= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Dan_Moore comments on My Fundamental Question About Omega - 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 (151)
I disagree, Omega can have various properties as needed to simplify various thought experiments, but for the purpose of Newcomb-like problems Omega is a very good predictor and may even have a perfect record but is not a perfect predictor in the sense of being perfect in principle or infallible.
If Omega were a perfect predictor then the whole dilemma inherent in Newcomb-like problems ceases to exist and that short circuits the entire point of posing those types of problems.
I agree. A perfect predictor is either Laplace’s Demon or a supernatural being. I don’t see why either concept is particularly useful for a rationalist.