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.

Randaly 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (136)
Tags: cdt newcomb

Comments (136)

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

Comment author: Randaly 02 July 2012 03:38:44PM *  1 point [-]

Actual Newcomb doesn't include an omniscient being; I quote from Wikipedia:

However, the original discussion by Nozick says only that the Predictor's predictions are "almost certainly" correct, and also specifies that "what you actually decide to do is not part of the explanation of why he made the prediction he made".

Except that this is false, so nevermind.

Also, actual knowledge of everything aside from the Predictor is possible without time travel. It's impossible in practice, but this is a thought experiment. You "just" need to specify the starting position of the system, and the laws operating on it.

Comment author: Andreas_Giger 02 July 2012 04:27:58PM 0 points [-]

Well, the German Wikipedia says something entirely different, so may I suggest you actually read Nozick? I have posted a paragraph from the paper in question here.

Translation from German Wiki: "An omniscient being..."

What does this tell us? Exactly, that we shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source.

Comment author: Randaly 02 July 2012 04:43:11PM 1 point [-]

Oops, my apologies.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit