Let’s say that I proved that I will do A. Therefore, if my reasoning about myself is correct, I wiil do A.
Like I said in another comment, there’s a reversed prior here, taking behavior as evidence for what kind of agent you are in a way that negatively and recursively shapes you as an agent, instead of using the intrinsic knowledge about what kind of agent you are to positively and recursively shape your behavior.
The problem is that humans obviously don’t behave this way
A few examples would help, because I do not know what phenomena you are pointing at and saying “obviously!” I do not know how to connect your paragraph beginning “This is the justification for cops and prisons and armies” with the error of thinking “Whatever I choose, that is sufficient evidence that it was the right choice”.
I think it is wrong true name for this kind of problem, because it is not about probabilistic reasoning per se, it is about combination of logical (which deals with 1 and 0 credences) and probabilistic (which deals with everything else) reasoning. And this problem, as far as I know, was solved by logical induction
Sketch proof: by criterion of logical induction, logical inductor is unexploitable, i.e. it’s losses are bounded. So, even if adversary trader could pull of 5⁄10 trick for one time, it can’t do it forever, because this would mean unbounded losses.
what do you mean?
I mean: “No way that there was a guy in recorded history who chose 5$ instead of 10$ due to faulty embedded agency reasoning, ever”.
Like I said in another comment, there’s a reversed prior here, taking behavior as evidence for what kind of agent you are in a way that negatively and recursively shapes you as an agent, instead of using the intrinsic knowledge about what kind of agent you are to positively and recursively shape your behavior.
what do you mean? They obviously do.
A few examples would help, because I do not know what phenomena you are pointing at and saying “obviously!” I do not know how to connect your paragraph beginning “This is the justification for cops and prisons and armies” with the error of thinking “Whatever I choose, that is sufficient evidence that it was the right choice”.
I think it is wrong true name for this kind of problem, because it is not about probabilistic reasoning per se, it is about combination of logical (which deals with 1 and 0 credences) and probabilistic (which deals with everything else) reasoning. And this problem, as far as I know, was solved by logical induction
Sketch proof: by criterion of logical induction, logical inductor is unexploitable, i.e. it’s losses are bounded. So, even if adversary trader could pull of 5⁄10 trick for one time, it can’t do it forever, because this would mean unbounded losses.
I mean: “No way that there was a guy in recorded history who chose 5$ instead of 10$ due to faulty embedded agency reasoning, ever”.