Do we need the ability to reason about logically inconsistent situations? Perhaps we could attempt to transform the question of logical counterfactuals into a question about consistent situations instead as I describe in this post? Or to put it another way, is the idea of logical counterfactuals an analogy or something that is supposed to be taken literally?
Hmm, I'm still confused. I can't figure out why we would need logical uncertainty in the typical case to figure out the consequences of "source code X outputs action/policy Y". Is there a simple problem where this is necessary or is this just a result of trying to solve for the general case?
I'm actually still quite confused by the necessity of logical uncertainty for UDT. Most of the common problems like Newcomb's or Parfit's Hitchhiker don't seem to require it. Where does it come in?
(The only reference to it that I could find was on the LW wiki)
You may find this comment that Rob Bensinger left on one of my questions interesting:
"The main datapoint that Rob left out: one reason we don't call it UDT (or cite Wei Dai much) is that Wei Dai doesn't endorse FDT's focus on causal-graph-style counterpossible reasoning; IIRC he's holding out for an approach to counterpossible reasoning that falls out of evidential-style conditioning on a logically uncertain distribution. (FWIW I tried to make the formalization we chose in the paper general enough to technically include that possibility, though Wei and I disagree here and that's definitely not where the paper put its emphasis. I don't want to put words in Wei Dai's mouth, but IIRC, this is also a reason Wei Dai declined to be listed as a co-author.)"
Rob also left another comment explaining the renaming from UDT to FDT