You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

James_Miller comments on Open thread for December 9 - 16, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: NancyLebovitz 09 December 2013 04:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (371)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: James_Miller 10 December 2013 07:51:51PM 1 point [-]

Game theory would be solved if there were a set of reasonable criteria which, if applied to every possible game of rational players, would cause you to know what the players would do.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 December 2013 07:57:07PM 0 points [-]

Game theory would be solved if there were a set of reasonable criteria which, if applied to every possible game of rational players, would cause you to know what the players would do.

To continue with physics: physics would be solved if there were a set of reasonable criteria which, if applied to every possible interaction of particles, would cause you to know what the particles would do.

Comment author: James_Miller 10 December 2013 08:38:05PM *  1 point [-]

Consider a situation in which using physics you could prove that (1) X won't happen, and (2) X will happen. If this situation existed physics wouldn't be capable of being solved, but my understanding of science is that such a situation is unlikely to exist. Alas, this kind of situation does come up in game theory.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 December 2013 08:45:24PM 0 points [-]

Consider a situation in which using physics you could prove that (1) X won't happen, and (2) X will happen.

Well, it's math but...