On 12/10/2014 9:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
We also developed an analogous version of the Newcomb's paradox, but couched in the form
of the prisoner's dilemma:
If you were forced to play in the prisoners dilemma against yourself (in a fully
deterministic setting such as with both of your minds uploaded to a computer), would you
defect or cooperate (assuming you're playing completely selfishly with no regard for
your opponent)? In classic prisoner's dilemma defecting is always better than
cooperating, because it's a better choice when your opponent defects, and it is a better
choice when your opponent cooperates. (Just like some decision theories say its always
better to take two boxes, because no matter what is in the opaque box, you get an extra
$1,000 on top). However, in this situation (when playing against a deterministic copy of
yourself) your choice is correlated to (though not physically / causally related) to the
choice made by your opponent. So those who one-box are more apt to say co-operation is
better than defecting in this case, since the Defect/Cooperate, and Cooperate/Defect
outcomes are no longer possible. -- Just as with an accurate predictor, getting $0 or
getting $1,001,000 is not possible.
Is there anyone here who thinks two-boxing (or defecting in the above choice) is the
correct decision?
Dunno. I'll run my simulation and find out.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
