Vladimir_Nesov comments on Unpacking the Concept of "Blackmail" - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 December 2010 12:53AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (136)
Tags: decision_theory blackmail game_theory

Comments (136)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 18 December 2010 11:25:06PM *  0 points [-]

One is a case where a precommitment makes a difference, the other isn't.

Obviously, the question is, why, what feature allows you to make that distinction.

Had you convincingly precommitted not to giving in to blackmail* you would not have been blackmailed.

Had you convincingly precommitted to getting the FSM to grant your blackmailer $1000, the FSM still wouldn't exist.

The open question is how to reason about these situations and know to distinguish them in such reasoning.

A logically impossible situation is one which couldn't happen in any logically consistent world.

"Worlds" can't be logically consistent or inconsistent, at least it's not clear what is the referent of the term "inconsistent world", other than "no information".

And again, why would one care about existence of some world where something is possible, if it's not the world one wants to control? If the definition of what you care about is included, the facts that place a situation in contradiction with that definition make the result inconsistent.

Comment author: Kingreaper 19 December 2010 12:24:58AM 0 points [-]

Obviously, the question is, why, what feature allows you to make that distinction.

Well, in one case, there are a set of alterations you could make to your past self's mind that would change the events.

In the other, there aren't.

And again, why would one care about existence of some world where something is possible, if it's not the world one wants to control?

Because it allows you to consistently reason about cause and effect efficiently.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 19 December 2010 12:26:25AM 0 points [-]

Because it allows you to consistently reason about cause and effect efficiently.

If it's not about the effect in the actual world, why is it relevant?

Comment author: Kingreaper 19 December 2010 12:57:19AM -1 points [-]

If it's not about the effect in the actual world, why is it relevant?

If I ask "What will happen if I don't attempt to increase my rationality" I'm reasoning about counterfactuals.

Is that not about cause and effect in the real world?

Counterfactuals ARE about the actual world. They're a way of analysing the chains of cause and effect.

If you can't reason about cause and effect (and with your inability to understand why precomitting can't bring the FSM into existence, I get the impression you're having trouble there) you need tools. Counterfactuals are a tool for reasoning about cause and effect.

Comment author: Manfred 19 December 2010 12:23:53AM 0 points [-]

Only one of possible-to-not-blackmail or his-noodliness-exists is consistent with the evidence, to very high probabilities.

Worlds, in the Tegmark-ey sense of a collection of rules and initial conditions, can quite easily be consistent or inconsistent.

You seem to be beating a confusing retreat here. I bet there's a better tack to take.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit