I think this might be a situation where people tend to leave the debate and move on to something else when they seem to have found a satisfactory position
Well not exactly, I came up with UDASSA originally but found it not entirely satisfactory, so I moved on to something that eventually came to be called UDT. I wrote down my reasons at against UD+ASSA and under Paul’s post.
Perhaps it would be good to have this history be more readily available to people looking for solutions to anthropic reasoning though, if you guys have suggestions on how to do that.
The solution to this kind of thing should be a wiki, I think. If the LessWrong wiki were kept up to date enough to have a page on anthropics, that would have solved the issue in this case and should work for many similar cases.
Right, I knew that many people had since moved on to UDT due to limitations of UDASSA for decision-making. What I meant was that UDASSA seems to be satisfactory at resolving the typical questions about anthropic probabilities, setting aside decision theory/noncomputability issues.
I agree it would be nice to have all this information in an readily-accessible place. Maybe the posts setting out the ideas and later counter-arguments could be put in a curated sequence.
I actually knew about UDT. Enough to understand how it wins in Transparent Newcomb, but not enough to understand that it extends to anthropic problems.
Well not exactly, I came up with UDASSA originally but found it not entirely satisfactory, so I moved on to something that eventually came to be called UDT. I wrote down my reasons at against UD+ASSA and under Paul’s post.
Perhaps it would be good to have this history be more readily available to people looking for solutions to anthropic reasoning though, if you guys have suggestions on how to do that.
The solution to this kind of thing should be a wiki, I think. If the LessWrong wiki were kept up to date enough to have a page on anthropics, that would have solved the issue in this case and should work for many similar cases.
Right, I knew that many people had since moved on to UDT due to limitations of UDASSA for decision-making. What I meant was that UDASSA seems to be satisfactory at resolving the typical questions about anthropic probabilities, setting aside decision theory/noncomputability issues.
I agree it would be nice to have all this information in an readily-accessible place. Maybe the posts setting out the ideas and later counter-arguments could be put in a curated sequence.
I actually knew about UDT. Enough to understand how it wins in Transparent Newcomb, but not enough to understand that it extends to anthropic problems.