= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Unknowns comments on Two-boxing, smoking and chewing gum in Medical Newcomb 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 (93)
Interesting, thanks! I thought that it was more or less consensus that the smoking lesion refutes EDT. So, where should I look to see EDT refuted? Absent-minded driver, Evidential Blackmail, counterfactual mugging or something else?
Yes, as you can see from the comments on this post, there seems to be some consensus that the smoking lesion refutes EDT.
The problem is that the smoking lesion, in decision theoretic terms, is entirely the same as Newcomb's problem, and there is also a consensus that EDT gets the right answer in the case of Newcomb.
Your post reveals that the smoking lesion is the same as Newcomb's problem and thus shows the contradiction in that consensus. Basically there is a consensus but it is mistaken.
Personally I haven't seen any real refutation of EDT.