cousin_it comments on Newcomb's Problem: A problem for Causal Decision Theories - Less Wrong

8 [deleted] 16 August 2010 11:25AM

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

Comments (120)

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

Comment author: jmmcd 16 August 2010 03:28:00PM 0 points [-]

I realized that I’d been asking the wrong question. I had been asking which decision would give the best payoff at the time and saying it was rational to make that decision. Instead, I should have been asking which decision theory would lead to the greatest payoff.

I wonder if it is possible to go one more step: instead of asking which decision theory to use (to make decisions), we should ask which meta-decision theory we should use (to choose decision theories). In that case, maybe we would find ourselves using EDT for Newcomb-like problems (and winning), but a simpler decision theory for some other problems, where EDT is not required to win.

I don't know what a meta-decision theory would look like (I barely know what a decision theory looks like).

Comment author: cousin_it 16 August 2010 03:41:31PM *  1 point [-]

As many of us here secretly hope, the meta-decision theory must "reproduce itself" as the object-level decision theory. Just don't ask me what this means formally.

Comment author: jmmcd 16 August 2010 04:15:01PM 0 points [-]

That makes sense. It implies that we wouldn't find ourselves using different object-level decision theories in different situations.

(But is it possible to construct a problem analogous to Newcomb's on which EDT loses? If so it seems we would need different object-level DTs after all.)

Comment author: CronoDAS 16 August 2010 05:24:27PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: cousin_it 16 August 2010 06:08:09PM 0 points [-]

As I wrote elsewhere in this thread, see the Newcomb's variant with transparent boxes, or Parfit's Hitchhiker.