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
    B is trivially materially rational at the single state w,... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    B is trivially materially rational at the single state w, regardless of what B would choose at v2

    Moral ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.A's strategy prescribes O1 at the initial decision node, making it impossible for B to move at v2
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Material rationality only requires rationality at decision nodes that are reachable according to the strategy profile
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since B's decision node v2 is unreachable given A's choice of O1, B's rationality at v2 is vacuously satisfied
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Counterfactual rationality requirements persist even at unreached nodes, as Stalnaker argues in 'Knowledge, Belief and Counterfactual Reasoning in Games' (1996).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A strategy profile that renders a node unreachable does not dissolve the normative requirement that the agent would choose rationally if that node were reached.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Vacuous satisfaction of rationality conditions obscures the epistemic work done by backward induction, which requires substantive counterfactual commitments at every node.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Selten's concept of trembling-hand perfection entails that rational agents must specify credible choices at all nodes, treating unreached nodes as limit cases of reachable ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A rationality criterion that is trivially satisfied by unreachability fails to distinguish between agents with coherent disposition sets and those with arbitrary off-path intentions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Material rationality defined vacuously at unreached nodes cannot ground the forward-looking stability conditions that Nash equilibrium refinements are designed to capture.
      ?

      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 ResponsibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    A rationality criterion that is trivially satisfied by unreachability fails to d...A strategy profile that renders a node unreachable does not dissolve the normati...A's strategy prescribes O1 at the initial decision node, making it impossible fo...Counterfactual rationality requirements persist even at unreached nodes, as Stal...
    +5 moreShow less
    Material rationality defined vacuously at unreached nodes cannot ground the forw...Material rationality only requires rationality at decision nodes that are reacha...Selten's concept of trembling-hand perfection entails that rational agents must ...Since B's decision node v2 is unreachable given A's choice of O1, B's rationalit...Vacuous satisfaction of rationality conditions obscures the epistemic work done ...

    Similar

    A is materially rational at state w86%The single state epistemic model may be insufficient for fully assessi...77%Any rule that determines the rational will apart from any end must be ...71%The barebones theory of rationality (requiring complete preferences) m...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: epistemic-game
    View source passageHide passage
    Recall that a strategy for a player \(i\) specifies choices at all decision nodes for \(i\), even those nodes that are impossible to reach given earlier moves prescribed by the strategy. Thus, strategies include “counterfactual” information about what players would do if they were given a chance to move at each of their decision nodes. In the single state epistemic model, \(B\) knows that \(A\) is following the strategy \(O_1I_3\). This means that \(B\) knows two things about \(A\)’s choice beha
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit