Andrew comments on Hypothetical Paradoxes - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Psychohistorian 19 September 2009 06:28AM

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

Comments (33)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Andrew 19 September 2009 02:01:24PM 1 point [-]

I confess, when I first wrote out the CDT calculations for Newcombe's Paradox, I assumed that the prediction 'caused' the choice, and got one-boxing as a result.

Then I got confused, because I had heard by then that CDT suggests two-boxing.

Now I'm working on getting a copy of Causality so I can figure out if the network formalism still supports the prediction not being causally binding on the outcome.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 19 September 2009 05:27:24PM 1 point [-]

I confess, when I first wrote out the CDT calculations for Newcombe's Paradox, I assumed that the prediction 'caused' the choice, and got one-boxing as a result.

Then I got confused, because I had heard by then that CDT suggests two-boxing.

I like to say that the framework of CDT is not capable of understanding the statement of Newcomb's problem. But I'm not sure anyone agrees when I say it.