Jonathan_Lee comments on A problem with Timeless Decision Theory (TDT) - Less Wrong

36 Post author: Gary_Drescher 04 February 2010 06:47PM

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

Comments (127)

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

Comment author: Jonathan_Lee 04 February 2010 11:55:31PM *  1 point [-]

The game is to pick a box numbered from 0 to 2; there is a hidden logical computation E yielding another value 0 to 2. Omega has a perfect predictor D of you. You choose C.

The payout is 10^((E+C)mod 3), and there is a display showing the value of F = (E-D)mod 3.

If F = 0, then:

  • D = 0 implies E = 0 implies optimal play is C = 2; contradiction
  • D = 1 implies E = 1 implies optimal play is C = 1; no contradiction
  • D = 2 implies E = 2 implies optimal play is C = 0; contradiction

And similarly for F = 1, F = 2 play C = F+1 as the only stable solution (which nets you 100 per play)

If you're not allowed to infer anything about E from F, then you're faced with a random pick from winning 1, 10 or 100, and can't do any better...

Comment author: Wei_Dai 05 February 2010 11:14:16AM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure this game is well defined. What value of F does the predictor D see? (That is, it's predicting your choice after seeing what value of F?)

Comment author: Jonathan_Lee 05 February 2010 01:53:46PM 0 points [-]

The same one that you're currently seeing; for all values of E there is a value of F such that this is consistent, ie that D has actually predicted you in the scenario you currently find yourself in.