wedrifid comments on The Presumptuous Philosopher's Presumptuous Friend - Less Wrong

3 Post author: PlaidX 05 October 2009 05:26AM

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

Comments (80)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 06 October 2009 08:20:47PM 1 point [-]

Probability against a random human is entirely irrelevant - what Omega must do is probability against the most uncooperative human being nontrivially >.5, as you can choose to be maximally uncooperative if you wish to.

The limit of how uncooperative you can be is determined by how much information can be stored in the quarks from which you are constituted. Omega can model these. Your recourse of uncooperativity is for your entire brain to be balanced such that your choice depends on quantum uncertainty. Omega then treats you the same way he treats any other jackass who tries to randomize with a quantum coin.

Comment author: SilasBarta 06 October 2009 09:38:49PM -2 points [-]

Geez! When did flipping a (provably) fair coin when faced with a tough dilemma, start being the sole domain of jackasses?

Comment author: SilasBarta 06 October 2009 09:44:13PM -1 points [-]

Geez! When did questioning the evilness of flipping a fair coin when faced with a tough dilemma, start being a good reason to mod someone down? :-P

Comment author: wedrifid 06 October 2009 09:56:26PM *  0 points [-]

Don't know. I was planning to just make a jibe at your exclusivity logic (some jackasses do therefore all who do...).

Make that two jibes. Perhaps the votes were actually a cringe response at the comma use. ;)

Comment author: SilasBarta 06 October 2009 10:00:29PM 0 points [-]

Well, you did kinda insinuate that flipping a coin makes you a jackass, which is kind of an extreme reaction to an unconventional approach to Newcomb's problem :-P

Comment author: wedrifid 06 October 2009 10:25:53PM 0 points [-]

;) I'd make for a rather harsh Omega. If I was dropping my demi-divine goodies around I'd make it quite clear that if I predicted a randomization I'd booby trap the big box with a custard pie jack-in-a-box trap.

If I was somewhat more patient I'd just apply the natural extension, making the big box reward linearly dependent on the probabilities predicted. Then they can plot a graph of how much money they are wasting per probability they assign to making the stupid choice.

Comment author: SilasBarta 06 October 2009 10:40:41PM 0 points [-]

I'd make for a rather harsh Omega. If I was dropping my demi-divine goodies around I'd make it quite clear that if I predicted a randomization I'd booby trap the big box with a custard pie jack-in-a-box trap.

Wow, they sure are right about that "power corrupts" thing ;-)

Comment author: wedrifid 06 October 2009 11:38:40PM 0 points [-]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts... comically?