Conversation

did you know there's a sufficient, probably complete simulacrum of you inside a newcomb predictor? HANG ON WE'LL GET YOU OUT OF THERE

Replying to

I'm looking at the description of the Newcomb paradox & don't understand why "take box A and storm out" isn't a considered option

Replying to

purely formally, you could choose A+B for an at least equally good outcome

Replying to

so the only reason to pick A over A+B is if it really, really pisses you off to be fucked with by a godlike entity

Replying to

and

and you wish to communicate you refuse to participate. The equivalent of flipping the predictor off

Replying to

and

except with the extra oomph that you had to concretely harm yourself to do it

Replying to

and

also in certain forms of 70s sci fi taking box A only, or neither box, could potentially destroy the predictor, if you want that

Replying to

and

assuming it is a being of pure logic specified precisely by the problem statement and it has no decision tree for those outcomes

Replying to

and

since the paradox was written in 1969 it is possible if we are in the same universe with a predictor we are indeed in 70s sci fi

Replying to

"no, your stepfather is dead. your actual father is the only one who ever beat me, he has retired and is now fishing for salmon"

Replying to

and

wow this was much more obscure than I thought books.google.com/books?id=g195n

11:26 PM · Nov 10, 2016Twitter Web Client

Replying to

nice

Replying to

and

i was considering responding with THERE IS NO SANCTUARRYYYYYY but then decided that wasn't obscure *enough*

Show replies