First, thanks for explaining your down vote and thereby giving me an opportunity to respond.
We say that Omega is a perfect predictor not because it’s so very reasonable for him to be a perfect predictor, but so that people won’t get distracted in those directions.
The problem is that it is not a fair simplification, it disrupts the dilemma in such a way as to render it trivial. If you set the accuracy of the prediction to %100 many of the other specific details of the problem become largely irrelevant. For example you could then put $999,999.99 into box A and it would still be better to one-box.
It’s effectively the same thing as lowering the amount in box A to zero or raising the amount in box B to infinity. And one could break the problem in the other direction by lowering the accuracy of the prediction to %50 or equalizing the amount in both boxes.
We must disagree about what is the heart of the dilemma. How can it be all about whether Omega is wrong with some fractional probability?
It’s because the probability of a correct prediction must be between %50 and %100 or it breaks the structure of the problem in the sense that it makes the answer trivial to work out.
Rather it’s about whether logic (2-boxing seems logical) and winning are at odds.
I suppose it is true that some people have intuitions that persist in leading them astray even when the probability is set to %100. In that sense it may still have some value if it helps to isolate and illuminate these biases.
Or perhaps whether determinism and choice is at odds, if you are operating outside a deterministic world-view. Or perhaps a third thing, but nothing—in this problem—about what kinds of Omega powers are reasonable or possible. Omega is just a device being used to set up the dilemma.
My objection here doesn’t have to do with whether it is reasonable for Omega to possess such powers but with the over-simplification of the dilemma to the point where it is trivial.
First, thanks for explaining your down vote and thereby giving me an opportunity to respond.
The problem is that it is not a fair simplification, it disrupts the dilemma in such a way as to render it trivial. If you set the accuracy of the prediction to %100 many of the other specific details of the problem become largely irrelevant. For example you could then put $999,999.99 into box A and it would still be better to one-box.
It’s effectively the same thing as lowering the amount in box A to zero or raising the amount in box B to infinity. And one could break the problem in the other direction by lowering the accuracy of the prediction to %50 or equalizing the amount in both boxes.
It’s because the probability of a correct prediction must be between %50 and %100 or it breaks the structure of the problem in the sense that it makes the answer trivial to work out.
I suppose it is true that some people have intuitions that persist in leading them astray even when the probability is set to %100. In that sense it may still have some value if it helps to isolate and illuminate these biases.
My objection here doesn’t have to do with whether it is reasonable for Omega to possess such powers but with the over-simplification of the dilemma to the point where it is trivial.