= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AmagicalFishy comments on Stupid Questions January 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (110)
Why is the Newcomb problem... such a problem? I've read analysis of it and everything, and still don't understand why someone would two-box. To me, it comes down to:
1) Thinking you could fool an omniscient super-being 2) Preserving some strictly numerical ideal of "rationality"
Time-inconsistency and all these other things seem totally irrelevant.
Well, there are people who would say the same thing but in reverse. There is a rationale behind that, even if I think it's wrong.
I don't think two-boxers think they can fool an omniscient super-being. They do think that whatever is in the box cannot be changed now, so it's foolish to give away $1,000. Would you one-box even with transparent boxes? If not, then you understand this logic. There's a reasonable argument there, especially as in the original paradox Omega is not perfect, so there's a chance that you'll get nothing while passing up $1,000.