We never really talk about the Newcomb problem around here (never really == less than 75% of the time), so I thought I’d throw (what I think is) a new substantive line in the ring.
I assume a standard formulation of the Newcomb problem with an infallible predictor, which can be found here. In the PDF below, I put forth an intuitively appealing argument for two-boxing in the Newcomb problem which employs dominance reasoning. I then suggest a potential issue with this argument as formulated. Much of the thinking that went into this was inspired by, among others, David Wiens, Stephen Campbell, Shen-yi Liao, and Jason Konek.
I’d appreciate any feedback here, especially reformulations of the two-box argument that stick to the intention of the original but employ different notions of dominance.
Some thoughts: Against a Newcomb Dominance Argument