= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on A Request for Open Problems - 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 (104)
Ok, I had interpreted the scope more widely than you intended.
I believe Eliezer has a formal analysis of Newcomb's problem, but I don't know if he's published it anywhere.
There are a fair number of formal analyses of Newcomb's problem. I particularly like this one:
D.H. Wolpert and G. Benford, What does Newcomb's paradox teach us? (showing that the standard approaches to the paradox encode fundamentally different - and inconsistent - views about the nature of the decision problem, and clearing up a number of other confusions.)
Newcomb's problem seems to disappear under any known formalization, and as far as I can tell from that thread and all others Eliezer doesn't have any good formalization which preserves its paradoxical nature