There appears to be something of a Sensemaking community developing on the internet, which could roughly be described as a spirituality-inspired attempt at epistemology. This includes Rebel Wisdom, Future Thinkers, Emerge and maybe you could even count post-rationality. While there are undoubtedly lots of critiques that could be made of their epistemics, I'd suggest watching this space as I think some interesting ideas will emerge out of it.
You are talking about it as though it is a property of the puzzle, when it seems likely to be an interaction between the person and puzzle
Interesting post, although I wish "reality-masking" puzzles had been defined better. Most of this post is around disorientation pattern or disabling parts of the epistemic immune system more than anything directly masking reality.
Also related: Pseudo-rationality
"That said, I don't think we are really explaining or de-confusing anything if we appeal to backwards causation to understand Newcomb's Problem or argue for a particular solution to it." - How come?
"Relativity does not make the arrow of time relative to observer" - I didn't say that. I said there was no unified notion of the present
Maybe you can't dream the actual process of factoring a large number, but you can dream of having just finished completing such a factoring with the result having come out correct
I liked the diagrams as I think they'll be clarifying to most people. However, in response to:
I think that many proponents of FDT fail to make this point: FDT’s advantage is that it shifts the question to what type of agent you want to be--not misleading questions of what types of “choices” you want to make
FDT involves choosing in observation-action mapping which is effectively the same as choosing an algorithm if the reward doesn't ever depend on why you make a particular decision and the mapping space is finite
One problem with trying to model it as what algorithm to run is that you are running code to select the algorithm so if the actual algorithm ever matters as opposed to just the observation-action map, you'd need to take the selection algorithm into account.
The point about simulations was merely to show that the idea of a universe with the majority of consciousness being Boltzmann Brains isn't absurd
I'm sure I'll link back to this post soon. But this post is motivated by a few things such as:
a) Disagreements over consciousness - if non-materialist qualia existed, then we wouldn't be able to know about them empirically, but the universe doesn't have to play nice and make all phenomenon accessible to our scientific instruments, so we should have more uncertainty about this than people generally possess
b) The theories that can explain everything post - as nice as it'd be to just be able to evaluate theories empirically, there's no reason why we can't have a theory that is important for determining expectations, which isn't cleanly falsifiable
I thought it might be useful to give an example of when normalisation of deviance is functional. Let's suppose that a hospital has to treat patients, but because of short-staffing there would be no way of filling out all of the paperwork properly whilst treating all the patients, so the doctors don't fill out all of the fields.
It's also important to mention the possibility of scapegoating - perhaps the deviance is justified and practically everyone is working in that manner, but if something goes wrong you may be blamed anyway. So it's very important to take this small chance of an extremely harsh punishment into account.