I still don’t follow it, personally. Specifically, I don’t see why to equate “you can affect someone’s prediction of the past” with “you can affect the actual event that person is predicting.” (“Predict” is probably the wrong word for this, but I can’t think of a better one offhand.)
Besides. Even if you DO make that jump, in order to get from there to
In short, the decisions you make affect the decisions other people will make and have made.
it seems that you would need to propose that reality fits your model, i.e. that there actually exists a perfectly rational observer making predictions about us.
How do you interpret Evidential Decision Theory? Perhaps that would make this easier to explain.
I interpreted it as that by making evidence point to something you’re causing it to happen. This isn’t what most people mean by “cause”, but as an Eternalist, I never mean that. I consider the future every bit as constant as the past. If you drop a rock, you’re not actually causing it to fall in the normal sense, as it’s already either going to fall or it isn’t.
In any case, it’s treating correlation and causation the same as far as decision is concerned. If two-boxing correlates to the million-dollar box being empty, you treat it as that it makes the box empty, and only take one box.
Fixed
I added more to that, although I still can’t guarantee whether or not it’s easy to follow.
I still don’t follow it, personally. Specifically, I don’t see why to equate “you can affect someone’s prediction of the past” with “you can affect the actual event that person is predicting.” (“Predict” is probably the wrong word for this, but I can’t think of a better one offhand.)
Besides. Even if you DO make that jump, in order to get from there to
it seems that you would need to propose that reality fits your model, i.e. that there actually exists a perfectly rational observer making predictions about us.
How do you interpret Evidential Decision Theory? Perhaps that would make this easier to explain.
I interpreted it as that by making evidence point to something you’re causing it to happen. This isn’t what most people mean by “cause”, but as an Eternalist, I never mean that. I consider the future every bit as constant as the past. If you drop a rock, you’re not actually causing it to fall in the normal sense, as it’s already either going to fall or it isn’t.
In any case, it’s treating correlation and causation the same as far as decision is concerned. If two-boxing correlates to the million-dollar box being empty, you treat it as that it makes the box empty, and only take one box.
Hm—was the “required reading” line there before, and I missed it, or did you just add it? :)
It was there before.
My bad then. I’ll refrain from further requests for explanation while I haven’t read the required reading. :)