Why You Should One-box in Newcomb's Problem

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.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

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 W. 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
2015-07-08

Downloads
1,924 (#4,603)

6 months
341 (#5,494)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Howard Simmons
McMaster University (PhD)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

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

Add more references