Abstract A standard argument for one-boxing in Newcomb’s Problem is ‘Why Ain’cha Rich?’, which emphasizes that one-boxers typically make a million dollars compared to the thousand dollars that two-boxers can expect. A standard reply is the ‘opportunity defence’: the two-boxers who made a thousand never had an opportunity to make more. The paper argues that the opportunity defence is unavailable to anyone who grants that in another case—a Frankfurt case—the agent is deprived of opportunities in the way that advocates of Frankfurt cases typically claim
The paper discusses Ian Wells’s recent argument (‘Equal Opportunity and Newcomb’s Problem’, Mind 201...
Box A is transparent and contains $1,000. Box B is opaque and contains either a million dollars or n...
The relationship betueen Newcomb’s problem, which involves an apparent paradox of prediction. and Pr...
Abstract: A standard argument for one-boxing in Newcomb’s Problem is ‘Why Ain’cha Rich?’, which emph...
I consider a familiar argument for two-boxing in Newcomb's Problem and find it defective because it ...
The Newcomb problem is analysed here as a type of common cause problem. In relation to such problems...
In the standard Newcomb scenario two-boxing is not the rational act and, in general, in Newcomb-styl...
Philosophers debate whether one-boxing or two-boxing is the rational act in a Newcomb situation. I s...
I present a game-theoretic way to understand the situation describing Newcomb’s Problem (NP) which h...
We offer a novel argument for one-boxing in Newcomb’s Problem. The intentional states of a rational...
In Nozick’s rendition of the decision situation given in Newcomb’s Paradox dominance and the princip...
“It is not that I claim to solve the problem, and do not want you to miss the joy of puzzling over a...
Newcomb problems turn on a tension between two principles of choice: roughly, a principle sensitive ...
We offer a novel argument for one-boxing in Newcomb's Problem. The intentional states of a rational ...
Newcomb's Problem supposes that there are two boxes, an opaque and a transparent box. The transparen...
The paper discusses Ian Wells’s recent argument (‘Equal Opportunity and Newcomb’s Problem’, Mind 201...
Box A is transparent and contains $1,000. Box B is opaque and contains either a million dollars or n...
The relationship betueen Newcomb’s problem, which involves an apparent paradox of prediction. and Pr...
Abstract: A standard argument for one-boxing in Newcomb’s Problem is ‘Why Ain’cha Rich?’, which emph...
I consider a familiar argument for two-boxing in Newcomb's Problem and find it defective because it ...
The Newcomb problem is analysed here as a type of common cause problem. In relation to such problems...
In the standard Newcomb scenario two-boxing is not the rational act and, in general, in Newcomb-styl...
Philosophers debate whether one-boxing or two-boxing is the rational act in a Newcomb situation. I s...
I present a game-theoretic way to understand the situation describing Newcomb’s Problem (NP) which h...
We offer a novel argument for one-boxing in Newcomb’s Problem. The intentional states of a rational...
In Nozick’s rendition of the decision situation given in Newcomb’s Paradox dominance and the princip...
“It is not that I claim to solve the problem, and do not want you to miss the joy of puzzling over a...
Newcomb problems turn on a tension between two principles of choice: roughly, a principle sensitive ...
We offer a novel argument for one-boxing in Newcomb's Problem. The intentional states of a rational ...
Newcomb's Problem supposes that there are two boxes, an opaque and a transparent box. The transparen...
The paper discusses Ian Wells’s recent argument (‘Equal Opportunity and Newcomb’s Problem’, Mind 201...
Box A is transparent and contains $1,000. Box B is opaque and contains either a million dollars or n...
The relationship betueen Newcomb’s problem, which involves an apparent paradox of prediction. and Pr...