  I apply some of the lessons from quantum theory, in particular from Bell's
theorem, to a debate on the foundations of decision theory and causation. By
tracing a formal analogy between the basic assumptions of Causal Decision
Theory (CDT)--which was developed partly in response to Newcomb's problem-- and
those of a Local Hidden Variable (LHV) theory in the context of quantum
mechanics, I show that an agent who acts according to CDT and gives any nonzero
credence to some possible causal interpretations underlying quantum phenomena
should bet against quantum mechanics in some feasible game scenarios involving
entangled systems, no matter what evidence they acquire. As a consequence,
either the most accepted version of decision theory is wrong, or it provides a
practical distinction, in terms of the prescribed behaviour of rational agents,
between some metaphysical hypotheses regarding the causal structure underlying
quantum mechanics.
