I’ve just simulated you in Scenario 1. If you chose decision B, there’s $1,000,000 in the left envelope. Otherwise it’s empty. There’s $1000 in the right envelope regardless.
If you want to make every decision theory fall into the trap, other than the most arbitrary and insane, simply have the S2 basis be:
If, during scenario 1, you recited the square ordinality primes (ie. 1st prime, 4th prime, 9th prime, etc.) up to the 100th prime, the envelope will contain $1 billion
What exactly do we mean by a “better” decision theory?
One which comes up with the optimal result on average, given the available information, even if (in some strands of reality) it fails to give the optimal result due to being in a particular scenario that it’s user was unaware of
ie. the best decision theory would still fail to get the best result for the “simulate you in an unrelated scenario and base your reward on something completely irrelevant”
It would also fail to get the best result in the “you can have a 20% chance of winning 2 million utilons OR an 80% chance of winning 0.2 utilons” if the 20% chance failed to come up, and the 80% chance did.
Regarding your final paragraph, game theorist would point out that with efficient insurance markets, and for a small fee, you would be able to cash-in that lottery-ticket in exchange for a surefire 400,000.16 utilons
If you want to make every decision theory fall into the trap, other than the most arbitrary and insane, simply have the S2 basis be:
If, during scenario 1, you recited the square ordinality primes (ie. 1st prime, 4th prime, 9th prime, etc.) up to the 100th prime, the envelope will contain $1 billion
One which comes up with the optimal result on average, given the available information, even if (in some strands of reality) it fails to give the optimal result due to being in a particular scenario that it’s user was unaware of
ie. the best decision theory would still fail to get the best result for the “simulate you in an unrelated scenario and base your reward on something completely irrelevant”
It would also fail to get the best result in the “you can have a 20% chance of winning 2 million utilons OR an 80% chance of winning 0.2 utilons” if the 20% chance failed to come up, and the 80% chance did.
Regarding your final paragraph, game theorist would point out that with efficient insurance markets, and for a small fee, you would be able to cash-in that lottery-ticket in exchange for a surefire 400,000.16 utilons