We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
In this chapter, I will present two prima facie counterexamples to Jeffrey's PMCEU of the kind inspired by Newcomb's paradox, briefly describe a number of others of the same general kind and try to clarify their structure. Newcomb's paradox itself will be discussed in Chapter 8.
The prima facie counterexamples are best understood as establishing a prima facie conflict between PMCEU and another intuitively plausible and well-respected principle of choice which, though not very broadly applicable, is almost certainly true. The second principle is a revised version of Savage's principle of dominance that takes into account the possibility that the states are not act-independent. Henceforth, when referring to the principle of dominance (PDOM, for short), I shall be referring to the revised version, stated below.
PDOM will here be given a propositional formulation. That is, the acts, states and outcomes referred to in my statement of the principle will be propositions, à la Jeffrey, to the effect that the agent performs such and such an act, that such and such state of the world obtains and that such and such an outcome accrues to the agent, respectively. To state PDOM, I must first give the following definition: Where A and B are any available acts and {F1, … Fr} is any set of mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive decision-relevant propositions, A dominates B in the agent's preferences relative to {F1, … Fr} if, and only if, D(A & Fi) > D(B & Fi), for i = 1, … r. PDOM states: If (i) some act, A, dominates every other act in your preferences relative to some partition and (ii) you believe that which act you perform does not causally affect which element of that partition is true, then do A.
Let the states and outcomes considered by the agent be as labeled in the section on Jeffrey in the previous chapter. Then a consequence of PDOM, a weaker version, relies on the following definition: For any acts A and B, A dominates B in the agent's preferences if, and only if, for any two (maximally specific) decision-relevant propositions of the forms A & Si & Oj and B & Si & Oj, D(A & Si, & Oj) > D(B & Si & Oj).
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
