= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JGWeissman comments on Newcomblike problem: Counterfactual Informant - 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 (24)
TDT does not pay in a counterfactual mugging, but it one boxes in transparent Newcomb's problem. These are not isomorphic.
To eliminate the chance to precommit, the problem should state that Clipmega has already revealed the information based on its prediction. This would introduce complications that Clipmega's decision is evidence that the Alphas' plan is not neccessary to produce the payment. But tabooing "precommit", what I meant is that CDT would support the Alpha's plan if it is introduced before, but not after, Clipmega's decision.
Really? I thought it did. Explanation or link?
At the decision point in a counterfactual mugging, you already know the coin has landed heads. The only consequence of your decision to pay $100 that TDT cares about is that you pay $100. That your choice to pay the $100 counterfactually would have resulted in Omega paying you $10000 if the coin had landed tails doesn't move TDT, because that consequence is counterfactual, that is, it doesn't really happen.