Sideways comments on Counterfactual Mugging - Less Wrong

52 Post author: Vladimir_Nesov 19 March 2009 06:08AM

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

Comments (257)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Sideways 19 March 2009 09:18:44PM 13 points [-]

My two bits: Omega's request is unreasonable.

Precommitting is something that you can only do before the coin is flipped. That's what the "pre" means. Omega's game rewards a precommitment, but Omega is asking for a commitment.

Precommitting is a rational thing to do because before the coin toss, the result is unknown and unknowable, even by Omega (I assume that's what "fair coin" means). This is a completely different course of action than committing after the coin toss is known! The utility computation for precommitment is not and should not be the same as the one for commitment.

In the example, you have access to information that pre-you doesn't (the outcome of the flip). If rationalists are supposed to update on new information, then it is irrational for you to behave like pre-you.

Comment deleted 20 March 2009 07:19:43AM *  [-]
Comment author: Sideways 20 March 2009 07:45:30PM 1 point [-]

By definition, pre-you only has access to the coin's probability distribution, while you have access to the result of the coin flip. Surely you don't mean to say that's the same thing?

From the perspective of a non-superintelligence, Omega's prediction abilities are indistinguishable from magic. Human beings can't tell what they "imply." Trying to figure out the implications with a primate brain will only get you into a paradox like claiming a fact is the same as a probability distribution. All we can reasonably do is stipulate Omega's abilities needed to make the problem work and no further.