixed global strategy that gives the actions depending on agent's state of knowledge.