Maybe principle of dominance gives wrong action recommendations in some situations? How do you evaluate your principles?
That’s not the point? The point is, you would commit to “check on what date hour and minute Omega looked at me and one box if after, two box if before”, with whatever method you have you can constrain your future actions. Which is kinda crazy, like, just commit to one boxing if you are into commitments.
I don’t see why the principle of dominance would give the wrong action. It just says that you should take an action if it is never improved by another action regardless of other actors.
Well, you can consider some situations and think, does it give good recommendation in them? If not, maybe it’s a motivation to start the search for other principles?
Here is one, even more exaggerated:
Imagine even stronger predictor. It offers you 20 Newcomb’s games in a row. And the predictor is already gone, dead etc. For simplicity boxes you didn’t take burst into flames or something. CDT agent will not experiment with this and just straight up two box 20 times in a row. Where as normal humans would pick one box some of the time, see it gives them more money and switch their strategy.
Like, what percent of humans would two box 20 times in a row you think? Like, 0.1%? Some philosophy professors among them apparently.
Maybe principle of dominance gives wrong action recommendations in some situations? How do you evaluate your principles?
That’s not the point? The point is, you would commit to “check on what date hour and minute Omega looked at me and one box if after, two box if before”, with whatever method you have you can constrain your future actions. Which is kinda crazy, like, just commit to one boxing if you are into commitments.
I don’t see why the principle of dominance would give the wrong action. It just says that you should take an action if it is never improved by another action regardless of other actors.
Well, you can consider some situations and think, does it give good recommendation in them? If not, maybe it’s a motivation to start the search for other principles?
Here is one, even more exaggerated:
Imagine even stronger predictor. It offers you 20 Newcomb’s games in a row. And the predictor is already gone, dead etc. For simplicity boxes you didn’t take burst into flames or something. CDT agent will not experiment with this and just straight up two box 20 times in a row. Where as normal humans would pick one box some of the time, see it gives them more money and switch their strategy.
Like, what percent of humans would two box 20 times in a row you think? Like, 0.1%? Some philosophy professors among them apparently.