newcomb’s problem

ogingat:

theunitofcaring:

probably of interest to pluspluspangolin and ogingat.

So there are several ‘questions’ that you could say Newcomb’s problem is about. One is “which action, in expectation, gets you more money” and that, obviously is one-boxing. Concluding this is in fact solving a simpler problem; concluding this and then deciding that you’ve solved Newcomb’s problem is sloppiness and/or arrogance. 

No… no, this is wrong. No offense, but this is precisely sloppiness and arrogance. The question is precisely about what, in expectation, gets you more money. This is decision theory, not ethics. Two-boxers think two-boxing, in expectation, gets you more money. You can get this much from Wikipedia.

In Nozick’s original paper (PDF) he talks about the “Expected Utility Principle” and the “Dominance Principle” giving different answers for Newcomb’s Problem, and seems to see this as one of the main issues raised by the problem.  This seems to contradict what you’re saying, unless I misunderstand Nozick, or unless Nozick’s view of the problem is now seen as outdated.

(via ogingat-deactivated20150801)