Vladimir_Nesov comments on The Blackmail Equation - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 10 March 2010 02:46PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (87)
Tags: decision_theory newcomblike decision winning meta rationality cooperation logic coordination

Comments (87)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 March 2010 09:22:18PM 0 points [-]

So? (Not a rhetorical question.)

Comment author: wedrifid 10 March 2010 09:33:29PM *  0 points [-]

The point is that it is not a fixed fact about yourself unless you have an esoteric definition of self that is "what I was, am or will be at one particular instant in time". Under the conventional meaning of 'yourself', you can change and do so constantly. Essentially the 'So?' is a fundamental rejection of the core premise of your comment.

(We disagree about a fundamental fact here. It is a fact that appears trivial and obvious to me and I assume your view appears trivial and obvious to you. It doesn't seem likely that we will resolve this disagreement. Do you agree that it would be best for us if we just leave it at that? You can, of course, continue the discussion with FAWS who on this point at least seems to have the same belief as I.)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 March 2010 10:12:52PM *  0 points [-]

Also, you shouldn't agree with the statement I cited here. (At least, it seems to be more clear-cut than the rest of the discussion.) Do you?

Comment author: wedrifid 10 March 2010 10:26:23PM 0 points [-]

I agree with the statement of FAWS' that you quoted there. Although I do note that FAWS' statement is ambiguous. I only agree with it to the extent that the meaning is this:

Yes, its a fact about your strategy, but this particular strategy would not have been your strategy before making [the decision to precommit which involved some change in the particles in the universe such that your new state is one that will take a certtain action in a particular circumstance].

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 March 2010 10:34:08PM 0 points [-]

Still ambiguous, and hints at non-lawful changes, though likely not at all intended. It's better to merge in this thread (see the disambiguation attempt).

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 March 2010 09:50:16PM *  0 points [-]

What is the fact about which you see us disagreeing? I don't understand this discussion as having a point of disagreement. From my point of view, we are arguing relevance, not facts. (For example, I don't see why it's interesting to talk of "Who this fact is about?", and I've lost the connection of this point to the original discussion.)

Comment author: wedrifid 10 March 2010 10:01:03PM *  0 points [-]

What is the fact about which you see us disagreeing?

  1. You can modify your source code.
  2. You can make precommitments.
  3. "What could it mean to "make a precommitment"" is 'make a precommitment'. That is a distinct thing and 'signalling that you have made a precommitment". (If you make a precommitment and do not signal it effectively then it sucks for you.)
  4. More simply - on the point on which you were disagreeing with FAWS (I assert that)
    • FAWS' position does have meaning.
    • FAWS' meaning is a different meaning to what you corrected it to.
    • FAWS is right.

I don't understand this discussion as having a point of disagreement. From my point of view, we are arguing definitions, not facts.

It is probably true that we would make the same predictions about what would happen in given interactions between agents.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 March 2010 10:11:45PM 0 points [-]
  1. You can modify your source code.

Sure, why not?

  1. You can make precommitments.
  2. "What could it mean to "make a precommitment"" is 'make a precommitment'.

Not helping!

That is a distinct thing and 'signalling that you have made a precommitment". (If you make a precommitment and do not signal it effectively then it sucks for you.)

Of course, having a strategy that behaves in a certain way and signaling this fact are different things. It isn't necessarily a bad thing to hide something (especially from a jumble of wires that distinguishes your thoughts and not just actions as terminal value).

  1. More simply - on the point on which you were disagreeing with FAWS (I assert that)
  2. FAWS' position does have meaning.
  3. FAWS' meaning is a different meaning to what you corrected it to.
  4. FAWS is right.

Not helping!

Comment author: wedrifid 10 March 2010 10:34:27PM 0 points [-]

Not helping!

No, it is not. You asked (with some implied doubt) where we disagree. I answered as best I could. As I stated, we are probably not going to resolve our disagreement so I will leave it at that, with no disrespect intended beyond, as Robin often describes, the inevitable disrespect implicit in the actual fact of disagreement.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 March 2010 10:48:35PM 0 points [-]

The "Not helping!" parts didn't explain where we disagree (what are the facts I believe are one way and you believe are the other way), they just asserted that we do disagree.

But the last sentence suggests that we disagree about the definition of disagreement, because how could we disagree if you concede that

It is probably true that we would make the same predictions about what would happen in given interactions between agents.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit