Why the Infinite Decision Puzzle is Puzzling

Theory and Decision 52 (2):139-147 (2002)
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
Keywords Dutch book  Supertask  Puzzle
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/A:1015564123344
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,848
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
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

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2010-09-02

Total downloads
143 ( #36,345 of 2,210,518 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #127,844 of 2,210,518 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature