That is, their move actually depends on which move you make / strategy you use.
You’re getting this the other way around. It is Omega who plays first. By the time you enter the room and the boxes are in place, it is already determined if $1000000 is in the box or not. Your move depends on Omega’s, not the other way around. Omega’s move depends on the knowledge it has about you.
Omega plays first if you take at as “what happens first”, but chooses second if you take that as having the privileged position of knowing what your opponent does before you must make your choice.
Not really; in Nozick’s original formulation omega doesn’t know what the player chooses, it can only guess. Sure it’s guess may be highly likely to be correct, but it’s still a guess. This distinction is important because if omega is absolutely certain what the player chooses it will always win. The player will only get $1000000 or $1000 but never $1001000.
Fine, replace “knowing what your opponent does” with “having a high degree of confidence in what the other player has or is going to choose”. My point stands—“knowing” is pretty much just a short way of talking about the justified high degree of confidence, anyways.
You’re getting this the other way around. It is Omega who plays first. By the time you enter the room and the boxes are in place, it is already determined if $1000000 is in the box or not. Your move depends on Omega’s, not the other way around. Omega’s move depends on the knowledge it has about you.
Fair enough—replace”depends on” with “is ~100% correlated with.”
Omega plays first if you take at as “what happens first”, but chooses second if you take that as having the privileged position of knowing what your opponent does before you must make your choice.
Not really; in Nozick’s original formulation omega doesn’t know what the player chooses, it can only guess. Sure it’s guess may be highly likely to be correct, but it’s still a guess. This distinction is important because if omega is absolutely certain what the player chooses it will always win. The player will only get $1000000 or $1000 but never $1001000.
Fine, replace “knowing what your opponent does” with “having a high degree of confidence in what the other player has or is going to choose”. My point stands—“knowing” is pretty much just a short way of talking about the justified high degree of confidence, anyways.