MixedNuts comments on Newcomb's Problem and Regret of Rationality - Less Wrong

64 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 31 January 2008 07:36PM

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

Comments (588)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: MixedNuts 03 November 2012 05:27:35PM 0 points [-]

No, putting $1 million in box B works to. Origin64 opens box B, takes the money, and doesn't take box A. It's like "This sentence is true." - whatever Omega does makes the prediction valid.

Comment author: blashimov 03 November 2012 05:39:40PM 0 points [-]

Which means you might end up with either amount of money, since you don't really know enough about Omega , instead of just the one box winnings. So you should still just one box?

Comment author: Endovior 04 November 2012 04:34:14AM 0 points [-]

Not how Omega looks at it. By definition, Omega looks ahead, sees a branch in which you would go for Box A, and puts nothing in Box B. There's no cheating Omega... just like you can't think "I'm going to one-box, but then open Box A after I've pocketed the million" there's no "I'm going to open Box B first, and decide whether or not to open Box A afterward". Unless Omega is quite sure that you have precommitted to never opening Box A ever, Box B contains nothing; the strategy of leaving Box A as a possibility if Box B doesn't pan out is a two-box strategy, and Omega doesn't allow it.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 04 November 2012 04:49:35AM 1 point [-]

Unless Omega is quite sure that you have precommitted to never opening Box A ever

Well, this isn't quite true. What Omega cares about is whether you will open Box A. From Omega's perspective it makes no difference whether you've precommitted to never opening it, or whether you've made no such precommitment but it turns out you won't open it for other reasons.

Comment author: inblankets 20 December 2012 07:49:45AM 0 points [-]

Assuming that Omega's "prediction" is in good faith, and that we can't "break" him as a predictor as a side effect of exploiting casuality loops etc. in order to win.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 20 December 2012 02:30:39PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure I understood that, but if I did, then yes, assuming that Omega is as described in the thought experiment. Of course, if Omega has other properties (for example, is an unreliable predictor) other things follow.