EHeller comments on Conceptual Analysis and Moral Theory - Less Wrong

60 Post author: lukeprog 16 May 2011 06:28AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (456)
Tags: metaethics morality

Comments (456)

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

Comment author: EHeller 24 November 2014 01:43:35AM *  0 points [-]

If your goal is to show that Omega is "impossible" or "inconsistent", then having Omega adopt the strategy "leave both boxes empty for people who try to predict me / do any other funny stuff" is a perfectly legitimate counterargument. It shows that Omega is in fact consistent if he adopts such strategy. You have no right to just ignore that counterargument.

This contradicts the accuracy stated at the beginning. Omega can't leave both boxes empty for people who try to adopt a mixed strategy AND also maintain his 99.whatever accuracy on one-boxers.

And even if Omega has way more computational than I do, I can still generate a random number. I can flip a coin thats 60/40 one-box, two-box. The most accurate Omega can be, then, is to assume I one box.

Comment author: nshepperd 24 November 2014 03:10:56AM 2 points [-]

This contradicts the accuracy stated at the beginning. Omega can't leave both boxes empty for people who try to adopt a mixed strategy AND also maintain his 99.whatever accuracy on one-boxers.

He can maintain his 99% accuracy on deterministic one-boxers, which is all that matters for the hypothetical.

Alternatively, if we want to explicitly include mixed strategies as an available option, the general answer is that Omega fills the box with probability = the probability that your mixed strategy one-boxes.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit