Well, it was just a game and I had other things to do. Plus I didn’t feel a duty to take it 100% seriously since, as happy as I was to have the chance to participate, I didn’t actually choose to play.
That was a poorly written post on my part. What I meant was that I was open to argument either way (“Should I press it or not?). I had decided that regardless of whether I pressed it or not I would at least wait until other people had a chance to wake up. So it wasn’t my only reason—I hadn’t even really thought about it too much as I was waiting for more comments.
Even though it was poorly written, I’m surprised how many people seem to have misunderstood it as I would have thought it was clear enough as I asked the question.
I looked at the thread and considered commenting here, but not many people had commented, so I figured there wasn’t that much chance of getting a response if I posted here.
Yeah, it wasn’t the LW team, but one of my friends
Sorry, I got tricked:
petrov_day_admin_account September 26, 2020 11:26 AM
You are part of a smaller group of 30 users who has been selected for the second part of this experiment. In order for the website not to go down, at least 5 of these selected users must enter their codes within 30 minutes of receiving this message, and at least 20 of these users must enter their codes within 6 hours of receiving the message. To keep the site up, please enter your codes as soon as possible. You will be asked to complete a short survey afterwards.
Should I press the button or not? I haven’t pressed the button at the current time as it would be disappointing to people if they received the email, but someone pressed it while they were still asleep.
It’s just meant to be a Wiki article, not a tag so that when you mouse-over you get a definition
I’m curious, do you find this argument for paying in Logical Counterfactual Mugging persuasive? What about the Counterfactual Prisoner’s Dilemma argument for the basic Counterfactual Mugging?
Another approach is to change the example to remove the objection
Interesting point about the poker game version. It’s still a one shot game, so there’s no real reason to hide a 0 unless you think they’re a pretty powerful predictor, but it is always predicting something coherent.
I don’t see how you’re applying CPD to LU
The claim is that you should pay in the Logical Counterfactual Prisoner’s Dilemma and hence pay in Logical Counterfactual Mugging which is the logically uncertain version of Counterfactual Mugging.
Symmetric? The original is already symmetric. But “symmetric” is a concept which applies to multi-player games. Counterfactual PD makes PD into a one-player game. Presumably you meant “a one-player version”?
Edited now. I meant it’s a symmetric version of counterfactual mugging. So not in the game theory sense, but just that there is now no difference between heads and tails.
This is only true if you use classical CDT, yeah? Whereas EDT can get $9900 in both cases, provided it believes in a sufficient correlation between what it does upon seeing heads vs tails.
Point noted. Maybe I should have been more careful about specifying what I was comparing
Also, why is this posted as a question?
Accident. It’s fixed now
I guess I’ve discussed my perspective on the issue of unrealistic hypotheticals here, although you’ve already commented on that post. Beyond that, Scott Alexanders The Least Convenient Possible World is a great post, but I suspect you’ve seen it too.One additional thing which I can add is that this seems related to Decoupling vs. Contextualising norms.BTW, I created a wiki page for hypotheticals. I’ve summarised some arguments on why we should pay attention to unrealistic hypothetical, but it’d be useful to have some opposing arguments listed there as well.
Thanks. I’ve added a link to your shortform post
I didn’t mention a specific self-defeater as that’s been discussed in the comments above.
Denying the existence of a deeper, unobservable reality or saying that speaking about it is nonsense is also useless for any kind of prediction
The Universe Doesn’t Have to Play Nice captures my objections to this kind of reasoning
Just because it is convenient to use exists in a way that refers to a particular scope of a multiverse, doesn’t prevent us as treating the whole multiverse as just a rather unusual universal and using the term exists normally. But aren’t claims about a multiverse inconsistent with your strong verificationism?
Ok, so you’re only applying the verification principle to ontological claims. That is quite a bit crisper than what you wrote before. On the other hand, the verification principle does feel like an ontological claim as it is claiming that certain things don’t exist or at least that talking about them is meaningless. But how are you defining ontological?
Is there any difference?
Someone needs to add the argument against hypotheticals that would never occur in the real world.
Thanks for writing up an excellent Reduction Ad Absurdum of verificationism. As they say, “One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens”.
I strongly agree with the claim that it is self-defeating. Here’s another weird effect—let’s suppose I roll a dice and see that it is a 6. I then erase the information from my brain, which then takes us to a position where the statement is impossible to verify. Does the statement then become meaningless?Beyond this, I would say that “exists” is a primitive. If it makes sense to take anything as a primitive, then it makes sense to take “exists” as a primitive. And the thing with primitives is that you can’t really define them in any satisfactory sense. Instead, you can only talk around them.
Excluding the verification principle from itself feels like a dodge me. I don’t think labelling it as not a belief gets you anywhere.
What do you mean by ontic vs. ontological?
I would prefer if you wrote up your own post objecting to the general frame in which I’m operating in. I don’t feel that this is the right location to have this discussion.