This. The deterministic prisoner’s dilemma reminds me a lot of quantum entanglement and Bell’s theorem experiments—except it doesn’t even have THAT amount of mystery, it’s just plain old correlation. If I pick two boxes, put $1000 into one, and send them both at near lightspeed in opposite directions, you’re not doing FTL signalling when you open one and find the money, thus deducing instantly that the other is empty. This is the same, but it feels weird because intelligences; however, unless you believe in supernatural source of free will (in which case CDT is the right choice regardless, and you could reasonably defect), intelligences should be subject to the same exact causal chains as boxes full with money.
The deterministic prisoner’s dilemma reminds me a lot of quantum entanglement and Bell’s theorem experiments—except it doesn’t even have THAT amount of mystery, it’s just plain old correlation.
I agree. EPR mean lack of local determinism , so the solution is ambiguous between indeterminism and nonlocal determinism.
This. The deterministic prisoner’s dilemma reminds me a lot of quantum entanglement and Bell’s theorem experiments—except it doesn’t even have THAT amount of mystery, it’s just plain old correlation. If I pick two boxes, put $1000 into one, and send them both at near lightspeed in opposite directions, you’re not doing FTL signalling when you open one and find the money, thus deducing instantly that the other is empty. This is the same, but it feels weird because intelligences; however, unless you believe in supernatural source of free will (in which case CDT is the right choice regardless, and you could reasonably defect), intelligences should be subject to the same exact causal chains as boxes full with money.
I agree. EPR mean lack of local determinism , so the solution is ambiguous between indeterminism and nonlocal determinism.