This can be extended to arbitrarily many agents. Moreso, the valuable insight here is that cooperation is achieved when the evidence that the group cooperates exceeds each and every member’s individual threshold for cooperation.A formalism of the intuitive strategy ‘I will only cooperate if there are no defectors’ (or perhaps ‘we will only cooperate if there are no defectors’).
You should include the highlighted insight in your summary. Also, why does your setup not lead to inconsistencies when Abram Demsi isn’t sure his setup does? Is it just that you don’t have ”⊢a→b, then ⊢p(┌a┐)≤p(┌b┐) ”?
We know that the self-referential probabilistic logic proposed in Christiano 2012 is consistent. So, if we can get probabilistic Payor in this logic, then as we are already operating within a consistent system this should be a legitimate result.
You should include the highlighted insight in your summary. Also, why does your setup not lead to inconsistencies when Abram Demsi isn’t sure his setup does? Is it just that you don’t have ”⊢a→b, then ⊢p(┌a┐)≤p(┌b┐) ”?
We know that the self-referential probabilistic logic proposed in Christiano 2012 is consistent. So, if we can get probabilistic Payor in this logic, then as we are already operating within a consistent system this should be a legitimate result.
Will respond more in depth later!