Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A game is not fully determined by its game form alone.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The game form already encodes all structurally relevant information: rules, strategies, outcomes, and payoff mappings for all possible play sequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Preferences, observation limits, and player identities are formally representable as components of the game form itself, making them internal rather than external additions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If every purportedly external feature can be absorbed into a sufficiently rich game form, then the claim reduces to a trivial point about underspecified formal models, not games as such.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.In the tradition of Savage and Anscombe-Aumann, rational agents are defined precisely by utility functions derivable from consistent preference orderings, which are themselves formally specifiable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If player preferences are fully formalizable as payoff functions—as standard expected utility theory demands—then they are already constitutive elements of the game form, not supplements to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Players involved in a game may import additional features relevant for game play.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Players can be limited in their powers of observation by game structure or cognitive limitations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Players have preferences that influence game play beyond what the game form specifies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.