Morendil comments on My Fundamental Question About Omega - Less Wrong

6 Post author: MrHen 10 February 2010 05:26PM

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

Comments (151)

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

Comment author: MrHen 10 February 2010 08:30:57PM 5 points [-]

I don't know how to respond to this or Morendil's second comment. I feel like I am missing something obvious to everyone else but when I read explanations I feel like they are talking about a completely unrelated topic.

Things like this:

You seem to be confused about free will. Keep reading the Sequences and you won't be.

Confuse me because as far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with free will. I don't care about free will. I care about what happens when a perfect predictor enters the room.

Is such a thing just completely impossible? I wouldn't have expected the answer to this to be Yes.

If you do know what the prediction is, then the way in which you react to that prediction determines which prediction you'll hear. For example, if I walk up to someone and say, "I'm good at predicting people in simple problems, I'm truthful, and I predict you'll give me $5," they won't give me anything. Since I know this, I won't make that prediction. If people did decide to give me $5 in this sort of situation, I might well go around making such predictions.

Okay, yeah, so restrict yourself only to the situations where people will give you the $5 even though you told them the prediction. This is a good example of my frustration. I feel like your response is completely irrelevant. Experience tells me this is highly unlikely. So what am I missing? Some key component to free will? A bad definition of "perfect predictor"? What?

To me the scenario seems to be as simple as: If Omega predicts X, X will happen. If X wouldn't have happened, Omega wouldn't predict X.

I don't see how including "knowledge of the prediction" into X makes any difference. I don't see how whatever definition of free will you are using makes any difference.

"Go read the Sequences" is fair enough, but I wouldn't mind a hint as to what I am supposed to be looking for. "Free will" doesn't satiate my curiosity. Can you at least tell me why Free Will matters here? Is it something as simple as, "You cannot predict past a free will choice?"

As it is right now, I haven't learned anything other than, "You're wrong."

Comment author: Morendil 10 February 2010 08:41:15PM 1 point [-]

Keep in mind that I might be confused about either free will or Newcomb problems.

My first comment above isn't really intended as an explanation of Newcomb's original problem, just an explanation of why they elicit feelings of confusion.

My own initial confusion regarding them has (I think) partly evaporated as a result of considering pragmatics, and partly too as a result of reading Julian Barbour's book on timeless physics on top of the relevant LW sequences.

Comment author: MrHen 10 February 2010 08:46:29PM 0 points [-]

Okay. That helps, thanks.