It doesn’t break causality. Newcomb’s problem (especially if you move the victim to a deterministic substrate) can very well be set up in the real world. It just can’t be currently done because of limitations of technology.
Well, what do you mean by “setting it up in the real world”? There are certainly versions that can be done on computer (and I’m not sure if you were counting these, so don’t take this as a criticism).
-Write an algorithm A1 for picking whether to one-box or two-box on the problem.
-Write an algorithm A2 for predicting whether a given algorithm will one-box or two-box, and then fill the box as per Omega.
-Run a program in which A2 acts on A1, and then A1 runs, and find A1′s payoff.
Eliezer_Yudkowsky even claimed that this implementation of Newcomb’s problem makes it even clearer why you should use Timeless Decision Theory.
It doesn’t break causality. Newcomb’s problem (especially if you move the victim to a deterministic substrate) can very well be set up in the real world. It just can’t be currently done because of limitations of technology.
Well, what do you mean by “setting it up in the real world”? There are certainly versions that can be done on computer (and I’m not sure if you were counting these, so don’t take this as a criticism).
-Write an algorithm A1 for picking whether to one-box or two-box on the problem.
-Write an algorithm A2 for predicting whether a given algorithm will one-box or two-box, and then fill the box as per Omega.
-Run a program in which A2 acts on A1, and then A1 runs, and find A1′s payoff.
Eliezer_Yudkowsky even claimed that this implementation of Newcomb’s problem makes it even clearer why you should use Timeless Decision Theory.