Newcomb's puzzle- ArgumentsJohn Turri1.Payoff chartRemember these are the payoffs:2.Argument for one-boxingAs 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-boxingThe 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
This is the end of the preview.
access the rest of the document.
The Table, 2005 singles, Rhetorical question, Predictor