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's best course of action is to randomize brid... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The fugitive's best course of action is to randomize bridge selection using a three-sided die (or equivalent) and pre-commit to that selection.

    ConsequentialismMoral Responsibility
    ?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.The fugitive has no special knowledge about the pursuer that would justify a non-uniform probability distribution over the pursuer's strategies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.All bridges are assumed equally safe.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any non-random strategy is potentially exploitable by the pursuer if the pursuer can detect or infer the pattern.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pre-commitment to a randomized strategy is only rational if the fugitive can credibly prevent self-revision upon receiving new information mid-flight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Savage's sure-thing principle and subsequent work by Machina show that agents facing genuine uncertainty (not risk) cannot assign meaningful probabilities to novel strategic environments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A fugitive with incomplete knowledge of the pursuer's rationality level cannot treat the game as having a well-defined mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium, undermining the die-roll prescription.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nozick's experience machine argument and related work establish that agents have agent-relative reasons tied to their particular situation that pure expected-utility maximization ignores.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the fugitive has asymmetric information—e.g., knowing one bridge is structurally weaker or that the pursuer favors the nearest bridge—P2's assumption of equal safety is empirically false and the uniform randomization prescription collapses.
      ?

      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 ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    3 topics

    Truth & Knowledge2 linkedAll sources support it1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    A fugitive with incomplete knowledge of the pursuer's rationality level cannot t...All bridges are assumed equally safe.Any non-random strategy is potentially exploitable by the pursuer if the pursuer...If the fugitive has asymmetric information—e.g., knowing one bridge is structura...
    +4 moreShow less
    Nozick's experience machine argument and related work establish that agents have...Pre-commitment to a randomized strategy is only rational if the fugitive can cre...

    Similar

    There are three bridges and the fugitive selects one uniformly at rand...84%The fugitive should weight his randomizing formula according to the di...79%Each bridge represents a lottery over the fugitive's possible outcomes...78%Randomizing over the three bridges fixes the fugitive's survival proba...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: game-theory
    View source passageHide passage
    Suppose that we ignore rocks and cobras for a moment, and imagine that the bridges are equally safe. Suppose also that the fugitive has no special knowledge about his pursuer that might lead him to venture a specially conjectured probability distribution over the pursuer’s available strategies. In this case, the fugitive’s best course is to roll a three-sided die, in which each side represents a different bridge (or, more conventionally, a six-sided die in which each bridge is represented by two
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Savage's sure-thing principle and subsequent work by Machina show that agents fa...
    The fugitive has no special knowledge about the pursuer that would justify a non...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit