244 | Katie Elliott on Metaphysics, Chance, and Explanation
Jul 24, 2023
auto_awesome
Katie Elliott, a philosopher at Brandeis University specializing in metaphysics, discusses the intriguing intersections of metaphysics and science. She explains how metaphysical concepts illuminate our understanding of time travel, causation, and free will versus determinism. Elliott breaks down counterfactuals and their role in shaping possible worlds while exploring how these ideas challenge our perceptions of reality. The conversation also touches on the implications of quantum mechanics for decision-making, leaving listeners pondering the complexities of rationality and existence.
Metaphysics aims to understand the basic logical structures of the world, helping us think about counterfactuals and possible worlds.
Newcombe's Paradox challenges traditional notions of rational decision-making and raises questions about determinism and free will.
The paradox has led to the development of alternative decision frameworks, challenging traditional models like expected utility theory.
Newcombe's Paradox prompts reflection on the implications of indeterminism, chance, and probabilities in decision-making processes.
Deep dives
Newcombe's Paradox: The Battle Between One-Boxers and Two-Boxers
Newcombe's Paradox is a thought experiment that presents a decision-making dilemma. In this paradox, you are faced with the choice of selecting either an opaque box by itself or both an opaque box and a clear box. The contents of the opaque box are predetermined by a predictor known as the 'bean'. If the bean predicts that you will select both boxes, the opaque box will contain $0. If the bean predicts that you will only select the opaque box, the opaque box will contain $1 million. Knowing this, the dilemma arises: should you select only the opaque box or both boxes? The paradox centers around the fact that the bean has demonstrated a perfect track record in predicting players' choices in the past. This has led to a divide between 'one-boxers' who argue that it is rational to choose only the opaque box, and 'two-boxers' who believe that selecting both boxes is the optimal decision. The paradox has sparked intense debates and discussions regarding decision theory and the nature of free will.
The Philosophical Conundrums of Newcombe's Paradox
Newcombe's Paradox presents a philosophical conundrum that challenges traditional notions of rational decision-making. The paradox raises questions about the nature of causality, determinism, and free will. One key aspect of the paradox is the ability of the predictor, known as the 'bean', to accurately predict players' choices with a perfect track record. This fact puts players in a dilemma, as they must consider the potential consequences of their choices and the implications for the outcome. The debate between 'one-boxers' and 'two-boxers' highlights different philosophical positions, with one side arguing for a more deterministic view of the universe, while the other emphasizes the role of free will and decision-making. Ultimately, Newcombe's Paradox forces individuals to grapple with fundamental questions about the nature of reality and the limits of human knowledge and agency.
The Influence of Newcombe's Paradox on Decision Theory
Newcombe's Paradox has had a significant impact on decision theory and has spurred numerous research and debate within the field. The paradox challenges traditional decision-making models, such as expected utility theory, which assume rational agents should maximize their expected payoff. However, the paradox demonstrates that rational decision-making is not always straightforward, as it is influenced by factors like prior information and the accuracy of predictors. Newcombe's Paradox has led to the development of alternative decision frameworks, such as causal decision theory, which takes into account causal relationships and potential manipulations of the outcome. The ongoing discussion and exploration of Newcombe's Paradox have contributed to a deeper understanding of decision-making processes and the limitations of traditional decision theories.
The Philosophical Implications of Indeterminism in Newcombe's Paradox
Newcombe's Paradox raises important philosophical questions about the implications of indeterminism on decision-making. The scenario in the paradox challenges the assumption of a deterministic universe by introducing probabilistic elements, such as the predictor's accurate predictions and the potential variability of the opaque box's contents. The indeterministic nature of the paradox forces individuals to consider the role of chance and probabilities in decision-making processes. It also raises questions about free will and determinism, as players' choices are influenced by their beliefs and assumptions about the nature of reality. Newcombe's Paradox highlights the intricate relationship between philosophical concepts, such as indeterminism, causality, and decision-making, prompting further exploration and reflection on these fundamental issues.
Hypothesis of picking both boxes vs. picking the opaque box
In the podcast episode, there's a discussion about a thought experiment involving picking both boxes or just the opaque box. It is argued that picking both boxes leads to a regularity where individuals walk away with only $100. On the other hand, picking just the opaque box has a high track record of resulting in individuals walking away with $1 million. The decision between picking both boxes or just the opaque box is presented as a choice between walking away with $100 or $1 million, highlighting the potential outcomes and the importance of making the right choice.
Determinism in time travel scenarios
The podcast delves into the concept of time travel and its implications. It explores the idea that if time travel were possible, it might challenge our understanding of determinism. It discusses the grandfather paradox, which raises questions about the possibility of changing the past and the potential consequences of altering events. Additionally, the podcast mentions different time travel scenarios, such as the multiverse perspective, and how they impact our perception of determinism and causality.
The role of explanations in theories and observational equivalence
The podcast touches on the importance of explanations in theories and how they relate to observational equivalence. It examines the notion that two theories can make the exact same predictions and have the same observable consequences, yet differ in terms of their explanatory power. The example of Hamiltonian mechanics versus Lagrangian mechanics is given to illustrate how different formulations of laws can lead to different explanatory frameworks. It is suggested that the choice between theories should be based on their explanatory capabilities and how they fit into a broader understanding of the world, rather than solely on observational equivalence.
Is metaphysics like physics, but cooler? Or is it a relic of an outdated, pre-empirical way of thinking about the world? Closer to the former than the latter. Rather than building specific quantitative theories about the world, metaphysics aims to get a handle on the basic logical structures that help us think about it. I talk with philosopher Katie Elliott on how metaphysics helps us think about questions like counterfactuals, possible worlds, time travel, mathematical equivalence, and whether everything happens for a reason.
Katrina (Katie) Elliott received her Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. After being an assistant professor of philosophy at UCLA, she is now on the faculty at Brandeis. Her research covers topics in metaphysics and the philosophy of science, including explanation, chances, and the logic of time travel.
