Rationality Quotes: June 2011

Oscar_Cunningham

Y'all know the rules:

Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
Do not quote yourself.
Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.
No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

Y'all know the rules:

Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
Do not quote yourself.
Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.
No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

In both cases, while computing them you never assume anything which you know to be false

Counterfactual mugging and the ransom problem I mentioned in the great-grandparent are both cases where TDT requires you to consider consequences of counterfactuals you know didn't happen. Omega's coin didn't come up heads, and your friend has been kidnapped. Nevertheless you need to consider the consequences of your policy in those counterfactual situations.

I think counterfactual mugging was originally brought up in the context of problems which TDT doesn't solve, that is it gives the obvious but non-optimal answer. The reason is that regardless of my counterfactual decision Omega still flips the same outcome and still doesn't pay.

0Will_Sawin15y

There are two rather different things both going under the name counterfactuals. One is when I think of what the world would be like if I did something that I'm not going to do. Another is when I think of what the world would be like if something not under my control had happened differently, and how my actions affect that. They're almost orthogonal, so I question the utility of using the same word.