= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gRR comments on What a reduction of "could" could look like - 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 (103)
Yes, I see now, thanks.
If I attempted to fix this, I would try to change (Ax3) to something like:
forall a1,a2,w1,w2 ((A=a1 => W=w1) AND (A=a2 => W=w2) AND (w1>w2)) => NOT (FinalA=a2)
where FinalA is the actual decision. But then, why should the world's axiom (Ax2) be defined in terms of A and not FinalA? This seems conceptually wrong...
Ok, I'll go read up on the posts :)