The lesson of Newcomb’s paradox

Synthese 190 (9):1637-1646 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In Newcomb’s paradox you can choose to receive either the contents of a particular closed box, or the contents of both that closed box and another one. Before you choose though, an antagonist uses a prediction algorithm to accurately deduce your choice, and uses that deduction to fill the two boxes. The way they do this guarantees that you made the wrong choice. Newcomb’s paradox is that game theory’s expected utility and dominance principles appear to provide conflicting recommendations for what you should choose. Here we show that the conflicting recommendations assume different probabilistic structures relating your choice and the algorithm’s prediction. This resolves the paradox: the reason there appears to be two conflicting recommendations is that the probabilistic structure relating the problem’s random variables is open to two, conflicting interpretations. We then show that the accuracy of the prediction algorithm in Newcomb’s paradox, the focus of much previous work, is irrelevant. We end by showing that Newcomb’s paradox is time-reversal invariant; both the paradox and its resolution are unchanged if the algorithm makes its ‘prediction’ after you make your choice rather than before



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How braess' paradox solves newcomb's problem.A. D. Irvine - 1993 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7 (2):141 – 160.
How braess' paradox solves newcomb's problem: Not!Louis Marinoff - 1996 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10 (3):217 – 237.
Newcomb’s Paradox Realized with Backward Causation.Jan Hendrik Schmidt - 1998 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):67-87.
Newcomb's Hidden Regress.Stephen Maitzen & Garnett Wilson - 2003 - Theory and Decision 54 (2):151-162.
An Epistemic Principle Which Solves Newcomb's Paradox.Keith Lehrer & Vann McGee - 1991 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 40 (1):197-217.
Newcomb's paradox: A realist resolution.N. Jacobi - 1993 - Theory and Decision 35 (1):1-17.
Newcomb's paradox.Maurice W. Sasieni - 1984 - Theory and Decision 16 (3):217-223.
The meta-newcomb problem.Nick Bostrom - 2001 - Analysis 61 (4):309–310.
Probabilistic causality and Simpson's paradox.Richard Otte - 1985 - Philosophy of Science 52 (1):110-125.


Added to PP

140 (#127,989)

6 months
13 (#165,103)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference.Judea Pearl - 2000 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference.Judea Pearl - 2000 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 64 (1):201-202.
Counterfactuals and Two Kinds of Expected Utility.Allan Gibbard & William L. Harper - 1978 - In A. Hooker, J. J. Leach & E. F. McClennen (eds.), Foundations and Applications of Decision Theory. D. Reidel. pp. 125-162.

View all 11 references / Add more references