Why the Infinite Decision Puzzle is Puzzling

Theory and Decision 52 (2):139-147 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Pulier (2000, Theory and Decision 49: 291) and Machina (2000, Theory and Decision 49: 293) seek to dissolve the Barrett–Arntzenius infinite decision puzzle (1999, Theory and Decision 46: 101). The proposed dissolutions, however, are based on misunderstandings concerning how the puzzle works and the nature of supertasks more generally. We will describe the puzzle in a simplified form, address the recent misunderstandings, and describe possible morals for decision theory

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,881

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-02

Downloads
220 (#91,585)

6 months
12 (#213,833)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Frank Arntzenius
Oxford University
Jeffrey Barrett
University of California, Irvine

Citations of this work

Supertasks.Jon Pérez Laraudogoitia - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Do pragmatic arguments show too much?Martin Peterson - 2016 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 6 (2):165-172.
Infinite Exchange Problems.Michael Scott & Alexander Scott - 2004 - Theory and Decision 57 (4):397-406.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Infinite pains: the trouble with supertasks.John Earman & John Norton - 1996 - In Adam Morton & Stephen P. Stich (eds.), Benacerraf and His Critics. Blackwell. pp. 11--271.
Barrett and Arntzenius's Infinite Decision Puzzle.Mark J. Machina - 2000 - Theory and Decision 49 (3):291-295.
A Flawed Infinite Decision Puzzle.Myron L. Pulier - 2000 - Theory and Decision 49 (3):289-290.

Add more references