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 Off-path beliefs are not arbitrary: Kreps and Wilson's sequential equilibrium (1982) requires beliefs at off-path nodes to be epistemically consistent with strategies.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Sequential equilibrium still permits multiple belief systems satisfying consistency at off-path nodes, so non-arbitrariness is relative, not absolute.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Players may rationally hold diverse beliefs about unreached nodes; consistency merely restricts the set without uniquely determining beliefs through reason alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The requirement remains substantively indeterminate because limit arguments used to justify off-path beliefs often rely on unspecified perturbation sequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Sequential equilibrium's consistency requirement prevents players from holding beliefs contradicting observed play, eliminating purely arbitrary belief assignments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bayesian consistency forces off-path beliefs to derive from rational updating rules, grounding them in logical inference rather than arbitrary stipulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without epistemic constraints on off-path beliefs, equilibria become indeterminate since infinitely many belief profiles could rationalize identical on-path play.
      ?

      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.