Decius comments on Why do theists, undergrads, and Less Wrongers favor one-boxing on Newcomb? - Less Wrong

15 Post author: CarlShulman 19 June 2013 01:55AM

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

Comments (299)

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

Comment author: Decius 19 June 2013 05:53:57AM -2 points [-]

At the time you are asked to make the decision, taking both boxes gets you more money than taking one box does.

People who take one box take $1,000,000 instead of $1,001,000; people who take two boxes take $1000 instead of $0.

Comment author: Baughn 19 June 2013 04:29:41PM 0 points [-]

Um, huh?

I don't enjoy word games, but what does "instead of" mean here?

Comment author: Decius 19 June 2013 05:47:18PM 0 points [-]

The one-boxers had a choice between $1m and $1m+1k; the two boxers had a choice between $0 and $1k. The "instead of" refers to their reward if they had done the opposite of what it had already been predicted that they do.

Comment author: Baughn 20 June 2013 09:28:36AM 1 point [-]

The problem statement is assuming a perfect predictor, though, so that 'instead of' clause is mostly noise.

Comment author: Decius 21 June 2013 02:17:39AM 0 points [-]

Yeah, it designates the counterfactual; what they didn't take.

Comment author: Baughn 21 June 2013 01:27:49PM 0 points [-]

It's not referring to a possible state of reality.

Comment author: Decius 22 June 2013 11:25:15PM 0 points [-]

In which case there aren't possible states of reality; only exemplified and counterfactual states.