I agree with the statement of FAWS’ that you quoted there. Although I do note that FAWS’ statement is ambiguous. I only agree with it to the extent that the meaning is this:
Yes, its a fact about your strategy, but this particular strategy would not have been your strategy before making [the decision to precommit which involved some change in the particles in the universe such that your new state is one that will take a certtain action in a particular circumstance].
Still ambiguous, and hints at non-lawful changes, though likely not at all intended. It’s better to merge in this thread (see the disambiguation attempt).
Also, you shouldn’t agree with the statement I cited here. (At least, it seems to be more clear-cut than the rest of the discussion.) Do you?
I agree with the statement of FAWS’ that you quoted there. Although I do note that FAWS’ statement is ambiguous. I only agree with it to the extent that the meaning is this:
Still ambiguous, and hints at non-lawful changes, though likely not at all intended. It’s better to merge in this thread (see the disambiguation attempt).