Deciding and time : refusing devilish offers

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 Q1 Arts and Humanities Logique et Analyse Pub Date : 2014-01-01 DOI:10.2143/LEA.225.0.3011355
K. Zahidi
{"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
决定和时间:拒绝邪恶的提议
在格雷斯利的决策理论谜题《魔鬼的提议》中,受试者被邀请参加彩票,她将赢得永恒的幸福或永恒的折磨。随着时间的推移,她中彩票的机会越来越大。期望效用最大化似乎导致了一个矛盾的情况,即受试者无限期地推迟抽签,导致最不理想的结果。然而,正如许多作者指出的,关于类似于魔鬼的提议的决策问题,导致自相矛盾结论的推理是无效的。特别是,区分决策问题的共时版本和历时版本(其中选择选项的数量是无限的),允许对理性决策制定的需求进行细粒度分析。本文的目的是双重的。我将展示Arntzenius等人(2004)对结构上与Gracely的决策问题相似的问题的分析,以表明后者可以在贝叶斯决策理论中处理。此外,我将讨论魔鬼提议的历时版本的一个变化,在这个版本中,主题没有意识到她面临着无限多的选择。这个修改后的版本似乎是一个真实的案例,其中效用最大化原则导致了一个矛盾的结果。然而,我将表明,这个悖论只是表面上的,这个问题也可以在广义的贝叶斯理性概念中得到解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Logique et Analyse
Logique et Analyse PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
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.
期刊最新文献
Some Logical Notations for Pragmatic Assertions On Linear Existential Graphs Regions of Force: Peirce, Frege, Carroll, and Bilateral Proof Trees What do we mean when we talk of object-language and metalanguage in the theory of natural languages? A Graphical Deep Inference System for Intuitionistic Logic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1