= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Xece comments on High School Lecture - Report - 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 (13)
How did you manage to discuss the Newcomb's paradox without deviating into free will and inside/outside view?
They just accepted the "god" used to phrase the problem as a perfect predictor. Most of the debate/discussion was centred around the fact whether or not it was more "logical" to choose both boxes (no debate on its definition, thankfully). The one-boxer's main argument was that given the god is a perfect predictor, the best choice was to one-box, as it would be impossible for two-boxing to yield $1,001,000.
"But the million is either there or not, might as well go for it!" -- how do you reconcile this with the "impossible for two-boxing to yield $1,001,000" without discussing free will?
To be honest, I didn't. I let them talk it out and the issue of free will never came up.