Blueberry 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: benelliott 02 February 2011 08:15:43AM *  2 points [-]

I don't know about you, but I would still one-box on Newcomb's problem even if Omega is not entirely infallible, so the fact the Prometheus is capable of mistakes cannot be the problem. I would also one-box in transparent Newcomb's, since once again being the sort of person that does that seems to end well for me.

What is the difference between this and transparent Newcomb's with an Omega who is very occasionally wrong.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 04 February 2011 10:36:08PM 0 points [-]

What is the difference between this and transparent Newcomb's with an Omega who is very occasionally wrong.

Well for starters, existing people can be rewarded or punished. Non-existing people cannot. Any bet offered with a promise or punishment to a non-existing person, is a sucker's bait.

Btw, Transparent Newcomb also seems stupid to me. When Omega offers you the boxes you see what Omega has foreseen for you, and yet you're seemingly not allowed to update on the information, because being the sort of person who lets observed reality affect his decision-making means that Omega won't have chosen you in the first place. Or e.g. being the person who lets emotional outrage at Omega prejudging you affect his judgment.

I can precommit to honoring some known situations (Parfit's hitchhiker, Kavka's toxin), but I don't know how to self-modify to not self-modify at any situation. That looks like brain-damage to me, not rationality.

Comment author: Blueberry 05 February 2011 09:01:49PM 0 points [-]

Transparent Newcomb is the same problem as Kavka's toxin. You should take one box for the same reason you should drink the toxin after the millionaire gives you the money. Your argument would prevent you from winning at Kavka's toxin: after you get the money, and you're faced with the toxin to drink, it's tempting to think that there's no reason to drink it.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 07 February 2011 04:59:24PM 0 points [-]

You're not making the correct comparison. Drinking Kavka's toxin after you get the money is like one-boxing after seeing the box is full.

One-boxing whether the box is full or empty is however like drinking Kavka's toxin even if you do NOT get the money.

And since Transparent Newcomb demands the latter (one-boxing whether the box is full or empty), it's not the same problem as Kavka's toxin.