wedrifid comments on You're in Newcomb's Box - Less Wrong

40 Post author: HonoreDB 05 February 2011 08:46PM

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

Comments (172)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 01 February 2011 12:01:14PM 2 points [-]

I think this is different from the traditional Newcomb's problem in that by the time you know there's a problem, it's certainly too late to change anything. With Newcomb's you can pre-commit to one-boxing if you've heard about the problem beforehand.

Newcomb's with precommitments? Next can we do Tic-tac-toe? ;)

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 01 February 2011 12:23:45PM *  -1 points [-]

If you haven't heard about the problem beforehand then asking what decision you "should" make is incoherent. You will get the result you were selected to get. There is no use talking as if you have some meta-choice.

edit: ie if you are selected on your decision process without having heard of such problems, then it is already too late to change your past decision process even if you fully understand the situation you are in. If you're capable of understanding the situation though, you presumably already had the right decision process on some level and will successfully one-box.

edit2: The probabilistic method of dealing with Newcomb's problem is to observe that one-boxers win, therefore you should one-box. This doesn't apply to the Prometheus problem; we can't observe that two-boxers probably never existed.

Comment deleted 01 February 2011 12:34:36PM [-]
Comment author: ShardPhoenix 01 February 2011 12:35:45PM *  0 points [-]

Good for you? I guess we'll have to call up Omega and Prometheus and test it all..