This seems to highlight my main complaint with Newcomb’s problem. It assumes reverse causation is possible. Perhaps I’m being narrow minded, but, “Assume reverse causation is possible. How do you deal with this hypothetical?” does not mean you should actually design a decision theory to take into account reverse causation, without adequate evidence it exists.
You should hear what evidence decision theories have to say about the smoking lesion problem. “Assume the evidence is wrong. How do you deal with this hypothetical?”.
This seems to highlight my main complaint with Newcomb’s problem. It assumes reverse causation is possible. Perhaps I’m being narrow minded, but, “Assume reverse causation is possible. How do you deal with this hypothetical?” does not mean you should actually design a decision theory to take into account reverse causation, without adequate evidence it exists.
You should hear what evidence decision theories have to say about the smoking lesion problem. “Assume the evidence is wrong. How do you deal with this hypothetical?”.