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.

wedrifid comments on [LINK] Another "LessWrongers are crazy" article - this time on Slate - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: CronoDAS 18 July 2014 04:57AM

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

Comments (129)

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

Comment author: philh 19 July 2014 08:30:07AM 6 points [-]

From a technical standpoint, this bit:

Even if the alien jeers at you, saying, “The computer said you’d take both boxes, so I left Box B empty! Nyah nyah!” and then opens Box B and shows you that it’s empty, you should still only take Box B and get bupkis. ... The rationale for this eludes easy summary, but the simplest argument is that you might be in the computer’s simulation. In order to make its prediction, the computer would have to simulate the universe itself.

Seems wrong. Omega wouldn't necessarily have to simulate the universe, although that's one option. If it did simulate the universe, showing sim-you an empty box B doesn't tell it much about whether real-you will take box B when you haven't seen that it's empty.

(Not an expert, and I haven't read Good and Real which this is supposedly from, but I do expect to understand this better than a Slate columnist.)

And I think the final two paragraphs go beyond "pokes fun at lesswrong".

Comment author: wedrifid 19 July 2014 12:11:44PM 5 points [-]

From a technical standpoint, this bit:

It is wrong in about the same way that highschool chemistry is wrong. Not one of the statements is true but the error seems to be one of not quite understanding the details rather than any overt misrepresentation. ie. I'd cringe and say "more or less", since that's closer to getting Transparent Newcomb's right than I could reasonably expect from most people.