Yes, thanks for citing it here! I should have mentioned it, really.
I see the Skyrms iterative idea as quite different from the “just take a fixed point” theory I sketch here, although clearly they have something in common. FixDT makes it easier to combine both epistemic and instrumental concerns—every fixed point obeys the epistemic requirement; and then the choice between them obeys the instrumental requirement. If we iteratively zoom in on a fixed point instead of selecting from the set, this seems harder?
If we try the Skyrms iteration thing, maybe the most sensible thing would be to move toward the beliefs of greatest expected utility—but do so in a setting where epistemic utility emerges naturally from pragmatic concerts (such as A Pragmatists Guide to Epistemic Decision Theory by Ben Levinstein). So the agent is only ever revising its beliefs in pragmatic ways, but we assume enough about the environment that it wants to obey both the epistemic and instrumental constraints? But, possibly, this assumption would just be inconsistent with the sort of decision problem which motivates FixDT (and Greaves).
Yes, thanks for citing it here! I should have mentioned it, really.
I see the Skyrms iterative idea as quite different from the “just take a fixed point” theory I sketch here, although clearly they have something in common. FixDT makes it easier to combine both epistemic and instrumental concerns—every fixed point obeys the epistemic requirement; and then the choice between them obeys the instrumental requirement. If we iteratively zoom in on a fixed point instead of selecting from the set, this seems harder?
If we try the Skyrms iteration thing, maybe the most sensible thing would be to move toward the beliefs of greatest expected utility—but do so in a setting where epistemic utility emerges naturally from pragmatic concerts (such as A Pragmatists Guide to Epistemic Decision Theory by Ben Levinstein). So the agent is only ever revising its beliefs in pragmatic ways, but we assume enough about the environment that it wants to obey both the epistemic and instrumental constraints? But, possibly, this assumption would just be inconsistent with the sort of decision problem which motivates FixDT (and Greaves).