I’m quite bothered by Eliezer’s lack of input to this thread. To me this seems like the most valuable thread of Newcomb’s we had on OB/LW, and he’s the biggest fan of the problem here, so I would have guessed he thought about it a lot, and tried some models even if they failed. Yet he didn’t write anything here. Why is it so?
Because the discussion here didn’t seem interesting relative to the discussions I’ve already read in philosophy; see the edited volume Paradoxes of Rationality and Cooperation or start googling on “evidential decision theory” and “causal decision theory”.
I’ve never launched into a full-fledged discussion of Newcomb’s Problem because that would quickly degenerate into a full-blown sequence in which I presented the general solution (tentatively labeled “timeless decision theory”).
From my perspective this is a big, difficult, complicated, long-standing, controversial, overdetermined, elegant, solved problem, like the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Though in both cases there’s a couple of leftover problems, the Born statistics for QM and some matters of mathematical representation for Newcomb, which may or may not represent a gateway to other mysteries after the original main problem has been solved.
I’ll repeat yet again my standing offer to do my PhD thesis on Newcomblike problems if anyone will let me come in and just do a PhD thesis rather than demanding 8 years of class attendance.
If what you have is good enough for a PhD thesis, you should just publish the thing as a book and then apply for a PhD based on prior work. On the other hand, there are plenty of schools with pure research degrees that will let you write a PhD without coursework (mostly in UK) but they won’t likely let you in without a degree or some really impressive alternative credentials. But then, you probably have the latter.
All universities that I know of only grant PhDs based on prior work to their own previous students who’ve already taken a Masters there. If there is any university that just grants PhDs for sufficiently good prior work, do let me know.
For a certain definition of sufficiently good prior work, universities will grant PhDs. When I was in high school, I took a summer program at CMU and the professor Steven Rudich said that if we were to prove P=NP or P!=NP or prove it undecidable or whatever, that would be good for an instant PhD from CMU. I’m pretty sure the problem he referred to was P/NP, but it’s been a while and it may have been another Millennium Problem.
So if you happen to have a proof for P/NP sitting around, let me know and I’ll introduce you to Dr. Rudich.
Indeed. I’d thought De Montfort offered a PhD based on prior work, but can’t seem to find a reference for it. I’ve also heard that the University of Luton (which would now be the University of Bedfordshire) would do them. However in either case, you’d likely need at least a bachelor’s degree, so that seems like a dead end.
But maybe you can do something really impressive and get one of those ‘honorary’ doctorates. I hear they’re as good as real ones.
No, I was being serious. I’m pretty sure if you, say, do something Nobel Prize-worthy, someone will hop to and give you an honorary doctorate, and nobody will deny you’ve earned it.
Honorary doctorates are routinely handed out to random foreign dignitaries or people who donate money to colleges, and do not entitle the bearer to be called “Dr.”
Kurzweil has 16 honorary doctorates plus the National Medal of Technology and he still gets written up as “Mr. Kurzweil”.
Honorary doctorates are routinely handed out to random foreign dignitaries or people who donate money to colleges, and do not entitle the bearer to be called “Dr.”
I wish. I’m thinking of a friend’s boss, a private school headmaster, who insists on waving around his honorary doctorate as “Dr. [name]”. The friend, who was teaching there, has an actual proper sweat of the brain Ph.D, and he insisted she should be addressed as “Mrs. [name]”. WHAT.
thom: you’re just wasting time suggesting this. It’s been brought up on SL4 multiple times, and the people arguing like you have been ineffective each time.
I’d appreciate a short extended abstract of what you’ve collected (on related technical topics), without explanations, just outlining what it’s about and linking to the keywords. I’m currently going through the stage of formalizing the earlier intuitions, and it looks like a huge synthesis, lots of stuff yet to learn, so some focus may be useful.
I think I grasp this problem well enough, I’m not sure it’s useful to plough through the existing philosophy at this point (am I wrong, is there something technically useful in e.g. that thesis?).
The examples of problems I was trying to figure out these last weeks is e.g. representation of preference order (lattices vs. probabilities vs. graphical models vs. other mathematical structures), relation and conversions between different representations of the state space (variables/predicates/etc.), representation of one agent by another, “agents” as efficient abstractions of regularities in the preference order, compound preferences and more global optimization resulting from cooperation of multiple agents, including the counterfactual agents and agents acting at different local areas in time/space/representation of state space, etc.
representation of preference order (lattices vs. probabilities vs. graphical models vs. other mathematical structures), relation and conversions between different representations of the state space (variables/predicates/etc.)
There’s actually quite a lot of this in James Joyce’s The foundations of causal decision theory, at what appears to me to be a gratuitiously high math level.
I’m quite bothered by Eliezer’s lack of input to this thread. To me this seems like the most valuable thread of Newcomb’s we had on OB/LW, and he’s the biggest fan of the problem here, so I would have guessed he thought about it a lot, and tried some models even if they failed. Yet he didn’t write anything here. Why is it so?
Because the discussion here didn’t seem interesting relative to the discussions I’ve already read in philosophy; see the edited volume Paradoxes of Rationality and Cooperation or start googling on “evidential decision theory” and “causal decision theory”.
I’ve never launched into a full-fledged discussion of Newcomb’s Problem because that would quickly degenerate into a full-blown sequence in which I presented the general solution (tentatively labeled “timeless decision theory”).
From my perspective this is a big, difficult, complicated, long-standing, controversial, overdetermined, elegant, solved problem, like the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Though in both cases there’s a couple of leftover problems, the Born statistics for QM and some matters of mathematical representation for Newcomb, which may or may not represent a gateway to other mysteries after the original main problem has been solved.
I’ll repeat yet again my standing offer to do my PhD thesis on Newcomblike problems if anyone will let me come in and just do a PhD thesis rather than demanding 8 years of class attendance.
Eliezer,
If what you have is good enough for a PhD thesis, you should just publish the thing as a book and then apply for a PhD based on prior work. On the other hand, there are plenty of schools with pure research degrees that will let you write a PhD without coursework (mostly in UK) but they won’t likely let you in without a degree or some really impressive alternative credentials. But then, you probably have the latter.
All universities that I know of only grant PhDs based on prior work to their own previous students who’ve already taken a Masters there. If there is any university that just grants PhDs for sufficiently good prior work, do let me know.
For a certain definition of sufficiently good prior work, universities will grant PhDs. When I was in high school, I took a summer program at CMU and the professor Steven Rudich said that if we were to prove P=NP or P!=NP or prove it undecidable or whatever, that would be good for an instant PhD from CMU. I’m pretty sure the problem he referred to was P/NP, but it’s been a while and it may have been another Millennium Problem.
So if you happen to have a proof for P/NP sitting around, let me know and I’ll introduce you to Dr. Rudich.
Indeed. I’d thought De Montfort offered a PhD based on prior work, but can’t seem to find a reference for it. I’ve also heard that the University of Luton (which would now be the University of Bedfordshire) would do them. However in either case, you’d likely need at least a bachelor’s degree, so that seems like a dead end.
But maybe you can do something really impressive and get one of those ‘honorary’ doctorates. I hear they’re as good as real ones.
Presumably the last line is sarcasm, but it’s hard to tell over the Internet.
No, I was being serious. I’m pretty sure if you, say, do something Nobel Prize-worthy, someone will hop to and give you an honorary doctorate, and nobody will deny you’ve earned it.
Honorary doctorates are routinely handed out to random foreign dignitaries or people who donate money to colleges, and do not entitle the bearer to be called “Dr.”
Kurzweil has 16 honorary doctorates plus the National Medal of Technology and he still gets written up as “Mr. Kurzweil”.
I wish. I’m thinking of a friend’s boss, a private school headmaster, who insists on waving around his honorary doctorate as “Dr. [name]”. The friend, who was teaching there, has an actual proper sweat of the brain Ph.D, and he insisted she should be addressed as “Mrs. [name]”. WHAT.
Good point. At any rate, I’ll keep an eye out for any doctorates by prior work from accredited schools and drop you a line.
thom: you’re just wasting time suggesting this. It’s been brought up on SL4 multiple times, and the people arguing like you have been ineffective each time.
I’d appreciate a short extended abstract of what you’ve collected (on related technical topics), without explanations, just outlining what it’s about and linking to the keywords. I’m currently going through the stage of formalizing the earlier intuitions, and it looks like a huge synthesis, lots of stuff yet to learn, so some focus may be useful.
Sorry, too huge. There’s a nice dissertation on the subject here: http://kops.ub.uni-konstanz.de/volltexte/2000/524/pdf/ledwig.pdf
I think I grasp this problem well enough, I’m not sure it’s useful to plough through the existing philosophy at this point (am I wrong, is there something technically useful in e.g. that thesis?).
The examples of problems I was trying to figure out these last weeks is e.g. representation of preference order (lattices vs. probabilities vs. graphical models vs. other mathematical structures), relation and conversions between different representations of the state space (variables/predicates/etc.), representation of one agent by another, “agents” as efficient abstractions of regularities in the preference order, compound preferences and more global optimization resulting from cooperation of multiple agents, including the counterfactual agents and agents acting at different local areas in time/space/representation of state space, etc.
There’s actually quite a lot of this in James Joyce’s The foundations of causal decision theory, at what appears to me to be a gratuitiously high math level.