Authors
Howard Simmons
McMaster University (PhD)
Abstract
I consider a familiar argument for two-boxing in Newcomb's Problem and find it defective because it involves a type of divergence from standard Baysian reasoning, which, though sometimes justified, conflicts with the stipulations of the Newcomb scenario. In an appendix, I also find fault with a different argument for two-boxing that has been presented by Graham Priest.
Keywords Newcomb's Problem  decision theory  dominance  rigid designators
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Rational Dilemmas.G. Priest - 2002 - Analysis 62 (1):11-16.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Newcomb's Hidden Regress.Stephen Maitzen & Garnett Wilson - 2003 - Theory and Decision 54 (2):151-162.
Two-Boxing is Irrational.Harold Noonan - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (2):455-462.
How Braess' Paradox Solves Newcomb's Problem.A. D. Irvine - 1993 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7 (2):141 – 160.
Newcomb's Problem.Jackie Ray Caughran - 1980 - Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-07-08

Total views
1,361 ( #3,942 of 2,505,164 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
47 ( #18,468 of 2,505,164 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes