You can consider it, but conditioned on the information that you are playing against your clone, you should assign this a very low probability of happening, and weight it in your decision accordingly.
Assume I am the type of person who would always cooperate with my clone. If I asked myself the following question “If I defected would my payoff be higher or lower than if I cooperated even though I know I will always cooperate” what would be the answer?
The answer would be ‘MOO’. Or ‘Mu’, or ‘moot’; they’re equivalent. “In this impossible counterfactual where I am self-contradictory, what would happen?”
Yes, it makes a little bit of sense to counterfactually reason that you would get $1000 more if you defected, but that is predicated on the assumption that you always cooperate.
You cannot actually get that free $1000 because the underlying assumption of the counterfactual would be violated if you actually defected.
You can consider it, but conditioned on the information that you are playing against your clone, you should assign this a very low probability of happening, and weight it in your decision accordingly.
Assume I am the type of person who would always cooperate with my clone. If I asked myself the following question “If I defected would my payoff be higher or lower than if I cooperated even though I know I will always cooperate” what would be the answer?
The answer would be ‘MOO’. Or ‘Mu’, or ‘moot’; they’re equivalent. “In this impossible counterfactual where I am self-contradictory, what would happen?”
Yes, it makes a little bit of sense to counterfactually reason that you would get $1000 more if you defected, but that is predicated on the assumption that you always cooperate. You cannot actually get that free $1000 because the underlying assumption of the counterfactual would be violated if you actually defected.