Upvoted for the ad absurdum examples. They highlight the essential bit of information (common cause) being thrown out by the naive EDT. Just like the naive CDT throws out the essential bit of information (Omega is always right, therefore two-boxing is guaranteed to result in zero payout) in Newcomb.
As for the reference class, knowing the common cause with certainty means that either you have some metaphysical access to the inside of the smoking lesion problem setup, in which case EDT is a wrong tool to use, or that there have been enough experiments to assign high probability to this common cause, probably through random placebo controlled double blind studies, which would then form your reference class(es).
Just like the naive CDT throws out the essential bit of information (Omega is always right, therefore two-boxing is guaranteed to result in zero payout) in Newcomb.
My attempt would be “the process that decides where the money is the same as the process as the choice you make—you have just one independent decision to choose them with.”
(Cool trick—you get the correct answer to the absent-minded driver problem (mostly) - even post-updates—if you make the probability of being at the different intersections depend in the obvious way on your probability of continuing when maximizing expected utility)
Can’t say I follow… As for the absentminded driver, I thought reflective consistency takes care of it (you don’t recalculate your probabilities on the fly in absence of any new information).
The absentminded driver learns something when they learn they are at an intersection. The bits of information they get from the enviroment enable them to distinguish between intersection and non-intersection situations, at least :P
I don’t believe the driver learns anything new at an intersection. She knows the map and the payout in advance, there is not a single bit of information at an intersection that requires any decision making not already done before the start. The absentmindedness part means that the calculation is repeated at each intersection, but it’s the exact same calculation.
Upvoted for the ad absurdum examples. They highlight the essential bit of information (common cause) being thrown out by the naive EDT. Just like the naive CDT throws out the essential bit of information (Omega is always right, therefore two-boxing is guaranteed to result in zero payout) in Newcomb.
As for the reference class, knowing the common cause with certainty means that either you have some metaphysical access to the inside of the smoking lesion problem setup, in which case EDT is a wrong tool to use, or that there have been enough experiments to assign high probability to this common cause, probably through random placebo controlled double blind studies, which would then form your reference class(es).
Hmm, I don’t think hat’s quite the key point. For example, what about the absentminded driver problem?
My attempt would be “the process that decides where the money is the same as the process as the choice you make—you have just one independent decision to choose them with.”
(Cool trick—you get the correct answer to the absent-minded driver problem (mostly) - even post-updates—if you make the probability of being at the different intersections depend in the obvious way on your probability of continuing when maximizing expected utility)
Can’t say I follow… As for the absentminded driver, I thought reflective consistency takes care of it (you don’t recalculate your probabilities on the fly in absence of any new information).
The absentminded driver learns something when they learn they are at an intersection. The bits of information they get from the enviroment enable them to distinguish between intersection and non-intersection situations, at least :P
I don’t believe the driver learns anything new at an intersection. She knows the map and the payout in advance, there is not a single bit of information at an intersection that requires any decision making not already done before the start. The absentmindedness part means that the calculation is repeated at each intersection, but it’s the exact same calculation.