Critics judge the branch; defenders judge the policy; and I don’t think the word “rational” settles which is correct.
It depends on what we apply the word “rational” to. Are we asking whether a fixed policy is rational? Or are we asking whether a decision in a particular situation (“branch”) is rational?
It is no contradiction to say that a policy which never pays ransom is rational and that, in a situation where you have been blackmailed, the decision to pay the ransom is also rational (assuming this doesn’t cause the probably of future blackmail attempts to increase). A rational policy makes irrational decisions in certain situations.
CDT can be viewed as describing which decision is rational in the current branch (decision situation), and FDT can be viewed as describing which policy is overall rational to have across branches. Viewed like this, the two theories are perfectly compatible, they try to answer different questions.
The sentence “A rational policy makes irrational decisions in certain situations” sounds contradictory, but isn’t. This is arguably why Newcomb’s problem feels paradoxical.
Well, I just used a semantic distinction to resolve the apparent incompatibility between CDT and FDT, so this semantic argument seems to be the opposite of fruitless. Indeed, my point is that not looking properly at the semantics is part of the reason why there is a dispute in the first place.
(Just to be clear, I think your post is great! I was just commenting on this narrow point which I think is important.)
It depends on what we apply the word “rational” to. Are we asking whether a fixed policy is rational? Or are we asking whether a decision in a particular situation (“branch”) is rational?
It is no contradiction to say that a policy which never pays ransom is rational and that, in a situation where you have been blackmailed, the decision to pay the ransom is also rational (assuming this doesn’t cause the probably of future blackmail attempts to increase). A rational policy makes irrational decisions in certain situations.
CDT can be viewed as describing which decision is rational in the current branch (decision situation), and FDT can be viewed as describing which policy is overall rational to have across branches. Viewed like this, the two theories are perfectly compatible, they try to answer different questions.
The sentence “A rational policy makes irrational decisions in certain situations” sounds contradictory, but isn’t. This is arguably why Newcomb’s problem feels paradoxical.
People tend to use “rational” it to defend their preferred position, so I find discussions often degenerate into fruitless semantic debates.
Well, I just used a semantic distinction to resolve the apparent incompatibility between CDT and FDT, so this semantic argument seems to be the opposite of fruitless. Indeed, my point is that not looking properly at the semantics is part of the reason why there is a dispute in the first place.
(Just to be clear, I think your post is great! I was just commenting on this narrow point which I think is important.)
Sorry; I agree with your point! :-)
It’s mostly that I’ve been burnt by these discussions in the past :-)