Gregory's Server|
4 comments
 @AlexandreZani @RAOF Well… no, I think I'd argue the supernatural powers *are* necessary, because if the predictor is like a really good friend then suddenly I have to start asking questions like, *is* there any person on earth who I've revealed enough of myself to they can predict how I'd behave in extreme situations, and suddenly I'm judging against "how well do they know me" and not the probabilities the thought experiment is supposed to be about. @AlexandreZani @RAOF And if the assigning the weights on the inputs to the probability function that comprises the thought experiment turns out to be a harder problem than executing the logic of the probability function itself, then… isn't what the thought experiment has ultimately shown, is that the probability function isn't useful? Because that was my point to start with– if we're allowed to bring "this entire methodology seems to be working kind of poorly" in as a possibility… |
@mcc @RAOF Like, I don't think paradoxes in decision theory are much more than nerdy puzzles, but the supernatural powers they assume just make the hypothetical a bit cleaner. It's not usually required for the point they're making.