rhollerith_dot_com comments on Timeless Decision Theory and Meta-Circular Decision Theory - Less Wrong

24 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 August 2009 10:07PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (37)
Tags: causality udt newcomblike mcdt timeless timeless_decision_theory tdt

Comments (37)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: rhollerith_dot_com 21 August 2009 06:12:47AM *  3 points [-]

Bravo Eliezer! The material is extremely crispy, and I have never seen anyone who can explain technical material as well as you.

Quick question, please!

if we have completely observed our own initial source code, and perhaps observed Omega's initial source code which contains a copy of our source code and the intention to simulate it, but we do not yet know our own decision, then the only way in which our uncertainty about our own physical act can possibly be correlated at all with Omega's past act to fill or leave empty the box B - given that neither act physically causes the other - is if there is some common ancestor node unobserved;

Identifying this common ancestor node as the logical output of the expected-utility calculation is what you referred to earlier as Godelian diagonalization; is it not?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 August 2009 07:14:59AM 4 points [-]

No, the Godelian diagonal is the self-replicating recipe you use to have the computation talk about itself when it says "my own result". See p.3 of here.

Bravo Eliezer! The material is extremely crispy

Really? I thought I was frantically blurting out a huge blog-comment response that I didn't really have time to edit all that well.

Comment author: thomblake 26 August 2009 05:36:38PM 2 points [-]

Seconding Richard's comment. You seem hesistant to explain technical things here for fear of being imprecise, but you're actually very good at explaining yourself and many of the folks here can fill in the gaps.

Comment author: rhollerith_dot_com 21 August 2009 01:41:04PM *  1 point [-]

Really? I thought I was frantically blurting out a huge blog-comment response that I didn't really have time to edit all that well.

I was taking the signs that the response was blurted out quickly into account in my evaluation of skill level.

Maybe I should have put a "probably" in my statement. Certainly you are particularly good at explaining technical material to me.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit