Omniscience and omnipotence: How they may help ‐ or hurt ‐ in a game1
- 1 January 1982
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Inquiry
- Vol. 25 (2) , 217-231
- https://doi.org/10.1080/00201748208601963
Abstract
The concepts of omniscience and omnipotence are defined in 2 × 2 ordinal games, and implications for the optimal play of these games, when one player is omniscient or omnipotent and the other player is aware of his omniscience or omnipotence, are derived. Intuitively, omniscience allows a player to predict the strategy choice of an opponent in advance of play, and omnipotence allows a player, after initial strategy choices are made, to continue to move after the other player is forced to stop. Omniscience and its awareness by an opponent may hurt both players, but this problem can always be rectified if the other player is omniscient. This pathology can also be rectified if at least one of the two players is omnipotent, which can override the effects of omniscience. In some games, one player's omnipotence ‐ versus the other's ‐ helps him, whereas in other games the outcome induced does not depend on which player is omnipotent. Deducing whether a player is superior (omniscient or omnipotent) from the nature of his game playing alone raises several problems, however, suggesting the difficulty of devising tests for detecting superior ability in games.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Mathematics and Theology: Game-Theoretic Implications of God's OmniscienceMathematics Magazine, 1980
- Can God create a being he cannot control?Analysis, 1980
- What an omnipotent agent can doInternational Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 1980
- Deception in 2 × 2 GamesJournal of Peace Science, 1977
- Newcomb's Problem and Prisoners' DilemmaJournal of Conflict Resolution, 1975
- Non-Cooperative GamesAnnals of Mathematics, 1951