= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid 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.
It is the Newcomb Problem. It may be tricky and counter-intuitive but it isn't a paradox. More importantly The Newcomb Problem does not rely on a causal loop. Some form of reliable prediction is necessary but that does not imply a causal loop.