Perplexed comments on Desirable Dispositions and Rational Actions - Less Wrong

13 Post author: RichardChappell 17 August 2010 03:20AM

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

Comments (180)

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

Comment author: Perplexed 17 August 2010 09:26:36PM -1 points [-]

So far, the only effect that all the Omega-talk has had on me is to make me honestly suspect that you guys must be into some kind of mind-over-matter quantum woo.

What on Earth gives you that impression?

Omega makes a decision to put the money in the box, or not. In my model of (MWI) reality, that results in a branching - there are now 2 worlds (one with money, one without). The only problem is, I don't know which world I am in. Next, I decide whether to one-box or to two-box. In my model, that results in 4 possible worlds now. Or more precisely, someone who knows neither my decision nor Omega's would count 4 worlds.

But now we are asked to consider some kind of weird quantum correlation between Omega's choice and my own. Omega's choice is an event within my own past light-cone. By the usual physical assumptions, my choice should not have any causal influence on his choice. But I am asked to believe that if I choose to two-box, then he will have chosen not to leave money, whereas if I just believe as Omega wishes me to believe, then my choice will make me rich by reaching back and altering the past (selecting my preferred history?). And you ask "What on Earth gives me the impression that this is quantum woo?"

Comment author: RobinZ 17 August 2010 09:32:35PM 5 points [-]

Omega makes a decision to put the money in the box, or not. In my model of (MWI) reality, that results in a branching - there are now 2 worlds (one with money, one without). The only problem is, I don't know which world I am in. Next, I decide whether to one-box or to two-box. In my model, that results in 4 possible worlds now. Or more precisely, someone who knows neither my decision nor Omega's would count 4 worlds.

Incorrect. Omega's decision is no more indeterministic than the output of a calculation. Asking (say) me "Does two plus two equal three?" does not create two worlds, one in which I say "yes" and one in which I say "no" - overwhelmingly I will tell you "no".

Comment author: JamesAndrix 17 August 2010 10:49:27PM 4 points [-]

Your model ought to be branching at every subatomic event, not at every conscious intelligent choice.

This makes reality (even humans) predictable.

Comment author: prase 18 August 2010 11:16:26AM 2 points [-]

As others have said. Omega-talk is possible in a purely classical world, and is clearer in a classical world. Omega simply scans my brain and deterministically decides whether to put the money in or not. Then I decide whether I take one or two of the boxes. To say my choice should not have any causal influence on his choice is misleading at least. It may be true (depending on how exactly one defines causality), however it doesn't exclude correlations between the two choices simply because they are both consequences of a common cause (state of my brain and the relevant portion of the world immediately before the scenario begun).

There is no need to include quantumness or even MWI into this scenario, and no certain reason why quantum effects would prevent it from happening. That said, I don't say that something similar is probably going to happen soon.

Comment author: FAWS 17 August 2010 09:37:57PM *  2 points [-]

That's the case if you somehow manage to use a quantum coin in your decision. Your decision could be close enough to deterministic that the measure of the words where you decide differently is billions of times or more smaller and can safely be neglected.