Abstract - What this essay does and does not cover
This essay attempts a resolution to Newcomb’s problem in the case of a perfect predictor (aka limit case). The essay does give a solution, but the goal of this essay is more ambitious.
The goal is that a supporter of 1-boxing, a supporter of 2-boxing, and any undecided people would all unanimously come to an agreement with the conclusion of this essay (if they read it through and follow the argument). To that end, separate sections “Focusing on the source of confusion in Newcomb’s Problem with Perfect Predictor” and a section of illustrative examples are given . However, this essay follows a chronological order and... (read 5418 more words →)
I think there are two separate claims being made here.
I can get not being overly committed that your own metaethical system is the ultimate truth. But it does not follow that established and commonly used systems are any good either. Considering that for a large number of people, their source of ethics is whatever they were indoctrinated to believe in as children, I would not place a lot of confidence in existing metaethics even if I am not confident in my own.
Edit: The main suggestion of this piece is #1 but the using existing crypto methods seems to suggest #2. The debate then becomes about what should one do when inaction/further research is not an option, when you have to make a decision.