I don't understand what you mean here.
-
-
Replying to @SimonDeDeo @Plinz and
Just confused as to why you chose such language when it seems like you’re just saying (1) predictor has physical computation limits and (2) present choices shouldn’t influence past action. Is that what you’re saying?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Ahimsa_Satya_ @Plinz and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Replying to @SimonDeDeo @Plinz and
Is that not what you meant by “equivocation on the term prediction?”
10:52 AM - 25 Jun 2018
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
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.