I don’t know, I still don’t see this as that bad of a sign for EDT. Yes, in the far future you will need to trade with people in you confusing and incoherent prior over logics.
But I think this is basically equivalent to handling the “what if you are in a simulation where the simulators intentionally messed with your brain to believe false things about certain logical statements” question. Admittedly, it’s a hard question, but I think everyone will need to deal with something like this.
Maybe I’m confused about how much you believe that my actual life history matters. I think in the case of empirical updatelessness, my life history doesn’t really matter—I will eventually try to trade with people in proportion to something like their measure in the Solomonoff prior, and not with worlds where Austria and Australia are the same country, even though I was uncertain about this empirical fact when I was 5. (Do you agree with this, or do you think life history also matters for empirically updateless trade?)
I expect that logical updatelessness is similar—I will try to use some elegant construction like the Solomonoff prior to put a weight on different logical counterfactuals, and it won’t matter how my prior was constructed in my childhood.
Maybe I’m confused about how much you believe that my actual life history matters. I think in the case of empirical updatelessness, my life history doesn’t really matter—I will eventually try to trade with people in proportion to something like their measure in the Solomonoff prior, and not with worlds where Austria and Australia are the same country, even though I was uncertain about this empirical fact when I was 5. (Do you agree with this, or do you think life history also matters for empirically updateless trade?)
If you were 100% empirically updateless and 0% logically updateless, then I think your life history wouldn’t matter except insofar as it led you to learning different logical facts. Insofar as you would eventually reach ‘logical maturity’ regardless of your life history, and learn some vast and similar swaths of logical facts, then yeah, eventually your life history wouldn’t matter.
I expect that logical updatelessness is similar—I will try to use some elegant construction like the Solomonoff prior to put a weight on different logical counterfactuals, and it won’t matter how my prior was constructed in my childhood.
My current understanding is that this requires updating on a bunch of logical arguments (about what that elegant construction should be and what it implies) and can therefore get you dutch-booked.
Yes, I agree the elegant construction will need to rely on some logical arguments, but I think tha’t not that bad.
The way I imagine trade to work is that I propose a distribution of chips among different universes which I would be happy to trade under. For example “every universe in the quantum multiverse each getting chips proportional to what the Born-rule prescribes” is a system I would be happy to trade under. Then I can see which other universes are willing to trade under this chip-distribution, and then we trade with each other using our chips.
I think this extends to trade among logically counter-factual worlds at least in some toy-examples. If an important historical event turned on someone making a bet on the billionth digit of pi, then the logically counterfactual worlds which were identical except the billionth digit of was different can probably make a trade deal among each other because they can all imagine this narrow logically counter-factual distribution, and they all recognize it as a Schelling-point.
I think we can probably go broader than that, and figure out an elegant distribution of chips among logical universes which a) we find fair in the sense that we value the resources of the other universes in proportion to their chips (just like in the Born-rule case), so we are happy to trade under this distribution and b) we think that many other universes in the distribution will share enough core features of our logic to recognize this distribution of chips as an elegant Schelling-point, and something they consider fair under their values. Then we trade with everyone who is willing to trade. Once we are done, we try to construct a broader coalition.
I think it’s likely that we won’t be able to expand the trade coalitions enough to cover all possible logic systems (what would that even mean?) Maybe we will never be able to deal with the guys living in the 1+1=3 universe, because we can’t imagine them, they can’t imagine us, and there is no distribution we both recognize as elegant and fair. In that case, we will leave some value on the table by not being able to trade with each other, but that’s life. I don’t think this means that we need to throw out this decision theory—it was nice enough if we got beneficial trades in as broad circles as we could.
---
Most concretely, I don’t see how you get Dutch-booked here. I tentatively think that any betting that a malicious Dutchman can come up with to get money out of me will be based on simple enough logical counter-factuals that I can form a mutually recognized distribution of logic systems among the affected parties and we will be fine.
Can you give a concrete example of how someone can pump money out of me?
I don’t know, I still don’t see this as that bad of a sign for EDT. Yes, in the far future you will need to trade with people in you confusing and incoherent prior over logics.
But I think this is basically equivalent to handling the “what if you are in a simulation where the simulators intentionally messed with your brain to believe false things about certain logical statements” question. Admittedly, it’s a hard question, but I think everyone will need to deal with something like this.
Maybe I’m confused about how much you believe that my actual life history matters. I think in the case of empirical updatelessness, my life history doesn’t really matter—I will eventually try to trade with people in proportion to something like their measure in the Solomonoff prior, and not with worlds where Austria and Australia are the same country, even though I was uncertain about this empirical fact when I was 5. (Do you agree with this, or do you think life history also matters for empirically updateless trade?)
I expect that logical updatelessness is similar—I will try to use some elegant construction like the Solomonoff prior to put a weight on different logical counterfactuals, and it won’t matter how my prior was constructed in my childhood.
If you were 100% empirically updateless and 0% logically updateless, then I think your life history wouldn’t matter except insofar as it led you to learning different logical facts. Insofar as you would eventually reach ‘logical maturity’ regardless of your life history, and learn some vast and similar swaths of logical facts, then yeah, eventually your life history wouldn’t matter.
My current understanding is that this requires updating on a bunch of logical arguments (about what that elegant construction should be and what it implies) and can therefore get you dutch-booked.
Yes, I agree the elegant construction will need to rely on some logical arguments, but I think tha’t not that bad.
The way I imagine trade to work is that I propose a distribution of chips among different universes which I would be happy to trade under. For example “every universe in the quantum multiverse each getting chips proportional to what the Born-rule prescribes” is a system I would be happy to trade under. Then I can see which other universes are willing to trade under this chip-distribution, and then we trade with each other using our chips.
I think this extends to trade among logically counter-factual worlds at least in some toy-examples. If an important historical event turned on someone making a bet on the billionth digit of pi, then the logically counterfactual worlds which were identical except the billionth digit of was different can probably make a trade deal among each other because they can all imagine this narrow logically counter-factual distribution, and they all recognize it as a Schelling-point.
I think we can probably go broader than that, and figure out an elegant distribution of chips among logical universes which a) we find fair in the sense that we value the resources of the other universes in proportion to their chips (just like in the Born-rule case), so we are happy to trade under this distribution and b) we think that many other universes in the distribution will share enough core features of our logic to recognize this distribution of chips as an elegant Schelling-point, and something they consider fair under their values. Then we trade with everyone who is willing to trade. Once we are done, we try to construct a broader coalition.
I think it’s likely that we won’t be able to expand the trade coalitions enough to cover all possible logic systems (what would that even mean?) Maybe we will never be able to deal with the guys living in the 1+1=3 universe, because we can’t imagine them, they can’t imagine us, and there is no distribution we both recognize as elegant and fair. In that case, we will leave some value on the table by not being able to trade with each other, but that’s life. I don’t think this means that we need to throw out this decision theory—it was nice enough if we got beneficial trades in as broad circles as we could.
---
Most concretely, I don’t see how you get Dutch-booked here. I tentatively think that any betting that a malicious Dutchman can come up with to get money out of me will be based on simple enough logical counter-factuals that I can form a mutually recognized distribution of logic systems among the affected parties and we will be fine.
Can you give a concrete example of how someone can pump money out of me?