= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on You're in Newcomb's Box - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (172)
Can you link to a description of the Newcomb's problem with both boxes transparent?
If the problem is how you imply it to be, I don't know what Omega would do if I one-boxed in the case of an empty transparent box, and I two-boxed in the case of a full one. That seems an exceptionally easy way to contradict Omega's prediction, which in turn goes against the principle of Omega being Omega.
Also, what you're doing seems to be substituting an uncertainty of the content for the box with an uncertainty of whether Omega will appear to me and offer me a empty or full box. But there's an infinite number of hypothetical quasi-deities that might appear to me, and I can't commit to all their hypothetical arbitrary demands in advance.
Rules of (one version of) Transparent Newcomb.
Incorrect rules. You don't need the "don't invite to his games" one, and you don't need randomization. Corrected here.
Both rules work. In both games, one-boxing no matter what is the winning strategy.
I designed my rules have the feature that by one-boxing upon seeing an empty box B you visibly prove Omega wrong. In the version you linked to, you don't necessarily: maybe Omega left box B empty because you would have two-boxed if it was full.
So both problems can be reasonably called "Transparent Newcomb". The one you linked to was invented first and is simpler, though.