= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on You're in Newcomb's Box - LessWrong
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 (172)
But you should only one-box if you think that the prediction of you one-boxing is tied to whether or not there is more money in the box.
In this case, as near as I can tell, Prometheus believes that you will one-box. Go ahead and two-box and collect the money. Unless we think Omega is lying, there's no reason to believe that one-boxing is superior in this problem.
It is not money we care about, it is utility. In both cases the predictor is long gone.
When Prometheus is preparing his choice he doesn't know whether you will one box - once he does know he is more or less done deciding and just the implementation is left. Now he believes that you will one box - but he is long gone.
In both cases there is always going to be the $1,000 in the little box. In both cases you are always going to take the big box.