= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TobyBartels 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)
Indeed, in the problem you have specified, God seems to be an incompetent predictor. If there's no competent predictor involved, it's safe to two-box.
Setting aside the Azathoth problem for a moment, the transparent Newcomb's problem I had in mind does involve a competent predictor. You would one-box in that situation, yes? Even though Omega has given you two full boxes?
As you and wedrifid agree, one can make arguments for not reproducing in HonoreDB's original Azathoth problem; my point is simply that "I already know Azathoth's prediction" is not a good argument.
OK, I agree with that. What matters is not what I happen to know but that Azathoth's one-boxing prediction (right or wrong) is guaranteed by the formulation of the problem itself.