= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Newcomb's problem happened to me - 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 (97)
If precommitment is observable and unchangeable, then order of action is:
If precommitment is not observable and/or changeable, then it can be rearranged, and we have:
Or in the most complex situation, with 3 probabilistic nodes:
None of these is remotely Newcombish. You only get Newcomb paradox when you assume causal loop, and try to solve the problem using tools devised for situations without causal loops.
If Joe believes that his precommitment is inviolable, or even that it affects the probability of him breaking up later, then it appears to him that he is confronted with a causal loop. His decision-making program, at that moment, addresses Newcomb's problem, even if it's wrong in believing in the causal loop.
But I think this only proves that flawed reasoners may face Newcomb's problem. (It might even turn out that finding yourself facing Newcomb's problem proves your reasoning is flawed.)
It's still interesting enough to up-vote.