= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'm assuming this only applies if you aren't using spoilers for NetHack?
I'm not sure about it's rationality testing or improving abilities, but I find it very fun :)
If you can't remember, and they can work that out, then they can defect on you every time and get more points, at no penalty other than making you less and less optimistic about cooperation with rarely-encountered entities.
That could eventually cut into their profits, but it becomes a tragedy of the commons, with you being the commons.
You're right.
In this case, assuming immortals had perfect memories and would eventually work out that you didn't, assuming you were an immortal who can't remember if you've played that particular opponent before (But can vaguely remember an idea of how often you get defected on vs. co-operated with by the entire field) what do you think your optimal strategy would be?
If you have references, and you want to get potentially helpful information to rationalists, why on earth would you not just post these references to begin with? If you have a good reason for not making the references public, why didn't you say so in your initial post?
Or if you have an imperfect memory and you think they don't...
If you have an imperfect memory and you think they don't, wouldn't you want to pre-commit to attempting co-operation with any immortal entities you face, given they are very likely to remember you, even if you don't remember them? This is of course assuming that most or all other immortal entities you're likely to face in the Dilemma do in fact have perfect memories.
My favorite explanation: since causality tries to avoid paradoxes, most time-travellers get squished by large rocks or natural disasters before they can act, because they would have tried to change things. Even if they were going to try and avoid changing the past, they would have inevitably made mistakes, so the only consistent result is either ignorance and co-incidence or dyeing almost immediately. Or the time spell failing due to unforseen problems, if you're feeling generous.
As far as I understand it, causality is just the relationship between cause and effect. If I'm right, saying it tries to avoid paradoxes is like saying gravity acts whenever someone falls off a cliff to prevent them from flying.
If I really needed to explain away time travel in this fic, I'd probably have a future Twilight show up and say "Whatever you do, do NOT use time travel. I don't care how bad it is. Even if Equestria is going to be destroyed if you don't. DO. NOT. MESS. WITH. TIME."
Fortunately, I don't see any situation in this fic where Twilight would even want to use time travel. Arguments aren't one-time only things, you can always come back with another counterpoint later against a rational opponent who's arguing for the sake of finding out who's right, rather than to win social status or something. And any losses of social status that may occur in the fic are nowhere near worthy of time-travel to fix them, it'd be like cleaning a house by burning it to the ground and building a new one.
In fact, this very argument leads me to believe that, in order to provide the optimum amount of conflict in the story, alicorns need to be a lot more powerful than unicorns, but not automatically god-tier.
Wouldn't that weaken the already-weak pro-death argument?
It does, in fact, weaken the anti-alicorn argument (Different from the pro-death argument, even though they still wind up the same) but with the amount of ammunition I've gotten from LessWrong, the anti-alicorn side is no longer weak in the slightest.
If you want a fifth main character, Shining Armor could fit the bill. His sister and his wife are both alicorns, so you could easily justify having uplifted him. Even if he's still mortal, Twilight and Cadence would give his words a lot of weight.
Good point. Shining would be a good one as well, because I already figured out he'd probably be the next alicorn if alicornism won.
1) He's a very skilled unicorn, so he can transform other alicorns. 2) He has a strong relationship with not one, but two of the royal alicorns. 3) He's very important in the defense of the realm.
Hell, I'm pretty sure Shining is technically a prince now anyway. It wouldn't be much of a stretch, and he could certainly appear in the same settings as the other four where other potential characters can't. (Say, eating at the royal dining room at Canterlot Castle.)
Why not talk about all ponies simply becoming immortal instead of alicorns?
...I hadn't thought of that. Congratulations. You win. No, seriously. In the event that ponies can become immortal WITHOUT being alicorns, there simply isn't a good enough argument for deathism, period.
For the sake of the story, however, when the argument gets brought up by Twilight, it'll have to be shown to be magically impossible to do it. I'm going to have to make something up. Because the argument is literally too good. It actually makes the story a lot worse, because there's no longer a meaningful conflict between the two ideologies.
Since it's a story, the sides have to be somewhat balanced. But if we were debating alicornism vs. anti-alicornism for the sake of a thought experiment or something, I'd concede the victory to you for that one.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'm using all the spoilers I can find, and still find it a challenging game. Feel free to mock me. :)
A "spoiled" game of NetHack means you have precise numerical values of the upsides and downsides of various actions, e.g. rubbing a magic lamp. Or reading a scroll that you know from a shopkeeper's offer can be one of N scrolls, some of which have beneficial effects and others harmful. That definitely requires probabilistic decision-making - indulge in wishful thinking and you'll die often; play too cautiously (ignoring positive EVs of some actions with nasty downsides) and, well, you'll die often.
I suppose playing it "unspoiled" is even better, as you'd have to infer the frequencies from observation as opposed to having them delivered on a silver platter, as it were.
(ETA May 10th: finally Ascended as a Knight.)
Oh, no, I have no problems with people spoiling themselves for Nethack. That's pretty much the only way to actually win. But if your aim is to improve rationality, rather than to do as well as possible within the game, it might be better to play it unspoiled. After all, Morendil mentioned "hypothesis testing" as something that was taught by Nethack: The spoilt version doesn't really test that.