there’s another CRUCIAL difference regarding the Newcombs problem: there’s always a chance you’re in a simulation being run by Omega. I think if you can account for that, it SHOULD patch most decent decision-theories up. I’m willing to be quite flexible in my understanding of which theories get patched up or not.
this has the BIG advantage of NOT requiring non-linear causality in the model-it just gives a flow from simulation->”real”world.
there’s always a chance you’re in a simulation being run by Omega. I think if you can account for that, it SHOULD patch most decent decision-theories up.
Yes, reflective consistency tends to make things better.
there’s another CRUCIAL difference regarding the Newcombs problem: there’s always a chance you’re in a simulation being run by Omega. I think if you can account for that, it SHOULD patch most decent decision-theories up. I’m willing to be quite flexible in my understanding of which theories get patched up or not.
this has the BIG advantage of NOT requiring non-linear causality in the model-it just gives a flow from simulation->”real”world.
Yes, reflective consistency tends to make things better.
um...that wasn’t sarcastic, was it? I just ran low on mental energy so...
anyways, the downside is you have to figure out how to dissolve all or most of the anthropic paradoxes when evaluating simulation chance.