Ahmed, Arif and Price, Huw (2011) Arntzenius on “Why ain’cha rich?”. [Preprint]

Preview

PDF ArntzeniusRevised.pdf Download (406kB)

Abstract

The best-known argument for Evidential Decision Theory (EDT) is the “Why ain'cha rich?” challenge to rival Causal Decision Theory (CDT). The basis for this challenge is that in Newcomb-like situations, acts that conform to EDT may be known in advance to have the better return than acts that conform to CDT. Frank Arntzenius has recently proposed an ingenious counter argument, based on an example in which, he claims, it is predictable in advance that acts that conform to EDT will do less well than acts that conform to CDT. We raise two objections to Arntzenius's example. We argue, first, that the example is subtly incoherent, in a way that undermines its effectiveness against EDT (here we rely on the lessons of Dummett's famous discussion of the conditions for the coherence of a belief in retrocausality); and, second, that the example relies on calculating the average return over an inappropriate population of acts.

---

Export/Citation:

EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL

Social Networking:

Share |

---

Item Type:	Preprint
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID Ahmed, Arif Price, Huw
Keywords:	Decision theory, Newcomb's problem
Subjects:	General Issues > Decision Theory
Depositing User:	Prof Huw Price
Date Deposited:	03 Jul 2011 05:01
Last Modified:	03 Jul 2011 05:01
Item ID:	8698
Subjects:	General Issues > Decision Theory
Date:	13 June 2011
URI:	https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/8698

Available Versions of this Item

• Arntzenius on “Why ain’cha rich?”. (deposited 04 May 2010)
  • Arntzenius on “Why ain’cha rich?”. (deposited 03 Jul 2011 05:01) [Currently Displayed]

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item