Scholarlink

<p>At first pass, Evidential Decision Theory (EDT) recommends one-boxing in Newcomb’s Problem and Causal Decision Theory (CDT) recommends two-boxing. However, it has been acknowledged that concrete instances of the problem have messy features complicating their analyses. Recently, a third competitor, Functional Decision Theory (FDT) has emerged recommending one-boxing in some versions and two-boxing in others. This paper explores the verdicts of these competing theories in a few variations of the problem involving iteration and habit. We argue that this motivates the re-evaluation of case intuitions in decision theory and greater consideration of formal and structural relationships between CDT and FDT.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Tickles, iteration, and habits

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月19日

查看全文
  • Kenny Easwaran,
  • Benjamin A. Levinstein,
  • Ted Shear

摘要

At first pass, Evidential Decision Theory (EDT) recommends one-boxing in Newcomb’s Problem and Causal Decision Theory (CDT) recommends two-boxing. However, it has been acknowledged that concrete instances of the problem have messy features complicating their analyses. Recently, a third competitor, Functional Decision Theory (FDT) has emerged recommending one-boxing in some versions and two-boxing in others. This paper explores the verdicts of these competing theories in a few variations of the problem involving iteration and habit. We argue that this motivates the re-evaluation of case intuitions in decision theory and greater consideration of formal and structural relationships between CDT and FDT.