However, given the opportunity to actually pre-commit to decisions that get you better outcomes provided your pre-commitment, you should do so.
That’s a major motivation behind UDT, that you should act as if you made all the pre-commitments you should’ve made, even if you actually didn’t (maybe you didn’t even get a chance to do that). There is no actual need to make these pre-commitments in the past, if you can coordinate enactment of their implications as the situations where they are relevant come up.
Different calculators manage to coordinate into all outputting 83 whenever people ask them to calculate 71+12, even though the calculators are not communicating with each other. Similarly, your decisions (including decisions about pre-commitments) can coordinate with predictors’ predictions about your decisions (including predictions about effective pre-commitments), even if they happen in an arbitrary order or without causal communication.
That’s a major motivation behind UDT, that you should act as if you made all the pre-commitments you should’ve made, even if you actually didn’t (maybe you didn’t even get a chance to do that). There is no actual need to make these pre-commitments in the past, if you can coordinate enactment of their implications as the situations where they are relevant come up.
Different calculators manage to coordinate into all outputting 83 whenever people ask them to calculate 71+12, even though the calculators are not communicating with each other. Similarly, your decisions (including decisions about pre-commitments) can coordinate with predictors’ predictions about your decisions (including predictions about effective pre-commitments), even if they happen in an arbitrary order or without causal communication.