= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on What a reduction of "could" could look like - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (103)
It seems to me that bargaining will be resolved simultaneously with the problem of deciding under uncertainty (when you can't hope to find a proof of utility being precisely U).
On one hand, this sounds reasonable apriori.
On the other hand, making games "fuzzy" to solve bargaining has been tried, and it's not enough.
On the third hand, I feel that some games might be genuinely indeterminate because they abstract too much, they don't include enough information from the real-world situation - information that in practice ends up determining the outcome. For example, (instantaneous) bargaining in the Rubinstein model depends on the players' (temporal) discount rates, and if you forgot to look at them, the instantaneous game seems pretty damn indeterminate.