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
    A rational agent cannot simply choose the most obviously ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A rational agent cannot simply choose the most obviously safe option in a pursuit scenario, because an equally rational opponent will anticipate that choice.

    Moral ResponsibilitySkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The pursuer is equally rational and well-informed as the fugitive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the fugitive chooses the safest bridge, the pursuer will predict this and wait there.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Choosing a bridge the pursuer expects raises the probability of death to certainty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.When both agents share common knowledge of rationality, mixed strategies—not pure strategies—constitute the equilibrium solution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A rational fugitive randomizes over bridges with calculated probabilities, making any single choice unpredictable even to an equally rational pursuer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Nash's theorem guarantees a mixed-strategy equilibrium exists here, so 'most obviously safe' is not the rational choice—but neither is pure avoidance of it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nozick's 'Newcomb's Problem' demonstrates that evidential and causal decision theory diverge precisely when an agent's choice is predicted by another rational agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the pursuer's prediction causally depends on the fugitive's reasoning process, then no choice is rendered 'certain death' by rationality alone—only by causal dependence structures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim illicitly assumes causal decision theory while the scenario's epistemic symmetry invites evidentialist reasoning, making the conclusion theory-dependent rather than universal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilitySkepticism

    Connections

    4 topics

    Truth & Knowledge2 linkedConsequentialism1 linkedFree Will & Foreknowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A rational fugitive randomizes over bridges with calculated probabilities, makin...Choosing a bridge the pursuer expects raises the probability of death to certain...If the fugitive chooses the safest bridge, the pursuer will predict this and wai...If the pursuer's prediction causally depends on the fugitive's reasoning process...
    +5 moreShow less
    Nash's theorem guarantees a mixed-strategy equilibrium exists here, so 'most obv...Nozick's 'Newcomb's Problem' demonstrates that evidential and causal decision th...

    Similar

    Some reasons exist precisely because an agent is not fully rational.82%If rational agents could not distance themselves from their own motive...81%When an agent has no more reason to choose one alternative over anothe...80%Yet the agent in this scenario is wholly rational — there is no irrati...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: game-theory
    View source passageHide passage
    However, if we now complicate the situation by adding a non-parametric element, it becomes more challenging. Suppose that you are a fugitive of some sort, and waiting on the other side of the river with a gun is your pursuer. She will catch and shoot you, let us suppose, only if she waits at the bridge you try to cross; otherwise, you will escape. As you reason through your choice of bridge, it occurs to you that she is over there trying to anticipate your reasoning. It will seem that, surely, c
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    The claim illicitly assumes causal decision theory while the scenario's epistemi...
    The pursuer is equally rational and well-informed as the fugitive.
    When both agents share common knowledge of rationality, mixed strategies—not pur...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit