It seems to me that the disagreement isn’t so much about winning as the expectation.
In fact I don’t really agree with this winning vs. belief modes of rationality.
Both approaches are trying to maximize their expected payout.
Eliezer’s approach has a wider horizon of what it considers when figuring out what the universe is like.
The standard approach is that since the content of the boxes is already determined at the time of the choice, so taking both will always put you $1000 ahead.
Eliezer looks (I think) out to the most likely final outcomes. (or looks back at how the chain of causality of one’s decision is commingled with the chain of causality of Omega’s decision. )
I think that flaw in the standard approach is not ‘not winning’ but a false belief about the relationship between the boxes and your choices. (the belief that there isn’t any.)
Once you have the right answer, making the choice that wins is obvious.
The way we would know that the standard approach is the wrong one is by looking at results. That a certain set of choices consistently wins isn’t evidence that it is rational, it is evidence that it wins. Believing that it wins is rational.
It seems to me that the disagreement isn’t so much about winning as the expectation.
In fact I don’t really agree with this winning vs. belief modes of rationality.
Both approaches are trying to maximize their expected payout. Eliezer’s approach has a wider horizon of what it considers when figuring out what the universe is like.
The standard approach is that since the content of the boxes is already determined at the time of the choice, so taking both will always put you $1000 ahead.
Eliezer looks (I think) out to the most likely final outcomes. (or looks back at how the chain of causality of one’s decision is commingled with the chain of causality of Omega’s decision. )
I think that flaw in the standard approach is not ‘not winning’ but a false belief about the relationship between the boxes and your choices. (the belief that there isn’t any.) Once you have the right answer, making the choice that wins is obvious.
The way we would know that the standard approach is the wrong one is by looking at results. That a certain set of choices consistently wins isn’t evidence that it is rational, it is evidence that it wins. Believing that it wins is rational.
So maybe: “Rationality is learning how to win”
I like that.
I would like it two if it wasn’t for the fact that it, well, isn’t.