If you haven’t heard about the problem beforehand then asking what decision you “should” make is incoherent. You will get the result you were selected to get. There is no use talking as if you have some meta-choice.
edit: ie if you are selected on your decision process without having heard of such problems, then it is already too late to change your past decision process even if you fully understand the situation you are in. If you’re capable of understanding the situation though, you presumably already had the right decision process on some level and will successfully one-box.
edit2: The probabilistic method of dealing with Newcomb’s problem is to observe that one-boxers win, therefore you should one-box. This doesn’t apply to the Prometheus problem; we can’t observe that two-boxers probably never existed.
The probabilistic method of dealing with Newcomb’s problem is to observe that one-boxers win, therefore you should one-box. This doesn’t apply to the Prometheus problem; we can’t observe that two-boxers probably never existed.
Including observations of other people who have encountered Omega’s game in the description of Newcomb’s problem is sometimes helpful because it engages the intuitions of those who aren’t familiar with the relevant kinds of reasoning. It is not, however, an important part of the problem or the critical part of the solution.
I don’t find it helpful that you just keep asserting that you’re right without explaining your reasoning. Please explain why you think one-boxing is correct in the Prometheus case.
That you do not understand the explanations does not mean I have not given any. I refer you to the original post. From that link a search for ‘wedrifid’ will give you at least three explanations.
In this case of the grandparent you may (or may not) note that my reply speaks to the relevance of that comment’s parent to the same comment’s grandparent.
I also observe that when replying to a rebuttal (pre-edit) that consists of asserting an incorrect premise used to support reasoning that isn’t quite relevant there is only so much you can do. The second edit contained what we could call a ‘high quality mistake’ so I attempted to explain to you why that line of reasoning does not influence the decision making here.
I suspect you will find it more enjoyable to engage with one of the other people who have also explained the reasoning behind one-boxing here (complete with pictures!) If you keep making replies to me that don’t seem (to me) make any sense in the context it is natural that you will be unsatisfied with the response.
Sorry if my original posts were unclear—I was drunk at the time :). However I’ve read the rest of this thread and I agree with the positions of the Prometheus two-boxers for the problem as given. If Prometheus’s strategy involves simulating you to adulthood and giving you a sim-test before the “real” test, then things may be different.
If you haven’t heard about the problem beforehand then asking what decision you “should” make is incoherent. You will get the result you were selected to get. There is no use talking as if you have some meta-choice.
edit: ie if you are selected on your decision process without having heard of such problems, then it is already too late to change your past decision process even if you fully understand the situation you are in. If you’re capable of understanding the situation though, you presumably already had the right decision process on some level and will successfully one-box.
edit2: The probabilistic method of dealing with Newcomb’s problem is to observe that one-boxers win, therefore you should one-box. This doesn’t apply to the Prometheus problem; we can’t observe that two-boxers probably never existed.
Including observations of other people who have encountered Omega’s game in the description of Newcomb’s problem is sometimes helpful because it engages the intuitions of those who aren’t familiar with the relevant kinds of reasoning. It is not, however, an important part of the problem or the critical part of the solution.
I didn’t claim it was—I was just pointing out another way that these two problems are different.
You claimed that The claimed “what decision you “should” make is incoherent”. (This claim is false.)
I don’t find it helpful that you just keep asserting that you’re right without explaining your reasoning. Please explain why you think one-boxing is correct in the Prometheus case.
That you do not understand the explanations does not mean I have not given any. I refer you to the original post. From that link a search for ‘wedrifid’ will give you at least three explanations.
In this case of the grandparent you may (or may not) note that my reply speaks to the relevance of that comment’s parent to the same comment’s grandparent.
I also observe that when replying to a rebuttal (pre-edit) that consists of asserting an incorrect premise used to support reasoning that isn’t quite relevant there is only so much you can do. The second edit contained what we could call a ‘high quality mistake’ so I attempted to explain to you why that line of reasoning does not influence the decision making here.
I suspect you will find it more enjoyable to engage with one of the other people who have also explained the reasoning behind one-boxing here (complete with pictures!) If you keep making replies to me that don’t seem (to me) make any sense in the context it is natural that you will be unsatisfied with the response.
Sorry if my original posts were unclear—I was drunk at the time :). However I’ve read the rest of this thread and I agree with the positions of the Prometheus two-boxers for the problem as given. If Prometheus’s strategy involves simulating you to adulthood and giving you a sim-test before the “real” test, then things may be different.
Taking drunken boxing to a whole new level! ;)
I don’t agree with any of this.
Good for you? I guess we’ll have to call up Omega and Prometheus and test it all..