Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/27685
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBurgess, Simonen
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-25T00:10:02Z-
dc.date.available2019-10-25T00:10:02Z-
dc.date.issued2004-01-
dc.identifier.citationSynthese, 138(2), p. 261-287en
dc.identifier.issn1573-0964en
dc.identifier.issn0039-7857en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/27685-
dc.description.abstractThe Newcomb problem is analysed here as a type of common cause problem. In relation to such problems, if you take the dominated option your expected outcome will be good and if you take the dominant option your expected outcome will be not so good. As is explained, however, these are not conventional conditional expected outcomes but ‘conditional evidence expected outcomes’ and while in the deliberation process, the evidence on which they are based is only hypothetical evidence. Conventional conditional expected outcomes are more sensitive to your current epistemic state in that they are based purely on actual evidence which is available to you during the deliberation process. So although they are conditional on a certain act being performed, they are not based on evidence that you would have only if that act is performed. Moreover, for any given epistemic state during the deliberation process, your conventional conditional expected outcome for the dominant option will be better than that for the dominated option. The principle of dominance is thus in perfect harmony with the conventional conditional expected outcomes. In relation to the Newcomb problem then, the evidence unequivocally supports two-boxing as the rational option. Yet what is advanced here is not simply a two-boxing strategy. To see why, two stages to the problem need to be recognised. The first stage is that which occurs before the information used by the predictor in making his predictions has been gained. The second stage is after this point. Provided that you are still in the first stage, you have an opportunity to influence whether or not the predictor places the $1m in the opaque box. To maximise the probability that it is, you need to commit yourself to one-boxing.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherSpringer Netherlandsen
dc.relation.ispartofSyntheseen
dc.titleThe Newcomb Problem: An Unqualified Resolutionen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1023/B:SYNT.0000013243.57433.e7en
local.contributor.firstnameSimonen
local.subject.for2008220302 Decision Theoryen
local.subject.seo2008970122 Expanding Knowledge in Philosophy and Religious Studiesen
local.profile.schoolUNE Business Schoolen
local.profile.emailsburge27@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC1en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.publisher.placeNetherlandsen
local.format.startpage261en
local.format.endpage287en
local.peerreviewedYesen
local.identifier.volume138en
local.identifier.issue2en
local.title.subtitleAn Unqualified Resolutionen
local.contributor.lastnameBurgessen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:sburge27en
local.profile.orcid0000-0002-5219-6485en
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:1959.11/27685en
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleThe Newcomb Problemen
local.output.categorydescriptionC1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journalen
local.search.authorBurgess, Simonen
local.istranslatedNoen
local.uneassociationNoen
local.atsiresearchNoen
local.sensitive.culturalNoen
local.year.published2004en
local.fileurl.closedpublishedhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/c0f842be-4523-49fc-96d0-a80115f6740een
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
UNE Business School
Files in This Item:
1 files
File SizeFormat 
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

6
checked on Feb 15, 2025

Page view(s)

2,026
checked on Aug 3, 2024

Download(s)

6
checked on Aug 3, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.