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.
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. :)