wedrifid 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (120)
Tags: decision_theory

Comments (120)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 17 August 2010 04:30:00AM 0 points [-]

If you don't know whether you're a simulation or not, you don't know whether or not your taking the second box will cause the real-world money not to be there. And, as a simulation, you probably won't get to spend any of that sim-world money you've got there.

Replace 'Omega' with Patrick Jane. No sims. What do you do?

Comment author: Kingreaper 17 August 2010 10:36:24PM *  1 point [-]

A) I one-box. I will one-box in most reasonable scenarios.

B)How do you predict other people's actions?

Personally, I mentally simulate them. Not particularly well, mind, but I do mentally simulate them. Am I unusual in this?

I've never watched the Mentalist, but if Patrick Jane is sufficiently good to get a 99% success rate, I'm guessing his simulations are pretty damn good.

Comment author: arundelo 17 August 2010 10:51:46PM 1 point [-]

Patrick Jane is a fictional character in the TV show The Mentalist. He's a former (fake) psychic who now uses his cold reading skills to fight crime.

Comment author: Kingreaper 17 August 2010 11:38:23PM 1 point [-]

Cheers, had been looking that up, oddly my edit to my post didn't seem to update it.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit