handout_-_Newcomb_s_puzzle_-_arguments_v

handout_-_Newcomb_s_puzzle_-_arguments_v - Newcomb's puzzle...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Newcomb's puzzle - Arguments John Turri 1. Payoff chart Remember these are the payoffs: 2. Argument for one-boxing As the choice faces you, this conditional seems true: it is almost cer- tain that if you one-box, then you’ll walk away a millionaire. This also seems true: it is almost certain that if you two-box, then you’ll walk away with only a thousand dollars. Predictor is that good. And you’d much rather walk away with a million than a thousand dollars. So you should one-box. Call this the evidential argument for one- boxing . 3. Argument for two-boxing The evidential argument neglects an important detail of the case. Predictor already predicted. The boxes’ contents have long been set. Your choice cannot now affect how much money is on the table. Either Predictor said you’d one-box, or Predictor said you’d two- box. If Predictor said one-box, then you’re better off two-boxing be- cause you’ll walk away with a thousand more dollars. And if Predictor said two-box, then again you’re better off two-boxing because you’ll
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 07/11/2011 for the course PHIL 100 taught by Professor Something during the Fall '10 term at Waterloo.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online