Matt, On 5/8/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 5/7/08, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > See http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/newcombs-proble.html > > > After many postings on this subject, I still assert that > > ANY rational AGI would be religious. > > Not necessarily. You execute a program P that inputs the conditions of > the game and outputs "1 box" or "2 boxes". Omega executes a program W as > follows: > > if P outputs "1 box" > then put $1 million in box B > else > leave box B empty. > > No matter what P is, it cannot call W because it would be infinite > recursion.
QED this is NOT the program that Omega executes. A rational agent only has to know that there are some things it cannot > compute. In particular, it cannot understand its own algorithm. There is a LOT wrapped up in your "only". It is one thing to know that you can't presently compute certain things that you have identified, and quite another to believe that an unseen power changes things that you have NOT identified as being beyond your present (flawed) computational abilities. No matter how extensive your observations, you can NEVER be absolutely sure that you understand anything, and you will in fact fail to understand key details of some things without realizing it. With a good workable explanation of the variances between predicted and actual events (God), of course you will continue to look for less divine explanations, but at exactly what point do you broadly dismiss ALL divine explanations, in the absence of alternative explanations? Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
