Advertisement

Paradox Lost pp 107-132 | Cite as

Newcomb’s Problem

  • Michael Huemer
Chapter

Abstract

You are asked to choose between taking box A and taking both A and B, where B contains $1000, and A contains either $1 million (if a reliable predictor thought you would take only A) or $0 (if the predictor thought you would take both). Dominance reasoning supports taking both boxes, but expected utility maximization seemingly supports taking only A. The correct choice is both boxes. Expected utility should be calculated using a weighted average of the expected utility conditional on each possible assumption about how the unalterable parts of the external world are. This is because rational individuals seek to cause good outcomes, not produce evidence of good outcomes. This reconciles the expected utility principle with the dominance principle.

References

  1. Huemer, Michael. 2000. “Van Inwagen’s Consequence Argument,” Philosophical Review 109: 524–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Lewis, David. 1979. “Prisoners’ Dilemma Is a Newcomb Problem”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 8: 235–40.Google Scholar
  3. Nozick, Robert. 1969. “Newcomb’s Problem and Two Principles of Choice”, pp. 114–46 in Nicholas Rescher, ed., Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Quinn, Warren S. 1990. “The Puzzle of the Self-Torturer”, Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 59: 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Rachels, Stuart. 1998. “Counterexamples to the Transitivity of Better Than”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76: 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sainsbury, Richard M. 2009. Paradoxes, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Simon, Herbert A. 1955. “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 69: 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Skyrms, Brian. 1982. “Causal Decision Theory”, Journal of Philosophy 79: 695–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Huemer
    • 1
  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations