= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mesaprotector comments on Newcomb's Problem and Regret of Rationality - 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 (588)
This reminds me eerily of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. The money is already there, and making fun of me for two-boxing ain't gonna change anything.
A question - how could Omega be a perfect predictor, if I in fact have a third option - namely leaving without taking either box? This possibility would, in any real-life situation, lead me to two-box. I know this and accept it.
Then there's always the economic argument: If $1000 is a sum of money that matters a great deal to me, I'm two-boxing. Otherwise, I'd prefer to one-box.
Do you mean that $1,000 matters a great deal, but $1,000,000 doesn't matter a great deal? If you buy that Omega is a perfect predictor, then it's impossible to walk away empty-handed. (Whether or not you should buy that in real life is it's own issue.)