The problem is that Omega is by definition a hypothetical construct for purposes of exploring philosophical edge cases. We’re not talking about any reasonable real-world phenomenon.
Let’s taboo Omega. What are you actually describing happening here? What is the entity that can do these things, in your experience? I don’t believe your first thought would be “gosh, it turns out the philosophical construct Omega is real.” You’d think of the entity as a human. What characteristics would you ascribe to this person?
e.g. A rich and powerful man called O’Mega (of, say, Buffett or Soros levels of wealth and fame—you know this guy is real, very smart and ridiculously more successful than you) shows you two boxes, A and B, and offers you the choice of taking only box A, or both boxes A and B. O’Mega shows you that he has put $1,000 in box B. O’Mega says that if he thinks you will take box A only, he will have put $1,000,000 in it (he does not show you). Otherwise he will have left it empty. O’Mega says he has played this game many times, and says he has never been wrong in his predictions about whether someone will take both boxes or not.
Would the most useful response in this real-world situation be: 1. Take both boxes. 2. Take box A. 3. walk away, not taking any money, because you don’t understand his wacky game and want no part of it, before going home to hit the Internet and tell Reddit and LessWrong about it. 4. Invent timeless decision theory?
Would the most useful response in this real-world situation be: 1. Take both boxes. 2. Take box A. 3. walk away, not taking any money, because you don’t understand his wacky game and want no part of it, before going home to hit the Internet and tell Reddit and LessWrong about it. 4. Invent timeless decision theory?
I think the first thing I would do is ask what he’ll give me if he is wrong. ;-)
(Rationale: my first expectation is that Mr. O’Mega likes to mess with people’s minds, and sees it as worth risking $1000 just to watch people take an empty box and get pissed at him, or to crow in delight when you take both boxes and feel like you lost a million that you never would’ve had in the first place. So, absent any independent way to determine the odds that he’s playing the game sincerely, I at least want a consolation prize for the “he’s just messing with me” case.)
Well, the situation that the post was discussing is not Newcomb’s problem, it’s counterfactual mugging, so how about:
The CEO of your employer Omegacorp schedules a meeting with you. When you enter, there is a coin showing tails in front of him. He tells you that as you were outside his office, he flipped this coin. If it came up heads, he would triple your salary, but if it came up tails he would ask you to take a 10% cut in your pay. Now, he says, arbitrary changes in your pay, even for the better, can’t happen without your approval. Given that you desire money, you clearly want to refuse the pay cut. He notes that you would have accepted either outcome if you’d been given a choice to take the bet before the coin flipped, and that the only reason he didn’t let you in the office to watch the flip (or pre-commit to agreeing) was that company regulations prohibit gambling with employees salaries.
In this case you ought to consider the possibility you are dreaming or insane. Response 3 makes a lot of sense here, even down to the Reddit and LessWrong parts.
The problem is that Omega is by definition a hypothetical construct for purposes of exploring philosophical edge cases. We’re not talking about any reasonable real-world phenomenon.
Let’s taboo Omega. What are you actually describing happening here? What is the entity that can do these things, in your experience? I don’t believe your first thought would be “gosh, it turns out the philosophical construct Omega is real.” You’d think of the entity as a human. What characteristics would you ascribe to this person?
e.g. A rich and powerful man called O’Mega (of, say, Buffett or Soros levels of wealth and fame—you know this guy is real, very smart and ridiculously more successful than you) shows you two boxes, A and B, and offers you the choice of taking only box A, or both boxes A and B. O’Mega shows you that he has put $1,000 in box B. O’Mega says that if he thinks you will take box A only, he will have put $1,000,000 in it (he does not show you). Otherwise he will have left it empty. O’Mega says he has played this game many times, and says he has never been wrong in his predictions about whether someone will take both boxes or not.
Would the most useful response in this real-world situation be: 1. Take both boxes. 2. Take box A. 3. walk away, not taking any money, because you don’t understand his wacky game and want no part of it, before going home to hit the Internet and tell Reddit and LessWrong about it. 4. Invent timeless decision theory?
I think the first thing I would do is ask what he’ll give me if he is wrong. ;-)
(Rationale: my first expectation is that Mr. O’Mega likes to mess with people’s minds, and sees it as worth risking $1000 just to watch people take an empty box and get pissed at him, or to crow in delight when you take both boxes and feel like you lost a million that you never would’ve had in the first place. So, absent any independent way to determine the odds that he’s playing the game sincerely, I at least want a consolation prize for the “he’s just messing with me” case.)
Well, the situation that the post was discussing is not Newcomb’s problem, it’s counterfactual mugging, so how about:
The CEO of your employer Omegacorp schedules a meeting with you. When you enter, there is a coin showing tails in front of him. He tells you that as you were outside his office, he flipped this coin. If it came up heads, he would triple your salary, but if it came up tails he would ask you to take a 10% cut in your pay. Now, he says, arbitrary changes in your pay, even for the better, can’t happen without your approval. Given that you desire money, you clearly want to refuse the pay cut. He notes that you would have accepted either outcome if you’d been given a choice to take the bet before the coin flipped, and that the only reason he didn’t let you in the office to watch the flip (or pre-commit to agreeing) was that company regulations prohibit gambling with employees salaries.
In this case you ought to consider the possibility you are dreaming or insane. Response 3 makes a lot of sense here, even down to the Reddit and LessWrong parts.
Before that I’d consider the possibility that the CEO is not entirely sound.
Has anyone actually attempted a counterfactual mugging at a LessWrong meetup?