= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nisan 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)
Well, here's the paradox: strict one-boxers in transparent Newcomb argue that they must one-box always, even when the box is empty, and therefore the boxes will be full.
Not just that, they argue that they must one-box always, even when the box is empty, BECAUSE then the box will be full.
Is that actually committment, or is that just doublethink, ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time? How can you commit to taking a course of action (grabbing an empty box) in order to make that course of action (grabbing an empty box) impossible?
And yeah, I'm sure I'd lose at playing transparent Newcomb, but I'm not sure that anyone but a master of doublethink could win it.
If I know that I'm going to play transparent Newcomb, and the only way to win at transparent Newcomb is to become a master of doublethink, then I want to become a master of doublethink.