I don't understand what you mean here.
-
-
You don't need to introduce computation limits to show that Newcomb's paradox (interpreted without equivocation) violates the axioms of Bayesian updating. (2), the requirement of a unique and consistent arrow of time, is sufficient.
-
This seems important. Could you please walk me through this? What are the axioms of Bayesian updating? Thanks.
-
A simple way to see it is "information never hurts"—i.e., (1) there's no conditional update that will raise your (epistemic) entropy, and (2) assuming that the information you're getting is at all relevant (as assumed in the Newcomb's paradox) the change will be negative.
-
This gives you an arrow of time (watch the direction of falling entropy). But Newcomb's paradox says the two directions (machine->action; action->machine) are equivalent.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.