Eugine_Nier comments on Rationality Quotes: June 2011 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Oscar_Cunningham 01 June 2011 08:17AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (470)
Tags: quotes

Comments (470)

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

Comment author: benelliott 24 June 2011 03:32:41PM *  0 points [-]

Both CDT and TDT compare counter-factuals, they just take their counter-factual from different points in the causal graph.

In both cases, while computing them you never assume anything which you know to be false, whereas Kant is not like that. (Just realised, I'm not sure this is right).

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 25 June 2011 03:48:15AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: benelliott 25 June 2011 08:58:50AM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 25 June 2011 05:20:42AM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 25 June 2011 08:57:52AM 1 point [-]

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.

Well, I've been consistently using the word "conterfactual" in your second sense.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 25 June 2011 03:31:53PM *  0 points [-]

Well that might explain some of our miscommunication. I'll go back and check.

Consequences" only in a counterfactual world. . I don't see how you can call this consequentialist without streching the term to the point that it could include nearly any morality system.

This makes sense using the first definition, at least, according to TDT it does.

Both CDT and TDT compare counter-factuals, they just take their counter-factual from different points in the causal graph.

This is clearly using the first definition.

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.

This only makes sense with the second, and should probably be UDT rather than TDT - the original TDT didn't get the right answer on the counterfactual mugging.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 25 June 2011 11:13:50PM 2 points [-]

This only makes sense with the second, and should probably be UDT rather than TDT - the original TDT didn't get the right answer on the counterfactual mugging.

Sorry, I meant something closer to UDT.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 26 June 2011 03:17:25AM 0 points [-]

Alright cool. So I think that's what's going on - we all agree but were using different definitions of counterfactuals.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit