, Volume 80, Issue 2, pp 261–273 | Cite as

Infallibility in the Newcomb Problem

  • Arif Ahmed
Original Article


It is intuitively attractive to think that it makes a difference in Newcomb’s problem whether or not the predictor is infallible, in the sense of being certainly actually correct. This paper argues that that view (A) is irrational and (B) manifests a well-documented cognitive illusion.


Decision Theory Lottery Ticket Causal Decision Theory Evidential Decision Theory Correct Predictor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ahmed, A. (2014). Evidence, decision and causality. Cambridge: CUP (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  2. Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école américaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand, P. (1990). Two types of utility. Greek Economic Review, 12, 58–74.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, K. (1987). Newcomb’s problem: The $1M solution. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 17, 409–425.Google Scholar
  5. Broome, J. (1989). An economic Newcomb problem. Analysis, 49, 220–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, M. (2007). Paradoxes from A to Z (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Craig, W. L. (1987). Divine foreknowledge and Newcomb’s paradox. Philosophia, 17, 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eells, E. (1982). Rational decision and causality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  9. Egan, A. (2007). Some counterexamples to causal decision theory. The Philosophical Review, 116, 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, J. M. (1994). The metaphysics of free will: An essay on control. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  11. Gibbard, A., & Harper, W. (1978). Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In C. Hooker, J. Leach & E. McClennen (Eds.), Foundations and applications of decision theory (pp. 125–162). Riedel, Dordrecht. Reprinted in P. Gärdenfors & N.-E. Sahlin (Eds.), Decision, probability and utility (1988). CUP, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Horgan, T. (1981). Counterfactuals and Newcomb’s problem. The Journal of Philosophy, 78, 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horgan, T. (1985). Newcomb’s problem: A stalemate. In R. Campbell & L. Sowden (Eds.), Paradoxes of rationality and cooperation: Prisoner’s dilemma and Newcomb’s problem (1985) (pp. 223–234). Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hubin, D., & Ross, G. (1985). Newcomb’s perfect predictor. Noûs, 19, 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jeffrey, R. (1965). The logic of decision. Chicago: Chicago UP.Google Scholar
  16. Jeffrey, R. (1983). The logic of decision (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago UP.Google Scholar
  17. Joyce, J. (1999). Foundations of causal decision theory. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 4481, 453–458.Google Scholar
  19. Ledwig, M. (2000). Newcomb’s problem. Dissertation submitted to the University of Constance. Accessed 2 Feb 2014.
  20. Leeds, S. (1984). Eells and Jeffrey on Newcomb’s problem. Philosophical Studies, 46, 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leslie, J. (1991). Ensuring two bird deaths with one throw. Mind, 100, 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levi, I. (1975). Newcomb’s many problems. Theory and Decision, 6, 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Nous, 13, 455–476. Reprinted in his Philosophical papers (Vol. 2, 1986). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, D. (1981). Causal decision theory. Australian Journal of Philosophy, 59, 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meek, C., & Glymour, C. (1994). Conditioning and intervening. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45, 1001–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nozick, R. (1969). Newcomb’s problem and two principles of choice. In N. Rescher (Ed.) Essays in honor of Carl G. Hempel (pp. 114–146). D. Reidel, Dordrecht. Reprinted in Moser P. (ed.) Rationality in action: Contemporary approaches (1990). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  27. Nozick, R. (1993). The nature of rationality. Princeton: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  28. Price, H. (2012). Causation, chance and the rational significance of supernatural evidence. The Philosophical Review, 121, 483–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Resnik, M. (1987). Choices: An introduction to decision theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  30. Seidenfeld, T. (1984). Comments on causal decision theory. PSA, 1984, 201–212.Google Scholar
  31. Shafir, S., Reich, T., Tsur, E., Erev, I., & Lotem, A. (2008). Perceptual accuracy and conflicting effects of certainty on risk-taking behaviour. Nature, 453, 917–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skyrms, B. (1980). Causal necessity. New Haven: Yale UP.Google Scholar
  33. Sloman, S. (2005). Causal models. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sobel, J. H. (1988). Infallible predictors. Philosophical Review, 97, 3–24. Reprinted in his Taking chances (1994). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  35. Spohn, W. (2012). Reversing 30 years of discussion: Why causal decision theorists should one-box. Synthese, 187, 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wedgwood, R. (2013). Gandalf’s solution to the Newcomb problem. Synthese, 190, 2643–2675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weirich, P. (1998). Equilibrium and rationality: Game theory revised by decision rules. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weirich, P. (2001). Decision space: Multidimensional utility analysis. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations