You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

MinibearRex comments on Can anyone explain to me why CDT two-boxes? - Less Wrong Discussion

-12 Post author: Andreas_Giger 02 July 2012 06:06AM

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

Comments (136)

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

Comment author: MinibearRex 02 July 2012 07:30:38AM 1 point [-]

CDT is a solution to Newcomb's problem. It happens to be wrong, but it isn't solving a completely separate problem. It's going about solving Newcomb's problem in the wrong way.

Comment author: Andreas_Giger 02 July 2012 07:34:48AM *  -1 points [-]

I assume this means that you disagree with 3?

Edit: You're just contradicting me without responding to any of my arguments. That doesn't seem very reasonable, unless your aim is to never change your opinion no matter what.

Comment author: jsalvatier 02 July 2012 08:29:06AM 2 points [-]

I think people people may be confused by your word choice.

Comment author: Andreas_Giger 02 July 2012 08:35:44AM 0 points [-]

What are you referring to? I'd like to avoid confusion if possible.

Comment author: jsalvatier 02 July 2012 08:41:35AM *  3 points [-]

I think people are finding phrases "CDT is solving a separate problem" and "CDT refuses to play this game and plays a different one" jarring. See my other response. Edit: people might also find your tone adversarial in a way that's off-putting.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 July 2012 09:02:29AM *  7 points [-]

I think people are finding phrases "CDT is solving a separate problem" and "CDT refuses to play this game and plays a different one" jarring. See my other response. Edit: people might also find your tone adversarial in a way that's off-putting.

Jarring, wrong and adversarial. Not a good combination.

Comment author: Andreas_Giger 02 July 2012 08:51:57AM 0 points [-]

Yes, I saw your other reply, thank you for that.

Comment author: MinibearRex 03 July 2012 06:05:27AM 0 points [-]

I do disagree with 3, though I disagree (mostly connotatively) with 1 and 2 as well.

The arguments you refer to were not written at the time I wrote my previous response, so I'm not sure what your point in the "Edit" is.

Nevertheless, I'll write my response to your argument now.

In theoretical Newcomb, CDT doesn't care about the rule of Omega being right, so CDT does not play Newcomb.

You are correct when you say that CDT "doesn't care" about Omega being right. But that doesn't mean that CDT agents don't know that Omega is going to be right. If you ask a CDT agent to predict how they will do in the game, they will predict that they will earn far less money than someone who one-boxes. There is no observable fact that a one-boxer and a two-boxer will disagree on (at least in this sense). The only disagreement the two will have is about the counterfactual statement "if you had made a different choice, that box would/would not have contained money".

That counterfactual statement is something that different decision theories implicitly give different views on. Its truth or falsity is not in the problem; it's part of the answer. CDT agents don't rule out the theoretical possibility of a predictor who can accurately predict their actions. CDT just says that the counterfactual which one-boxers use is incorrect. This is wrong, but CDT is just giving a wrong answer to the same question.