I think that spurious counterfactuals come from having a proof of what you do before deciding what you do, (where “before” is in some weird logical time thing)
I think that the justification for having particular epistemics should come from decision/utility theory, like with the complete class theorems.
I think the correct response to Sleeping Beauty is to taboo “belief” and talk about what gambles you should take.
I think that we have to at some point think about how to think about what to think about, which requires the decision system influencing the epistemics.
#2 and #3 just sound like UDT to me, but #1 and #4 are strong. Thank you! I agree that deciding which theorems to prove next is a great use of decision theory, and would love to see people do more with that idea.
I think that spurious counterfactuals come from having a proof of what you do before deciding what you do, (where “before” is in some weird logical time thing)
I think that the justification for having particular epistemics should come from decision/utility theory, like with the complete class theorems.
I think the correct response to Sleeping Beauty is to taboo “belief” and talk about what gambles you should take.
I think that we have to at some point think about how to think about what to think about, which requires the decision system influencing the epistemics.
#2 and #3 just sound like UDT to me, but #1 and #4 are strong. Thank you! I agree that deciding which theorems to prove next is a great use of decision theory, and would love to see people do more with that idea.
“I think that we have to at some point think about how to think about what to think about”
My inner Eliezer is screaming at me about ultrafinite recursion.