You seem to be insisting on there being a reason for my one-boxing beyond that (like “I think Omega is testing my ethics” or “I precommitted to one-boxing” or some such thing). I guess that’s what I don’t understand, here. Either I one-box, or I two-box.
Indeed. “I like money” seems like a good enough reason to one box without anything more complicated!
I call it “I take free monies theory!” I don’t need a theoretical framework to do that. At this point in time there isn’t a formal decision theory that results in all the same decisions that I endorse—basically because the guys are still working out the kinks in UDT and formalization is a real bitch sometimes. They haven’t figured out a way to generalize the handling of counterfactuals the way I would see them handled.
Indeed. “I like money” seems like a good enough reason to one box without anything more complicated!
That’s just evidential decision theory, right?
I call it “I take free monies theory!” I don’t need a theoretical framework to do that. At this point in time there isn’t a formal decision theory that results in all the same decisions that I endorse—basically because the guys are still working out the kinks in UDT and formalization is a real bitch sometimes. They haven’t figured out a way to generalize the handling of counterfactuals the way I would see them handled.
(ArisKatsaris nails it in the sibling).
Well, Newcomb’s problem is simple enough that evidential decision theory suffices.