Khoth comments on The Ultimate Newcomb's Problem - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (112)
I initially thought two-box, but on thinking about it more, I'm going for one-box.
For simple numbers, let's suppose that the lottery has a 50% chance of choosing a prime number, and that if Omega could select the same number as the lottery, he'll do so with 10% probability.
Three simple strategies:
1) Always one-box: Gets Omega's payout every time, wins the lottery 50% of the time. Average total payout $2M. (numbers are the same 10% of the time when the lottery is 'prime')
2) Always two-box: Omega never pays out, wins the lottery 50% of the time. Average total payout $1.001M. (numbers are the same 10% of the time when the lottery is 'composite')
3) Normally one-box, two-box when numbers are the same. Omega pays out 95% of the time. Lottery pays out 50% of the time. Average total payout $1.95M. (Numbers are the same 10% of the time when the lottery is 'composite')
The trick is that the question tries to lead you to the wrong counterfactual by drawing your attention to the situation where the numbers are the same. Whether you see the numbers being the same depends on your decision. In the counterfactual world where you decide something else, the lottery number doesn't change to match Omega's prediction. Instead, in the counterfactual world, the lottery number and Omega's number are different.
The sixth virtue is empiricism. Nice job.
I don't see the relevance. The commenter contemplated a hypothetical scenario through abstract thinking, there's no empiricism here.
Actually doing the math, rather than just relying on intuition about what sounds right.