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
    Common knowledge of rationality implies player B would ch... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→If the game ever reaches node v2, then player B must conclude that either player A is not rational or that player A does not know that player B is rational.

    Common knowledge of rationality implies player B would choose O2 at node v2.

    Free Will & ForeknowledgeTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Free Will & ForeknowledgeTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Free Will & Foreknowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    2 topics

    Skepticism2 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    If the game ever reaches node v2, then player B must conclude that either player...If the game reaches node v2, common knowledge of rationality has already been vi...Violation of common knowledge of rationality means either a player is not ration...

    Similar

    Under common knowledge of rationality, player B would choose O2 at nod...98%If the game ever reaches node v2, then player B must conclude that eit...88%If the game reaches node v2, player B must conclude that common knowle...85%If the game reaches node v2, common knowledge of rationality has alrea...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: epistemic-game
    View source passageHide passage
    This result has been extensively discussed. The standard ground of contention is that common knowledge of rationality used in this argument seems self-defeating, at least intuitively. Recall that we asked what would \(B\) do at node \(v_2\) under common knowledge of rationality, and we concluded that he would choose \(O_2\). But, if the game ever reaches that state, then, by the theorem above, \(B\) has to conclude that either \(A\) is not rational, or that she does not know that he is. Both vio

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective