when I get to move, when I have the opportunity to make a choice, Omega is already done with his prediction.
You have elsewhere agreed that you (though not everyone) have the ability to make choices that affect Omega’s prediction (including, but not limited to, the choice of whether or not to precommit to one-boxing).
That seems incompatible with your claim that all of your relevant choices are made after Omega’s prediction.
Have you changed your mind? Have I misunderstood you? Are you making inconsistent claims in different branches of this conversation? Do you not see an inconsistency? Other?
Ah. OK. And just to be clear: you believe that advance warning is necessary in order to decide whether to one-box or two-box… it simply isn’t possible, in the absence of advance warning, to make that choice; rather, in the absence of advance warning humans deterministically two-box. Have I understood that correctly?
it simply isn’t possible, in the absence of advance warning, to make that choice
Correct.
in the absence of advance warning humans deterministically two-box
Nope. I think two-boxing is the right thing to do but humans are not deterministic, they can (and do) all kinds of stuff. If you run an empirical test I think it’s very likely that some people will two-box and some people will one-box.
Gotcha: they don’t have a choice in which they do, on your account, but they might do one or the other. Correction accepted.
Incidentally, for the folks downvoting Lumifer here, I’m curious as to your reasons. I’ve found many of their earlier comments annoyingly evasive, but now they’re actually answering questions clearly. I disagree with those answers, but that’s another question altogether.
In which way am I not accountable? I am here, answering questions, not deleting my posts.
Sure, I often prefer to point to something rather than plop down a full specification. I am also rather fond of irony and sarcasm. But that’s not exactly the same thing as avoiding accountability, is it?
If you want highly specific answers, ask highly specific questions. If you feel there is ambiguity in the subject, resolve it in the question.
You have elsewhere agreed that you (though not everyone) have the ability to make choices that affect Omega’s prediction (including, but not limited to, the choice of whether or not to precommit to one-boxing).
That seems incompatible with your claim that all of your relevant choices are made after Omega’s prediction.
Have you changed your mind? Have I misunderstood you? Are you making inconsistent claims in different branches of this conversation? Do you not see an inconsistency? Other?
Here when I say “I” I mean “a standard participant in the classic Newcomb’s Problem”. A standard participant has no advance warning.
Ah. OK. And just to be clear: you believe that advance warning is necessary in order to decide whether to one-box or two-box… it simply isn’t possible, in the absence of advance warning, to make that choice; rather, in the absence of advance warning humans deterministically two-box. Have I understood that correctly?
Correct.
Nope. I think two-boxing is the right thing to do but humans are not deterministic, they can (and do) all kinds of stuff. If you run an empirical test I think it’s very likely that some people will two-box and some people will one-box.
Gotcha: they don’t have a choice in which they do, on your account, but they might do one or the other. Correction accepted.
Incidentally, for the folks downvoting Lumifer here, I’m curious as to your reasons. I’ve found many of their earlier comments annoyingly evasive, but now they’re actually answering questions clearly. I disagree with those answers, but that’s another question altogether.
There are a lot of behaviorists here. If someone doesn’t see the light, apply electric prods until she does X-)
It would greatly surprise me if anyone here believed that downvoting you will influence your behavior in any positive way.
You think it’s just mood affiliation, on a rationalist forum? INCONCEIVABLE! :-D
I’m curious: do you actually believe I think that, or are you saying it for some other reason?
Either way: why?
A significant part of the time I operate in the ha-ha only serious mode :-)
The grandparent post is a reference to a quote from Princess Bride.
Yes, you do, and I understand the advantages of that mode in terms of being able to say stuff without being held accountable for it.
I find it annoying.
That said, you are of course under no obligation to answer any of my questions.
In which way am I not accountable? I am here, answering questions, not deleting my posts.
Sure, I often prefer to point to something rather than plop down a full specification. I am also rather fond of irony and sarcasm. But that’s not exactly the same thing as avoiding accountability, is it?
If you want highly specific answers, ask highly specific questions. If you feel there is ambiguity in the subject, resolve it in the question.