Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The space of all epistemic types is universal in the sense that every relational model can be mapped in a truth-preserving manner to the space of all types.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Harsanyi's type space construction assumes common knowledge of the prior, but this assumption is not derivable from the relational model structure alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A mapping that presupposes what it is meant to ground cannot count as a truth-preserving reduction without circularity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Brandenburger and Keisler (2006) demonstrated that universal type spaces generate self-referential paradoxes when agents can reason about all possible belief hierarchies including their own.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A space that cannot consistently contain all epistemic types without contradiction cannot be universal in the truth-preserving sense the claim requires.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Each state in a relational model can be sent to a full description of the agents' corresponding first- and higher-order informational attitudes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
This mapping preserves truth across the relational model.
?
How convincing is this?
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