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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The paradox of backward induction arises from building literally complete information into the concept of rationality.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Backward induction is derivable from common knowledge of rationality alone, without requiring complete information about outcomes or world-states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aumann's 1995 formalization demonstrates that mutual knowledge of rationality in extensive-form games suffices to generate backward induction conclusions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the paradox arises from epistemic assumptions about players' beliefs, not from information completeness built into rationality itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pettit and Sugden (1989) show the backward induction paradox emerges specifically because rationality assumptions become counterfactually self-undermining at off-path nodes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This self-undermining structure is a problem of conditional reasoning under hypothetical deviation, not a problem of information completeness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Attributing the paradox to 'complete information' misdiagnoses a failure of counterfactual robustness as an informational excess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some paradoxes arise when rationality is defined to include possession and use of literally complete information.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Backward induction relies on a concept of rationality that assumes complete information.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42