Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

joaolkf comments on Fixing akrasia: damnation to acausal hell - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: joaolkf 03 October 2013 10:34PM

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

Comments (25)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 04 October 2013 09:22:51AM *  2 points [-]

Any acausal trade depends on precommitment, this is the only way an agreement can go across space-time, it is done on the game-theoretical possibilities space - as I am calling it. In the case I am discussing, a powerful agent would only have reason to even consider acausal trading with an agent if that agent can precommit. Otherwise, there is no other way of ensuring acausal cooperation.

I don't understand what you mean by "precommit" here and in the rest of the article. Taboo "precommit". (Acausal trade is presumably also possible for individual actions, in which case the usual sense of "precommitment" doesn't seem relevant.)

Comment author: joaolkf 04 October 2013 12:32:00PM *  0 points [-]

Thanks for the tip. You are right, it is not clear when I am using the word in a game theoretical framing or in psychological framing. That made my argumentation easier but more likely to be flawed. Mostly I was referring to precommitment as in TDT, but then by the end I changed to psychological precommitment, it's fuzzy (and wrong). I will rewrite the post tabooing precommit when I have the time, probably tomorrow.