What does the Law of Logical Causality say about CON(PA) in Sam’s probabilistic version of the troll bridge?
My intuition is that in that case, the agent would think CON(PA) would be causally downstream of itself, because the distribution of actions conditional on CON(PA) and ¬CON(PA) are different.
Can we come up with any example where the agent thinking it can control CON(PA) (or any other thing that enables accurate predictions of its actions) actually gets it into trouble?
I agree, my intuition is that LLC asserts that the troll, and even CON(PA), is downstream. And, it seems to get into trouble because it treats it as downstream.
I also suspect that Troll Bridge will end up formally outside the realm where LLC can be justified by the desire to make ratifiability imply CDT=EDT. (I’m working on another post which will go into that more.)