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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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