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.

AlexMennen comments on Completeness of simulations - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: RolfAndreassen 24 August 2012 10:44PM

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

Comments (31)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: AlexMennen 25 August 2012 01:52:50AM 0 points [-]

The subject is confronted with the evidence that his wife is also his mother, and additionally with the fact that this GLUT predicts he will do X.

In what situation does the GLUT predict that he will do X? Let's say, for example, that the GLUT predicts: "Confronted with the evidence that his wife is also his mother, the subject will do X." When the subject is confronted with the evidence, and also with the GLUT's prediction, he does Y. But the GLUT is not wrong, because it predicted his actions under a different set of information than he actually had. Alternatively, let's define A as: "evidence that his wife is also his mother, and that when shown evidence A, does X". There is no particular reason that there has to exist an X such that it is possible to construct A.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 25 August 2012 04:27:34AM 0 points [-]

Your A is the scenario I had in mind.