{"title":"Deciding and time : refusing devilish offers","authors":"K. Zahidi","doi":"10.2143/LEA.225.0.3011355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"in Gracely’s decision theoretic puzzle, the Devil’s offer, a subject is offered to take part in a lottery in which she stands to win eternal bliss or eternal torment. her chances of winning the lottery increase as time elapses. expected utility maximization seems to lead to the paradoxical situation in which the subject indefinitely postpones the lottery, resulting in the least desirable outcome. however, as various authors have pointed out with respect to decision problems similar to the Devil’s offer, the reasoning that leads to the paradoxical conclusion is not valid. in particular, distinguishing between a synchronic and diachronic version of decision problems in which the number of choice options is infinite, allows for a fine-grained analysis of the requirements of rational decision making. The aim of this paper is twofold. i will show that Arntzenius et al.’s (2004) analysis of problems that are structurally similar to Gracely’s decision problem can be adapted to show that the latter can be handled within Bayesian decision theory. furthermore, i will discuss a variation on the diachronic version of the Devil’s offer, in which the subject is unaware of the fact that she is confronted with infinitely many choices. This modified version seems to be a genuine case in which the principle of utility maximization leads to a paradoxical result. however, i will show that this paradox is only apparent and that the problem can also be resolved within a broadly Bayesian conception of rationality.","PeriodicalId":46471,"journal":{"name":"Logique et Analyse","volume":"22 1","pages":"45-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logique et Analyse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2143/LEA.225.0.3011355","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
in Gracely’s decision theoretic puzzle, the Devil’s offer, a subject is offered to take part in a lottery in which she stands to win eternal bliss or eternal torment. her chances of winning the lottery increase as time elapses. expected utility maximization seems to lead to the paradoxical situation in which the subject indefinitely postpones the lottery, resulting in the least desirable outcome. however, as various authors have pointed out with respect to decision problems similar to the Devil’s offer, the reasoning that leads to the paradoxical conclusion is not valid. in particular, distinguishing between a synchronic and diachronic version of decision problems in which the number of choice options is infinite, allows for a fine-grained analysis of the requirements of rational decision making. The aim of this paper is twofold. i will show that Arntzenius et al.’s (2004) analysis of problems that are structurally similar to Gracely’s decision problem can be adapted to show that the latter can be handled within Bayesian decision theory. furthermore, i will discuss a variation on the diachronic version of the Devil’s offer, in which the subject is unaware of the fact that she is confronted with infinitely many choices. This modified version seems to be a genuine case in which the principle of utility maximization leads to a paradoxical result. however, i will show that this paradox is only apparent and that the problem can also be resolved within a broadly Bayesian conception of rationality.
期刊介绍:
Logique et Analyse is the continuation of Bulletin Intérieur, which was published from 1954 on by the Belgian National Centre for Logical Investigation, and intended originally only as an internal publication of results for its members and collaborators. Since the start of the new series, in 1958, however, the journal has been open to external submissions (and subscriptions). Logique et Analyse itself subscribes to no particular logical or philosophical doctrine, and so is open to articles from all points of view, provided only that they concern the designated subject matter of the journal.