DOCSLIB.ORG

Demystifying Paradoxes from Physics to Ethics Gary L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Demystifying Paradoxes from Physics to Ethics Gary L Drescher_jkt.qxd 4/6/06 9:18 AM Page 1 PHILOSOPHY/COGNITIVE SCIENCE Drescher Gary L. Drescher good and real good and real Demystifying Paradoxes from Physics to Ethics Gary L. Drescher “A breathtakingly original assault on all the Big Issues! When philosophers get stuck in ruts, it often takes a brilliant out- Demystifying Paradoxes from Physics to Ethics sider to jolt them onto new ground, and Gary Drescher, coming to philosophy from AI, offers a startling feast of new In Good and Real, Gary Drescher examines a series of provocative ideas. I’m sure some of them are right, but I can’t tell which! Can you?” and real good paradoxes about consciousness, choice, ethics, quantum mechanics, —Daniel Dennett, author of Brainchildren, Sweet Dreams, and Breaking the Spell and other topics, in an effort to reconcile a purely mechanical view “Gary Drescher thinks that attempts to solve the deep problems that have stumped philosophers since time immemorial— of the universe with key aspects of our subjective impressions of or have caused them to resort to silly answers—have been thwarted largely by a set of relatively simple yet significant our own existence. misunderstandings in logic and physics. He is right about that, and his careful debunkings and explanations are clear and Many scientists suspect that the universe can ultimately be compelling. He also believes that by avoiding those errors, he has found solutions to the weightiest of those problems— described by a simple (perhaps even deterministic) formalism; in particular, the true nature of right and wrong and the true nature of subjective sensation and consciousness. Of that, all that is real unfolds mechanically according to that formalism. I am not convinced. But in making the attempt, he has provided a valuable and entertaining introduction to rational But how, then, is it possible for us to be conscious, or to make thinking in a variety of fields.” genuine choices? And how can there be an ethical dimension —David Deutsch, University of Oxford, author of The Fabric of Reality to such choices? Drescher sketches computational models of “In an extraordinary tour de force, Drescher has written a powerful defense of rationalism and of a deterministic universe. consciousness, choice, and subjunctive reasoning— what would He systematically examines and dismantles the arguments against a mechanical view of the universe and the mind. happen if this or that were to occur?— to show how such phenomena Drescher shows how a computational perspective enables us to solve the long-standing mysteries of the real and the are compatible with a mechanical, even deterministic universe. good; how the physical world, consciousness, and free choice arise from deterministic mechanisms; and how the universe Analyses of Newcomb’s Problem (a paradox about choice) and the and everything (and everyone) in it is essentially a computation. In contrast to a prevailing relativism, Drescher demon- Prisoner’s Dilemma (a paradox about self-interest vs. altruism, strates that both truth and ethics can be placed on a rational foundation.” arguably reducible to Newcomb’s Problem) help bring the problems —Uri Wilensky, Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems, Northwestern University, and author of the NetLogo multiagent and proposed solutions into focus. Regarding quantum mechanics, modeling environment Drescher builds on Everett’s relative-state formulation— but pres- GARY L. DRESCHER is an independent scholar and was recently ents a simplified formalism, accessible to laypersons— to argue that, Visiting Fellow at the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. contrary to some popular impressions, quantum mechanics is com- He received his Ph.D. in computer science from MIT in 1989 and is the patible with an objective, deterministic physical reality, and that author of Made-Up Minds: A Constructivist Approach to Artificial there is no special connection between quantum phenomena and Intelligence (MIT Press, 1991). 0-262-04233-9 The MIT Press consciousness. Massachusetts Institute of Technology In each of several disparate but intertwined topics ranging from A Bradford Book Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 physics to ethics, Drescher argues that a missing technical linchpin http://mitpress.mit.edu can make the quest for objectivity seem impossible, until the elusive technical fix is at hand. COVER IMAGE Modification of The Great Thinker by Auguste Rodin. Photograph by Mario Carrieri courtesy of Gruppo Mondiale Est. Good and Real Good and Real Demystifying Paradoxes from Physics to Ethics Gary L. Drescher A Bradford Book The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England ( 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts for business or sales promotional use. For information, please email [email protected] or write to Special Sales Department, The MIT Press, 55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142. This book was set in Stone Serif and Stone Sans on 3B2 by Asco Typesetters, Hong Kong, and was printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Drescher, Gary L. Good and real : demystifying paradoxes from physics to ethics / Gary L. Drescher. p. cm. ‘‘A Bradford book.’’ Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-262-04233-9 (hc : alk. paper) 1. Mechanism (Philosophy). 2. Philosophy of mind. 3. Ethics. I. Title. BD553.D74 2006 146 0.6—dc22 2005056169 Chapter 4 is a revision of ‘‘Demystifying Quantum Mechanics: A Simple Universe with Quantum Uncertainty,’’ by Gary L. Drescher. ( 1991 by Complex Systems Pub- lications, Inc. 10987654321 In memory of Irving E. Drescher Yet the magical imagery born of the mind is just the same carved out of stone. —Thomas Zimmerman Contents Preface xiii 1 Introduction: Framing the Big Picture 1 1.1 Us and the Universe 1 1.2 Ground Rules and Terms of Discussion 12 1.2.1 Unbending the Truth 12 1.2.2 Definitions and Semantic Sleight of Hand 15 1.2.3 Paradoxes: When Arguments Collide 21 1.3 Right Side Up (How to Read This Book) 32 2 Dust to Lust: How Groups of Atoms Can Think and Feel 35 2.1 The Case against Ghosts 37 2.2 Cartesian Camcorders, Big Red Rock-Eaters, and the Light in the Refrigerator 43 2.3 The Problematic Arbitrariness of Representation 52 2.4 Origins of Purpose and Value 60 2.4.1 Pursuing Goals: Situation-Action versus Prediction-Value Machinery 62 2.4.2 Consciousness of Value 74 2.5 Some Contrasts 79 2.5.1 Chomsky and the Missing Body 79 2.5.2 Qualia and Gensyms 80 2.5.3 Misinterpreting Go¨del’s Theorem 83 2.6 Summary 88 3 Going without the Flow: The Frozen Stream of Time 91 3.1 Static Spacetime 91 3.2 Time Symmetry 96 3.3 Summary 118 4 Quantum Certainty 123 4.1 The Quantum Paradox 123 4.1.1 The Double-Slit Experiment 125 x Contents 4.1.2 The Interference–Observation Duality 127 4.1.3 Interpretations: Copenhagen and Everett 128 4.2 Illustrating Quantum Mechanics with Artificial Universes 131 4.2.1 U1: Configuration Space for a ‘‘Classical’’ Universe 131 4.2.2 U2: A Universe with Noninterfering Superpositions 133 4.2.3 U3: A Quantish Artificial Universe 136 4.2.4 Successive Measurements in U3 141 4.3 Quantumlike Properties of Quantish Physics 146 4.3.1 Apparently Nondeterministic Outcomes and the Uncertainty Principle 146 4.3.2 Interference of Superposed States 154 4.3.3 Blocking Interference via Observation 156 4.3.4 Disproving Hidden-Variable Theories: The EPR Experiment 160 4.4 Many Worlds or Quantum Collapse? 167 4.5 Summary 176 5 Deterministic Choice, Part 1: Inalterability Does Not Imply Futility 179 5.1 The Paradox of Choice without Change 180 5.2 Means–End Relations 183 5.3 Choice Machines 188 5.4 Acausal Means–End Links: Choosing Past States 193 5.5 Street-Crossing Scenario: Avoiding Evidentialist Excess 196 5.6 Subjunctive Means–End Recognition 206 5.6.1 Choice Machines and Schemas 206 5.6.2 The Evidentialist Problem with Schemas 209 5.6.3 The Explaining-Away Principle: Restraining Evidentialism 211 5.6.4 Would-ness 214 5.6.5 Contrasts: Lewis’s Possible Worlds, and Pearl’s Causality 219 5.7 Summary 222 6 Deterministic Choice, Part 2: Newcomb’s Problem and Beyond 225 6.1 Newcomb’s Problem 225 6.2 Newcomb’s Problem with Transparent Boxes 238 6.2.1 Foreknowledge in the Street-Crossing Scenario 242 6.2.2 Foreknowledge in Newcomb’s Problem 249 6.2.3 Or What If the Answer Is Not Built In? 255 6.2.4 Contrast: Kavka’s Toxin Problem 258 6.3 Newcomb’s Problem with a Dual Simulation 260 6.4 Summary 268 7 Deriving Ought from Is 273 7.1 From Newcomb’s Problem to the Prisoner’s Dilemma 274 7.2 Subjunctive Reciprocity 282 7.2.1 Reciprocal Altruism Meets the Categorical Imperative 283 7.2.2 Conditions for Subjunctive Reciprocity 285 Contents xi 7.2.3 Consciousness and Subjunctive Reciprocity 294 7.3 Ramifications beyond Altruism 296 7.3.1 Reciprocity, Retribution, and Responsibility 296 7.3.2 Cooperation When Each Individual’s Influence Is Negligible 298 7.3.3 Reconciling Principle with Pragmatism 300 7.3.4 Self-Reciprocity 301 7.3.5 Contrasts: Ainslie, Searle, and Kurzweil 307 7.4 But Can’t We Simply Get Along? (Putting Reason in Its Place) 311 7.5 Summary 319 8 The Anticlimactic Meaning of Life 321 8.1 Something for Nothing 323 8.2 On Our Own 327 8.3 So Here We Are 330 References 333 Index 339 Preface I came of age in the provocative environment of the MIT Artificial Intelli- gence Laboratory in the 1970s, a time of excitement and optimism about the imminent prospect of understanding and replicating the machinery of the human mind.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Generation Based Analysis Model for Non-Cooperative Games
    Generation Based Analysis Model for Non-Cooperative Games Soham Banerjee Department of Computer Engineering International Institute of Information Technology Pune, India Email: [email protected] Abstract—In most real-world games, participating agents are to its optimal solution which forms a good base for comparison all perfectly rational and choose the most optimal set of actions for the model’s performance. possible; but that is not always the case while dealing with complex games. This paper proposes a model for analysing II. PROPOSED MODEL the possible set of moves and their outcome; where not all participating agents are perfectly rational. The model proposed is The proposed model works within the framework of pre- used on three games, Prisoners’ Dilemma, Platonia Dilemma and determined assumptions; but may be altered or expanded to Guess 2 of the Average. All the three games have fundamental 3 other games as well. differences in their action space and outcome payoffs, making them good examples for analysis with the proposed model. • All agents have infinite memory - this means that an agent Index Terms—game theory, analysis model, deterministic remembers all previous iterations of the game along with games, superrationality, prisoners’ dilemma, platonia dilemma the observation as well as the result. • All the games have a well-defined pure strategy Nash Equilibrium. I. INTRODUCTION • The number of participating agents is always known. • All the games are non co-operative - this indicates that the While selecting appropriate actions to perform in a game, agents will only form an alliance if it is self-enforcing. a common assumption made is that, all other participating agents (co-operative or not) will make the most optimal move Each participating agent is said to posses a Generation of possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Villager's Dilemma
    Villager's dilemma Beihang He Advertisement 0702,Department of Arts and Communication, Zhejiang University City College No.51 Huzhou Street Hangzhou Zhejiang, 310015 Tel: 13906539819 E-mail: [email protected] 1 Abstract:With deeper study of the Game Theory, some conditions of Prisoner’s Dilemma is no longer suitable of games in real life. So we try to develop a new model-Villager’s Dilemma which has more realistic conditions to stimulate the process of game. It is emphasize that Prisoner’s Dilemma is an exception which is lack of universality and the importance of rules in the game. And it puts forward that to let the rule maker take part in the game and specifies game players can stop the game as they like. This essay describes the basic model, the villager’s dilemma (VD) and put some extended use of it, and points out the importance of rules and the effect it has on the result of the game. It briefly describes the disadvantage of Prisoner’s Dilemma and advantage Villager’s Dilemma has. It summarizes the premise and scope of application of Villager’s Dilemma, and provides theory foundation for making rules for game and forecast of the future of the game. 2 1. Basic Model In the basic model, the villager’s dilemma (VD) is presented as follows: Three villagers who have the same physical strength and a robber who has two and a half times physical strength as three villagers are living in the same village. In other words, three villagers has to act together to defeat the robber who is stronger than anyone of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Eszter Babarczy: Community Based Trust on the Internet
    PTE BTK Nyelvtudományi Doktori Iskola Kommunikáció Doktori Program Babarczy Eszter: Community Based Trust on the Internet Doktori értekezés Témavezető: Horányi Özséb egyetemi tanár 2011. 1 Community-based trust on the internet Tartalom Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 II. A very brief history of the internet ........................................................................................................... 9 Early Days ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Mainstream internet .............................................................................................................................. 12 The internet of social software .............................................................................................................. 15 III Early trust related problems and solutions ............................................................................................ 20 Trading .................................................................................................................................................... 20 Risks of and trust in content ....................................................................................................................... 22 UGC and its discontents: Wikipedia ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1802.06888V1 [Cs.AI] 5 Jan 2018 Superrational Types
    Superrational types Fernando A. Tohm´e 1,2 and Ignacio D. Viglizzo2,3 1Departmento de Econom´ıa, Universidad Nacional del Sur (UNS), Bah´ıa Blanca, Argentina 2Instituto de Matem´atica de Bah´ıa Blanca (INMABB), Universidad Nacional del Sur-CONICET, Bah´ıa Blanca, Argentina 3Departmento de Matem´atica, Universidad Nacional del Sur (UNS), Bah´ıa Blanca, Argentina July 2, 2018 Abstract We present a formal analysis of Douglas Hofstadter’s concept of superrationality. We start by defining superrationally justifiable ac- tions, and study them in symmetric games. We then model the beliefs of the players, in a way that leads them to different choices than the usual assumption of rationality by restricting the range of conceivable choices. These beliefs are captured in the formal notion of type drawn from epistemic game theory. The theory of coalgebras is used to frame type spaces and to account for the existence of some of them. We find conditions that guarantee superrational outcomes. arXiv:1802.06888v1 [cs.AI] 5 Jan 2018 1 Introduction Game Theory has, traditionally assumed that agents make decisions accord- ing to the criterion of full rationality [7]. In contrast to the case of bounded rationality ([24], [21]), agents choose the best actions to achieve their goals without limitations to their ability to do so. The research on behavioral fac- tors in decision-making, initiated by Kahneman and Tversky ([13]) lead to a dearth of results under weaker rationality assumptions. On the other hand, 1 the interest in overcoming “undesirable” results such as inefficient equilibria in social dilemmas lead to alternative concepts, diverging from the rationality assumption [12], [19].
    [Show full text]
  • How Much Is Convenient to Defect? a Method to Estimate the Cooperation
    How much is convenient to defect ? A method to estimate the cooperation probability in Prisoner’s Dilemma and other games Cesco Reale ∗ 1st version: 28.8.2010, last update: 19.1.2014 Sommario In many cases the Nash equilibria are not predictive of the ex- perimental players’ behaviour. For some games of Game Theory it is proposed here a method to estimate the probabilities with which the different options will be actually chosen by balanced players, i.e. players that are neither too competitive, nor too cooperative. This will allow to measure the intrinsec cooperativeness degree of a game, only in function of its payoffs. The method is shaped on the Priso- ner’s Dilemma, then generalized for asymmetric tables, N players and N options. It is adapted to other conditions like Chicken Game, Battle of the Sexes, Stag Hunt and Translators (a new name proposed for a particular condition). Then the method is applied to other games like Diner’s Dilemma, Public Goods Game, Traveler’s Dilemma and War of Attrition. These games are so analyzed in a probabilistic way that is consistent to what we could expect intuitively, overcoming some arXiv:1404.2306v1 [math.OC] 17 Feb 2014 known paradoxes of the Game Theory. En multaj kazoj la Nash ekvilibroj ne anta˘udiras la eksperimentan konduton de la ludantoj. Por iuj ludoj de Ludteorio estas proponata ˆci-tie metodo por taksi la probablojn la˘ukiuj la malsamaj opcioj estos fakte elektataj far ekvilibraj ludantoj, t.e. ludantoj kiuj estas nek tro konkuremaj, nek tro kunlaboremaj. Tio permesos anka˘umezuri ∗Italian Festival of Mathematical Games.
    [Show full text]
  • Similarity As an Extension of Symmetry and Its Application to Superrationality
    Similarity as an Extension of Symmetry and its Application to Superrationality 1 Carlos Maximiliano Senci http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9131-3843 1IIESS-Conicet and Departamento de Humanidades-UNS Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires Argentina [email protected] 2 Fernando Abel Tohmé https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2988-4519 2IMABB-Conicet and Dept. of Economics-UNS Bahía Blanca , Buenos Aires Argentina [email protected] Article Info CDD: 501 Received:05.11.2020; Revised: 01.02.2021; Accepted: 05.03.2021 https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2021.V44N2.CF Keywords: Game theory Symmetry Similarity Superrationality Abstract: In this paper we present a concept of similarity in games, on which to ground alternative solution concepts, some of which differ from the classical notions in the field. Manuscrito – Rev. Int. Fil. Campinas, v. 44, n. 2, pp. 128-156, Apr.-Jun. 2021. Similarity as an Extension of Symmetry and its... 129 In order to do this we impose a constraint on players’ be- liefs that amounts to a variant of the well-known symmetry principle in classical bargaining theory. We show how this similarity relation helps to identify different Nash equilibria in games, and how these “similar Nash equilibria” can be extended to non-symmetric games. While the notion is nor- mative, it is nonetheless inspired by phenomena in which similarities between players lead to outcomes detected in behavioral studies. We study the strategic properties of the concept of similarity and discuss its relationships with Hofstadter’ notion of superrationality. 1 Introduction As we know, Game Theory studies situations of inter- action between intentional agents.
    [Show full text]
  • 108 Perspectives on Bounded Rationality By: Robert Aumann The
    108 Perspectives on Bounded Rationality by: Robert Aumann The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Research supported by the National Science Foundation under grant IRI- 8814953. Previous versions of this work were presented as the Nancy L. Schwartz Memorial Lecture at Northwestern University in 1986, and at a workshop on Bounded Rationality at the Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences (Economics), Stanford University, July, 1989. Contents 0. Introduction 1. Evolution 2. Perturbations and Rationality 3. Automata, Computers, Turing Machines 4. Relaxation of Rationality Postulates 5. An Open Problem 1. Introduction Economists have for long expressed dissatisfaction with the complex models of strict rationality that are so pervasive in economic theory. There are several ob- jections to such models. First~ casual empiricism or even just simple introspection lead to the conclusion that even in quite simple decision problems, most economic agents are not in fact maximizers, in the sense that they do not scan the choice set and consciously pick a maximal element from it. Second, such maximizations are often quite difficult, and even if they wanted to, most people (including economist- s and even computer scientists) would be unable to carry them out in practice. Third, polls and laboratory experiments indicate that people often fail to conform to some of the basic assumptions of rational decision theory. Fourth, laboratory experiments indicate that the conclusions of rational analysis (as distinguished from the assumptions) sometimes fail to conform to "reality." And finally, the conclusions of rational analysis sometimes seem unreasonable even on the basis of simple introspection. From my point of view, the last two of the above objections are more corn- Perspectives on Bounded Rationality 109 pelling than the first three.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Decision Algorithms on Newcomblike Problems
    MIRI MACHINE INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE A Comparison of Decision Algorithms on Newcomblike Problems Alex Altair MIRI Research Fellow Abstract When formulated using Bayesian networks, two standard decision algorithms (Eviden- tial Decision Theory and Causal Decision Theory) can be shown to fail systematically when faced with aspects of the prisoner’s dilemma and so-called “Newcomblike” prob- lems. We describe a new form of decision algorithm, called Timeless Decision Theory, which consistently wins on these problems. Altair, Alex. 2013. A Comparison of Decision Algorithms on Newcomblike Problems. Machine Intelligence Research Institute, Berkeley, CA. Alex Altair 1. Three Decision Algorithms Decision theory typically analyzes two main decision algorithms known as Evidential Decision Theory (EDT) and Causal Decision Theory (CDT).1 When formalized using Bayesian networks, CDT and EDT can both be shown to return the wrong results on certain types of decision problems known as Newcomblike problems (named after the original “Newcomb’s problem”). Systematically achieving the correct results when faced with these problems is essential for decision-theoretic qualities like dynamic consistency and the ability to model the self.2 Much work is dedicated to finding algorithms that maximize expected utility on these problems (for example, Wedgwood [2011]). In this paper we will consider such an alternative algorithm proposed by Yudkowsky (2010), called Timeless Decision Theory (TDT), which was inspired by Douglas Hofstadter’s notion of “superrationality” (Hofstadter 1985). All decision algorithms described in this paper can be formalized to use Bayesian networks (after Pearl [2009]) introduced in section 2. Using these, we demonstrate the undesirable results returned by EDT on a version of the so-called medical Newcomb’s problem (section 3) and by CDT on the prisoner’s dilemma (section 4).
    [Show full text]
  • Mlu-2016-Compilation
    - 1 - - 2 - Foreword: This is a collection of blog posts that appeared on mindlevelup in 2016. I’ve gone through them all and made some slight edits for readability. In addition, I’ve added a small annotation [like this] before each essay that either summarizes it or details how I’ve changed my mind on the topic it’s about. The content here is a mixture of introspection, cognitive science, and motivation. Above all, I’m trying to write about human rationality, the art of becoming more right and winning at life. If you want a quick intro to the field, I’d recommend reading Rationality 101 (the last essay) first. As a collection of essays written throughout the year, the writing quality does follow an upward trend. If you just want the “good” essays, I’d recommend starting from Living in the Moment and skipping everything before that. Lastly, I’d recommend not being-reading all of these and instead picking a few that seem interesting at a time and checking them out. I think you get more value if you give the ideas some time to bounce around in your head. I hope you find this helpful! - - 3 - Contents: Foreword: ......................................................................................................... - 2 - 1. Life as a Student: .................................................................................... - 5 - 2. Why Try Hard? ........................................................................................ - 8 - 3. Metacognition and Mindfulness: ....................................................... - 14 -
    [Show full text]
  • A Game-Theoretic Explanation for the Emergence of the Second-Order Rule of Justice Pacta Sunt Servanda
    Jakub Puciato1, Magdalena Danek2 A Game-theoretic Explanation for the Emergence of the Second-order Rule of Justice Pacta Sunt Servanda Streszczenie W niniejszym artykule badaniu poddano warunki wykształcenia się reguły drugiego po- ziomu pacta sunt servanda na gruncie teorii gier. Gra dylemat więźnia może być skutecznie wykorzystywana do analizy zachowań uczestników grupy w celu badania warunków ich kooperacji i regularności w tym względzie. Reguła pacta sunt servanda jest przyjmo- wana spontanicznie przez członków tych grup, które charakteryzują się określonymi cechami. Po pierwsze, muszą zachodzić ciągłe (a nie sporadyczne) interakcje między członkami grupy. Po drugie, członkowie grupy wybierają strategie typu TFT (Tit-For-Tat), jako że są one najbardziej efektywne w przypadku powtarzalnych interakcji. Po trzecie, można wyróżnić sankcję wymierzaną za uchybienia normie pacta sunt servanda. Norma ta jest internalizowana przez członków grupy jako konwencja, która służy ulepszeniu suboptymalnego equilibrium Nasha do sytuacji optymalnej w sensie Pareto. Odpowied- nikiem sankcji w dylemacie więźnia będzie odwet gracza za nawet incydentalną zdradę oponenta. Po czwarte, wymaganie powtarzalności dylematu więźnia podkreśla potrzebę wykształcenia się zaufania między uczestnikami. Warunki takie, odpowiednie dla wy- kształcenia się reguły pacta sunt servanda, będą występować w grupach małych i spój- nych, o stałym członkostwie, cechujących się występowaniem wzajemnych zależności między uczestnikami. 1 Student V roku prawa na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim. 2 Absolwentka Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Jakub Puciato, Magdalena Danek A game-theoretic explanation for the emergence of the second-order rule of justice pacta sunt servanda Summary The herein research investigates the conditions for emergence of the second-order rule of justice pacta sunt servanda in a game theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2012.09759V2 [Cs.GT] 5 Apr 2021 Xmlfidb H Ocp Fns Qiira R O Realis As Not Such Are Se Concepts Equilibria, the Nash on Interactions
    Game-Theoretic Models of Moral and Other-Regarding Agents Gabriel Istrate West University of Timi¸soara [email protected] We investigate Kantian equilibria in finite normal form games, a class of non-Nashian, morally moti- vated courses of action that was recently proposedin the economics literature. We highlight a number of problems with such equilibria, including computational intractability, a high price of miscoordi- nation, and problematic extension to general normal form games. We give such a generalization based on concept of program equilibria, and point out that that a practically relevant generalization may not exist. To remedy this we propose some general, intuitive, computationally tractable, other- regarding equilibria that are special cases Kantian equilibria, as well as a class of courses of action that interpolates between purely self-regarding and Kantian behavior. 1 Introduction Game Theory is widely regarded as the main conceptual foundation of strategic behavior. The promise behind its explosive development (at the crossroads of Economics and Computer Science) is that of understanding the dynamics of human agents and societies and, equally importantly, of guiding the engi- neering of artificial agents, ultimately capable of realistic, human-like, courses of action. Yet, it is clear that the main models of Game Theory, primarily based on the self-interested, rational actor model, and exemplified by the concept of Nash equilibria, are not realistic representations of the richness of human interactions. Concepts such
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Excerpts from Douglas Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas (A Collection
    1 Excerpts from Douglas Hofstadter’s Metamagical Themas (a collection mostly of articles he wrote for Scientific American.) The Prisoner’s Dilemma, Computer Tournaments and the Evolution of Cooperation May, 1983 LIFE is filled with paradoxes and dilemmas. Sometimes it even feels as if the essence of living is the sensing—indeed, the savoring—of paradox. Although all paradoxes seem somehow related, some paradoxes seem abstract and philosophical, while others touch on life very directly. A very lifelike paradox is the so-called “Prisoner’s Dilemma”, discovered in 1950 by Melvin Dresher and Merrill Flood of the RAND Corporation. Albert W. Tucker wrote the first article on it, and in that article he gave it its now-famous name. I shall here present the Prisoner’s Dilemma—first as a metaphor, then as a formal problem. The original formulation in terms of prisoners is a little less clear to the uninitiated, in my experience, than the following one. Assume you possess copious quantities of some item (money, for example), and wish to obtain some amount of another item (perhaps stamps, groceries, diamonds). You arrange a mutually agreeable trade with the only dealer of that item known to you. You are both satisfied with the amounts you will be giving and getting. For some reason, though, your trade must take place in secret. Each of you agrees to leave a bag at a designated place in the forest, and to pick up the other’s bag at the other’s designated place. Suppose it is clear to both of you that the two of you will never meet or have further dealings with each other again.
    [Show full text]