Decision Theory: Newcomb’s Problem

De­ci­sions need to be mod­eled with some struc­ture in or­der to be scru­ti­nized and sys­tem­at­i­cally im­proved; sim­ply “in­tu­it­ing” the an­swers to de­ci­sion prob­lems by ad-hoc meth­ods is not con­ducive to thor­ough anal­y­sis.

For this, we for­mu­late de­ci­sion the­o­ries. This se­quence, themed with an anal­y­sis of New­comb’s prob­lem, is a con­soli­dated sum­mary and con­text for the many de­ci­sion the­ory dis­cus­sions found on LessWrong at the time of writ­ing.

De­ci­sion the­ory: An out­line of some up­com­ing posts

Con­fu­sion about New­comb is con­fu­sion about counterfactuals

De­ci­sion the­ory: Why we need to re­duce “could”, “would”, “should”

De­ci­sion the­ory: Why Pearl helps re­duce “could” and “would”, but still leaves us with at least three alternatives