Where are the new monthly threads when I need them? A pox on the +11 EDT zone!
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.
Right, but exactly this information seems to the 2-boxer to point to 2-boxing!
If the game is rigged against you, so what? Take both boxes. You cannot lose, and there's a small chance the conman erred.
Mhm. I'm still far from convinced. Is this my fault?
Am I at all right in assuming that 1-boxing is heavily favored in this community?
And that this is a minority belief among experts?
If the game is rigged against you, so what? Take both boxes. You cannot lose, and there's a small chance the conman erred.
What helps me when I get stuck in this loop (the loop isn't incorrect exactly, it's just non-productive) is to meditate on how the problem assumes that, for all my complexity, I'm still a deterministic machine. Omega can read my source code and know what I'm going to pick. If I end up picking both boxes, he knew that before I did, and I'll end up with less money. If I can convince myself -- somehow -- to pick just the one box, then O... (read more)
Perhaps it will make sense if you view the argument as more of a reason to be the kind of person who one-boxes, rather than an argument to one-box per se.
Where are the new monthly threads when I need them? A pox on the +11 EDT zone!
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.
If you're new to Less Wrong, check out this welcome post.