Time travel, in the classic sense, has no place in rational theory[3] but, through predictions, information can have retrocausal effects.
[...] agency is time travel. An agent is a mechanism through which the future is able to affect the past. An agent models the future consequences of its actions, and chooses actions on the basis of those consequences. In that sense, the consequence causes the action, in spite of the fact that the action comes earlier in the standard physical sense.
― Scott Garrabrant, Saving Time (MIRI Agent Foundations research[4])
Feedback loops are not retrocausal. When you turn on a thermostat, then some time thereafter, the room will be at about the temperature it says on the dial. That future temperature is not causing itself, what is causing it is the thermostat's present sensing of the difference between the reference temperature and the actual temperature, and the consequent turning on of the heat source. If there's a window wide open and it's very cold outside, the heat source may not be powerful enough to bring the room up to the reference temperature, and that temperature will not be reached. Can this supposed Tardis be defeated just by opening a window?
The consequence does not cause the action. It does not even behave as if it causes the action. Here the consequence varies according to the state of the window, while the action (keep the heating on while the temperature is below the reference) is the same, regardless of whether it is going to succeed.
For agents that think about and make predictions about the future (as the thermostat does not), what causes the agent's actions is its present ideas about those consequences. Those present ideas are not obtained from the future, but from the agent's present knowledge. Nothing comes from the future. If there is the equivalent of an open window, frustrating the agent's plans, and the agent does not know of it, then they will execute their plans and the predicted consequence will not happen. The philosopher Robert Burns wrote a well-known essay on this point.
To the extent that they accurately model the future (based on data from their past and compute from their present[5]),
Yes.
agents allow information from possible futures to flow through them into the present.
No. The thermostat has no knowledge of its eventual success or failure. An agent may do its best to predict the outcome of its plans, but is also not in communication with the future. How much easier everything would be, if we could literally see the future consequences of our present actions, instead of guessing as best we can from present knowledge! But things do not work that way.
The Nick Land article you linked describes him as telling "theory fiction", a term I take as parallel to "science fiction". That is, invent stuff and ask, what if? (The "what if" part is what distinguishes it from mundane fiction.) But if the departure point from reality is too great a rupture, all you can get from it is an entertaining story, not something of any relevance to the real world. "1984" was a warning; the Lensman novels were inspirational entertainment; the Cthulhu mythos is pure entertainment.
There's nothing wrong with entertainment. But it is fictional evidence only, even when presented in the outward form of a philosophical treatise instead of a novel.
ETA: I see that two people already made the same point commenting on the linked Garrabrant article, but they did not receive a response. In the same place, I think this also touches on the same problem.
The vision of heaven stands at 37 karma, that of hell, 133. (But the former is two days younger. It will be interesting to see where it stands in the days to come.)
Two days later, the vision of heaven has actually gone down to 33, while hell is now at 165.
Apparently, people prefer five to one to be told they are powerless trash than that anything else is possible. I am reminded of Eric Raymond's essay on good porn vs. bad porn, and why the latter sort is the overwhelming majority.
I am sad about this but not surprised. People in the rationalsphere lap up tales that they have no choice about anything, that they are scum floating on the surface of unconscious forces they are powerless to affect, that they do nothing, only observe what their body has done, that nothing is true, all is a lie, X is never about X, status has you, and you don't exist.
I didn't invent any of these memes, only turned up to 11 what runs in the bloodstream of the rationalsphere.
A few more remarks about the contrast.
The vision of heaven is individual, spoken by "I". The vision of hell is all couched in terms of a general "you". The sufferer is unable to contemplate the idea that this is their own, individual state, but insists that this must be the condition of all.
The vision of heaven looks outward at the world, a place to find and create joy in. The vision of hell is turned in on itself. The character is curled up in a ball with eyes tightly shut, screaming forever at a world they refuse to see.
The vision of heaven is hopeful. The vision of hell is hopeless, at the end denying that any other state is possible for anyone.
The vision of heaven stands at 37 karma, that of hell, 133. (But the former is two days younger. It will be interesting to see where it stands in the days to come.)
When you say "you", are you talking about yourself, or is the monologist an imaginary victim of the utility egregore?
without any action in this engagement being able to be appropriately labeled “deliberate”
Well, there's the root of it. Who is to be in charge, you or the soul-eating shoggoth that wants to nest behind your smiley face?
This post makes a striking contrast to this one by yourself two days ago.
The vision of heaven is written in the first person, while the vision of hell is written in the second. Are you saying that your life is like the first, while everyone else's is like the second?
Or... what? Is either of these an account of reality, of what someone would see if they followed you around all day?
You can just not do things.
The uncertainties that will always be present for a real gamble make the Kelly bet rash, uncertainties about not only the numbers, but about whether the preconditions for the criterion obtain.
Because of this, Zvi recommends that Kelly is the right way to think, and you should evaluate the Kelly recommendation as best you can, but you should then bet no more than 25% to 50% of that amount. Further elaboration here.
Kelly bets only apply to the situation where you have a choice to gamble or not, and not gambling leaves your wealth unaffected. When the Kelly bet is negative, that means you should decline the bet.
If the mugger is capable of confiscating 99.999999999999999% of your wealth, why is he offering the bet?
1
The link (https://www.lesswrong.com/pdfs/augustine_enchiridion.pdf) is 404.