Re:Newcomb's paradox
by SilasX on Friday April 03, 2015 @11:48PM
(#9319821)
>Of course, that whole thought experiment is a bit silly. Even under determinism it would be borderline impossible to do this with a physical system,
What about if you played as Omega against against a
(physical instantiation of a) computer program that can play this game?
>and agents generally have an incentive to be unpredictable when it benefits them, so I don't think it is massively important to decide correctly in such contrived scenarios.
Under the original version of this problem, Omega stiffs agents who deliberately make themselves unpredictable eg by hooking their action to an unpredictable randomizer. But then, it's not even clear that agents would benefit from reducing Omega's confidence they'll one-box via deliberate unpredictability.
What about if you played as Omega against against a (physical instantiation of a) computer program that can play this game?
>and agents generally have an incentive to be unpredictable when it benefits them, so I don't think it is massively important to decide correctly in such contrived scenarios.
Under the original version of this problem, Omega stiffs agents who deliberately make themselves unpredictable eg by hooking their action to an unpredictable randomizer. But then, it's not even clear that agents would benefit from reducing Omega's confidence they'll one-box via deliberate unpredictability.