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
    The fugitive should weight his randomizing formula accord... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The fugitive should weight his randomizing formula according to the different levels of parametric danger at each bridge

    ConsequentialismModality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    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.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Each bridge represents a lottery over the fugitive's possible outcomes with a different expected payoff
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The fugitive cares only about living or dying, preferring life to death
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The pursuer cares only about being able to report the fugitive dead versus escaped
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Under genuine strategic uncertainty, the pursuer's choice distribution is unknown to the fugitive, making expected utility calculations indeterminate rather than probabilistically tractable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Savage's framework for expected utility requires known or estimable probabilities, but in novel one-shot interactions no frequentist or subjective basis for the pursuer's bridge preference exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a probability distribution over the pursuer's choices, weighting by 'parametric danger' collapses into arbitrary stipulation rather than rational decision procedure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Maximin reasoning, as defended by Rawls and rooted in Wald's statistical decision theory, recommends choosing the bridge maximizing the worst-case survival probability, not the expected-value-maximizing mixed strategy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When outcomes are binary and catastrophic, the irreversibility of death gives lexical priority to worst-case avoidance over expected-utility maximization, per Hansson's work on risk ethics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the fugitive should deterministically choose the safest bridge rather than randomize according to a formula that treats death as commensurable with escape under a weighted average.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge2 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Each bridge represents a lottery over the fugitive's possible outcomes with a di...Maximin reasoning, as defended by Rawls and rooted in Wald's statistical decisio...Neither player derives utility or disutility from taking more or less riskSavage's framework for expected utility requires known or estimable probabilitie...
    +6 moreShow less
    The fugitive cares only about living or dying, preferring life to deathThe pursuer cares only about being able to report the fugitive dead versus escap...Therefore the fugitive should deterministically choose the safest bridge rather ...

    Similar

    The fugitive has a 2/3 probability of escaping and the pursuer a 1/3 p...80%The fugitive's best course of action is to randomize bridge selection ...79%There are three bridges and the fugitive selects one uniformly at rand...77%The fugitive can escape only if the pursuer cannot reliably predict wh...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: game-theory
    View source passageHide passage
    Now let us re-introduce the parametric factors, that is, the falling rocks at bridge #2 and the cobras at bridge #3. Again, suppose that the fugitive is sure to get safely across bridge #1, has a 90% chance of crossing bridge #2, and an 80% chance of crossing bridge #3. We can solve this new game if we make certain assumptions about the two players’ utility functions. Suppose that Player 1, the fugitive, cares only about living or dying (preferring life to death) while the pursuer simply wishes
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Under genuine strategic uncertainty, the pursuer's choice distribution is unknow...
    When outcomes are binary and catastrophic, the irreversibility of death gives le...
    Without a probability distribution over the pursuer's choices, weighting by 'par...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit