To me so far, it does sound like a linguistic problem with the word “should”.
Does “should” mean what Joe should do to optimize his situation regardless of what is possible? (Then Joe should plan to one-box, but ultimately two-box via magical surgery where someone swoops in and changes his brain.)
Does “should” mean what Joe should do to optimize his situation restricted to what is possible?
Using the first meaning of should, Joe should two box. (He should if he could trick Omega; too bad he can’t.) Using the second meaning, Joe should one box.
The second meaning is more natural to me. (Choices must be made based on real world conditions.) But I can see how the first meaning would be more natural to others. (What is really optimal?)
To me so far, it does sound like a linguistic problem with the word “should”.
Does “should” mean what Joe should do to optimize his situation regardless of what is possible? (Then Joe should plan to one-box, but ultimately two-box via magical surgery where someone swoops in and changes his brain.)
Does “should” mean what Joe should do to optimize his situation restricted to what is possible?
Using the first meaning of should, Joe should two box. (He should if he could trick Omega; too bad he can’t.) Using the second meaning, Joe should one box.
The second meaning is more natural to me. (Choices must be made based on real world conditions.) But I can see how the first meaning would be more natural to others. (What is really optimal?)