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
    Games do not fully determine their outcomes — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The process of play itself, including players' types and how they change over time, is a better focus for understanding interaction than mere games or game forms alone.

    Games do not fully determine their outcomes

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & 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

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    3 topics

    Causation1 linkedPersonal Identity

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    1 linked
    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Games allow for various styles of playThe process of play itself, including players' types and how they change over ti...

    Similar

    Humans rarely can know future outcomes with certainty.77%The Absolute can never be fully determined.75%RCTs are not guaranteed to deliver reliable results74%Humans are not aware of all the consequences of their beliefs and desi...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: logics-for-games
    View source passageHide passage
    Topics discussed in this section are less standard in the literature than those of the sections before. In an orthodox reading, various of the aspects addressed would not be considered part of game theory proper. The extended agenda followed here has been embraced by van Benthem, Pacuit, and Roy (2011) as a larger program for logic, going under the heading ‘Theory of Play’. The underlying line of reasoning is that games do not fully determine their outcomes, as they allow for various styles of p

    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