Qiaochu_Yuan 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: Qiaochu_Yuan 20 June 2013 07:28:43PM 0 points [-]

Isn't that a fully general counterargument against doing anything whatsoever in the absence of free will?

Comment author: shminux 20 June 2013 08:18:16PM -1 points [-]

Do you mean "a fully general argument against precommitting when dealing with perfect predictors"? I don't see how free will is relevant here, however it is defined.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 20 June 2013 09:19:56PM 0 points [-]

Person A: I'm about to fight Omega. I hear he's a perfect predictor, but I think if I bulk up enough, I can overwhelm him with strength anyway. He's actually quite weak.

Person B: I don't see how strength is relevant. Omega knows what you will do even if you don't, so why bother getting stronger?

Comment author: shminux 20 June 2013 09:28:25PM -1 points [-]

Feel free to make your point more explicit. What does this example mean to you?

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 20 June 2013 10:05:25PM 0 points [-]

Saying that Omega already knows what you will do doesn't solve the problem of figuring out what to do. If you don't precommit to one-boxing, your simulation might not one-box, and that would be bad. If you precommit to one-boxing and honor that precommitment, your simulation will one-box, and that is better.

Comment author: shminux 20 June 2013 10:14:26PM *  0 points [-]

I understand that precommitment can be a good thing in some situations, but I doubt that Newcomb is one of them.

If you don't precommit to one-boxing, your simulation might not one-box, and that would be bad.

There is no way my simulation will do anything different from me if the predictor is perfect. I don't need to precommit to one-box. I can just one-box when the time comes. There is no difference in the outcome.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 20 June 2013 11:54:38PM 2 points [-]

I don't understand how that's different from precommitting to one-box.

Comment author: shminux 21 June 2013 01:05:34AM 0 points [-]

To me the difference is saying that one-boxing maximizes utility vs promising to one-box. In the first case there is no decision made or even guaranteed to be made when the time comes. I might even be thinking that I'd two-box, but change my mind at the last instance.