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.

ike comments on Newcomb versus dust specks - Less Wrong Discussion

-1 Post author: ike 12 May 2016 03:02AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (104)
Tags: anthropics

Comments (104)

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

Comment author: ike 16 May 2016 08:18:36PM 0 points [-]

You don't get to specify a universe without the kind of causality that the kind of CDT we use in our universe depends on, and then claim that this says something significant about decision theory.

What kind of causality is this, given that you assert that the correct thing to do in smoking lesions is refrain from smoking, and smoking lesions is one of the standard things where CDT says to smoke?

"A causes B, therefore B causes A" is a fallacy no matter what arguments you put forward.

In terms of CDT, we can say that smoking causes the gene

CDT asserts the opposite, and so if you claim this then you disagree with CDT.

You don't understand what counterfactuals are.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 16 May 2016 08:59:28PM 1 point [-]

What kind of causality is this, given that you assert that the correct thing to do in smoking lesions is refrain from smoking, and smoking lesions is one of the standard things where CDT says to smoke?

Recursive causality.

"A causes B, therefore B causes A" is a fallacy no matter what arguments you put forward.

Perfect mutual correlation means both that A->B and that B->A.

CDT asserts the opposite, and so if you claim this then you disagree with CDT.

No it doesn't.

You don't understand what counterfactuals are.

A counterfactual is a state of existence which is not true of the universe. It is not a contradiction.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit