HonoreDB 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (172)
Tags: evolution evpsych newcomblike timeless decision_theory philosophy

Comments (172)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 01 February 2011 08:30:55AM 1 point [-]

"You were created by a god: a being called Prometheus. Prometheus was neither omniscient nor particularly benevolent. He was given a large set of blueprints for possible human embryos, and for each blueprint that pleased him he created that embryo and implanted it in a human woman. Here was how he judged the blueprints: any that he guessed would grow into a person who would choose only Box B in this situation, he created. If he judged that the embryo would grow into a person who chose both boxes, he filed that blueprint away unused. Prometheus's predictive ability was not perfect, but it was very strong; he was the god, after all, of Foresight."

Do you take both boxes, or only Box B?

I take one box. Normal Newcomblike reasoning.

Comment author: datadataeverywhere 01 February 2011 04:10:38PM *  5 points [-]

Either I don't get it, or you are misapplying a cached thought. Please explain to me where my reasoning is wrong (or perhaps where I misunderstand the problem):

When answering Newcomb's problem, we believe Omega is a reliable predictor of what we will do, and based on that prediction places money accordingly.

In this problem, Prometheus always believes (by construction!) that we will one-box, and so will always place money according to that belief. In that case, the allocation of money will be the same for people who one-box (most people, since Prometheus is a good predictor), and the people who two-box.

You could make an alternate argument that even if you want to two-box, Prometheus' near infallibility means you are unlikely to (after all, if everyone did, he would be a terrible predictor), but that's different than answering what you should do in this situation.

Comment author: HonoreDB 01 February 2011 04:28:16PM 1 point [-]

The allocation of money is unspecified in this version, but has nothing to do with anyone's predictions. You don't get more money by one-boxing. I'll edit to make that clearer.

Comment author: datadataeverywhere 01 February 2011 04:35:20PM 0 points [-]

Thanks. Unfortunately, now I'm horrendously confused. What's the point of choosing either? Unless Prometheus is apt to feel vengeful (or generous), it doesn't seem like there is any reason to prefer one course of action over another.

Comment author: Nornagest 01 February 2011 07:03:32PM *  2 points [-]

My understanding is that you get $200 by two-boxing and $100 by one-boxing, but with the caveat that you were created by Prometheus, God of One-Boxers. The allocation of money doesn't change based on Prometheus's predictions, because by Omega's testimony you already know what set of Newcomblike predictions you belong to: your choice is whether or not to subvert that prediction.

I one-box on standard Newcomb, but I'd choose two boxes here.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit