Is there any name for the hypothesis that likely minded actors can build and successfully execute a strategy that leads to their mutual win-win, without having any ability to communicate directly?
I remember that Stanislaw Lem based his "New cosmogony" on this idea, but I wonder if he used someone else's ideas or made it all up.

  • Like one takes the even-numbered problems and the other the odd-numbered ones? Or is even that level of cooperation against the rules?
    – user4894
    Aug 4 at 1:22
  • @user4894 they can cooperate whatever they want, but they can't communicate each other. No way to send a message that says "hey, let's do this and that".
    – user626528
    Aug 4 at 1:34
  • Well that's what I meant. Two people can divide up a task to their mutual benefit with only one agreement at the beginning and no further communication. I wonder if there's some kind of "zero knowledge proof" idea lurking here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
    – user4894
    Aug 4 at 1:42
  • 2
    You might be interested in tacit colliusion, where companies in the same business collude to fix prices, for example, without the need for explicit conspiracy. The idea is that they all recognize the same market conditions and therefore act in their own collective interest without needing to meet in a smoke-filled room. See for example citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/… or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion.
    – user4894
    Aug 4 at 3:18
  • 2
    You might also look at Douglas Hofstadter's concept of superrationality, where players in a game make decisions based on the assumption that other players will use the same reasoning to come to the same decision.
    – Hypnosifl
    Aug 4 at 18:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.