Evidential decision theory (EDT) says that the choiceworthiness of an option depends on its evidential connections to possible outcomes. Causal decision theory (CDT) holds that it depends on your beliefs about its causal connections. While Newcomb cases support CDT, Arif Ahmed has described examples that support EDT. A new account is needed to get all cases right. I argue that an option A's choiceworthiness is determined by the probability that a good outcome ensues at possible A-worlds that match actuality in the facts causally unaffected by your decision (the “unaffected facts”). Moreover, you should evaluate A on the assumption that A is compossible with the unaffected facts. This view entails that you should use EDT when evaluating A on the assumption that the unaffected facts determine your action, but use CDT when assessing A on the opposite assumption. A's choiceworthiness equals a weighted average of these conditional assessments. The weights are determined by your beliefs about whether the unaffected fact determine your action. This account gets both Newcomb and Ahmed cases right. According to an influential view, whether you take the unaffected facts to determine your action can make a difference to whether you can regard yourself as free and the action as being under your control. While my account is neutral on this issue, it entails that whether you take the unaffected facts to determine your action is important in a different way: it matters to whether you should follow EDT or CDT.

中文翻译：

---

决定、因果关系和预定

证据决策理论（EDT）认为，一个选项的选择价值取决于其与可能结果的证据联系。因果决策理论（CDT）认为，这取决于你对其因果关系的信念。虽然 Newcomb 案例支持 CDT，但 Arif Ahmed 描述了支持 EDT 的示例。需要一个新帐户才能正确处理所有案件。我认为，选项 A 的选择价值取决于在可能的 A 世界中产生良好结果的概率，该结果与不受您的决定因果影响的事实（“未受影响的事实”）中的现实相匹配。此外，您应该在 A 与未受影响的事实共存的假设上评估 A。这种观点要求您在评估 A 时应使用 EDT，假设未受影响的事实决定您的行动，但在评估 A 时应使用相反的假设的 CDT。A 的选择价值等于这些条件评估的加权平均值。权重取决于您对未受影响的事实是否决定您的行动的信念。这个说法对纽科姆和艾哈迈德的案件都是正确的。一种有影响力的观点认为，你是否以不受影响的事实来决定你的行动，会影响你是否认为自己是自由的，以及行动是否在你的控制之下。虽然我在这个问题上的观点是中立的，但这意味着你是否以不受影响的事实来决定你的行动以不同的方式很重要：这关系到你应该遵循 EDT 还是 CDT。