= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Formalizing Newcomb's - 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 (111)
Some authors define "Newcomblike problem" as one that brings evidential and decision theory into conflict, which this does.
So... in Newcomb's problem, evidential says one-box, causal says two-box, causal clearly fails.
In Chocolate problem, evidential says avoid chocolate, causal says eat the chocolate, evidential clearly fails.
Thus neither theory is adequate.
Is that right?
I assume it's a typo: evidential vs. causal decision theories.
Evidential decision theory wins for the wrong reasons, and causal decision theory just fails.
But evidential actually tells you not to eat the chocolate? That's a pretty spectacular failure mode -- it seems like it could be extended to not taking your loved ones to the hospital because people tend to die there.
Yeah, that was awkwardly worded, I was only referring to Newcomb.