He says that the Light Mushroom is needed to balance the evilness of the forest that was caused by Dark Mushroom. To get these shroom seeds, he needs to search northbound, and then players can give Bob a full Bear Armour to protect him from the cold. Bob will be unable to search normal seeds while doing this for 12 hours.
He will return with random from one to four Light Mushroom Seeds. Despite having best raw stats among three, Pirate Skeleton receives double damage from scythe and reduced armour by half as an undead monster, making its fight actually easier than the other two. While Dark Mage is susceptible to cold damage like Ice Arrows or Bubble , Pirate Skeleton and Shadow Lady need scythe to fight against, therefore having the Easy combat perk to switch weapons during combat is highly recommended. Sign In Don't have an account?
Given it's age and moderation status I doubt it's organically. Put them back where you took them from, rather. You can claim that until the cows come home and it will still be true that jlawson hasn't accused you of violence. Cute, but no deal. The article was on the front page when I clicked it.
You last comment was about three hours old when I commented. I am sorry these characters are downvoting you rather than actually engaging with your arguments. Please know that someone else sees it happening and thinks it's There is no such thing as economic violence either. The word you are looking for is discrimination. Why is there no such thing? Because you say so? That exact phrase appears to be in common usage globally. Given that, who's actually out of step with reality here? The word discrimination describes what an discriminator does. Violence usually applied to what a victim experiences.
Surely we can imagine a scenario where someone experiences violence without discrimination occuring. There are 4 senses of the word and only 1 names physical violence. Thank you for helping my argument, but we can all check the dictionary on our own time. Have a nice time doing whatever it is you do besides critically examining reality. Institutionalized adultism, ageism, classism, elitism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, speciesism, racism, and sexism are some examples of structural violence as proposed by Galtung.
According to Galtung, rather than conveying a physical image, structural violence is an "avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs". BillSaysThis 37 days ago. Actually, maybe calling these things violence would do more good in getting people to understand the problems need solutions. A non-trivial part of the reason this environment exists is that we are being enticed into these big centralized platforms, with centralized identities, because it benefits the witches, not us.
When there was no central big service, there was no ground for these massive centralized pushes to exist. Bad stuff happened, but bad stuff happens in real life, too; as long as the scales are roughly comparable I'm not inclined to go too ballistic trading freedom for safety. The risk of all those things exists today in such an outsized way because it benefits Facebook and Twitter to centralize everything.
I've made a conscious effort as well to move off centralized platforms, moving more to federated models and staying out of hub nodes, myself. But even there we see coordinated acts of harassment on folks cross instance. Ironically many of these are coordinated via a centralized service like Gab or Reddit. I am not sure that it makes sense to mandate from a government standpoint that organizing harassment is violence. It's difficult to imagine a world where this is not abused to quash any substantial reformist movement. But I do think from the standpoint of individuals and community norms it is not going too "ballistic" to recognize them as such.
The idea's been around since the early to mids, and people could at least do diligence to properly cite. Star wars isn't science fiction. Lucas tells us so in the first frame: a long time ago in a galaxy far far away: it isnt about us or where science may take us in the future. It is a samurai movie with lasers.
You're getting downvoted but in the end you're right - Star Wars is an epic fantasy with science-fiction-y things in it, hence why it doesn't follow rules about things like sound in space. Sound or movememt in space isnt a make or break. Trek was very much scifi yet took license with physics and that's ok. Not all scifi is hard scifi. Imho Dune is still scifi despite the fantasy overtones because the author deliberately tells us it is set in our future. The author of star wars tells us the opposite.
So time and place dictates what is SciFi now? That's an awfully awkward measure which will cut away a lot of SciFi. Though, I agree Star Wars is not very sci fi, it's a fantasy epic with sci-fi stuffs in it. I've never understood the association with relative time in regards to science fiction. SF is typically futuristic, but that bears jack all as to whether it takes place in the past, present, future, or even anything relative to our planet.
Science, in that it pledges greater allegiance to, extrapolates, or invents in an internally consistent way. But not time. Scifi is fiction about where science might take us, how modern tech might impact society. It is foreshadowing a potential future.
So stuff set in the past, generally, isnt considered scifi unless it somehow describes a potential future. This separates scifi from technothrillers tom clancy et al that are tech-heavy but set today rather than in the future. This makes literally no sense to me. Any definition of the future that doesn't include the past is just fiction, and consequently, any past is a potential future. What you're saying sounds more like "If it doesn't have greater than present levels of 'technology', then it's not science fiction. Science is a verb, not a noun. The idea of pointing at something in a book and saying "That's science" and correspondingly, pointing at something in other fiction and saying "That's not science" is odd.
Wells fit in your definition? TeMPOraL 37 days ago. What makes Star Wars a fantasy series and not sci-fi is that it doesn't even try to be sci-fi. It's a fantasy story reskinned with robots and spaceships. Not being sci-fi doesn't have much to do with being set in the past vs. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but that's all anyone has here, including myself: opinions. There is no objective and universally accepted definition of science fiction which requires rigid conformity to scientific principles, or a lack of mythological or religious themes. The lines people draw between "science fiction" "science fantasy" and even "fantasy" are based on marketing and personal taste.
Star Wars is sci-fi, no less so than Galactica or even Star Trek, and all of it is also science fantasy. These aren't separate categories, but poles on a spectrum of speculative fiction. Sure, there's some prior art. But it's not necessary or relevant to cite the prior art when talking about a specific work. If you read carefully, you'll find I didn't claim he was the originator, because duh.
I was taking issue with the medium post. A singular name. It would have been pretty simple to be clear with "and others. Both quotes are true.
Dark forest pictures
He never says the author created the theory. Could you cite some books that covered DFT? I'm eager to read them. I'm pretty sure David Brin touches on it somewhere, but not to the extent of being the basis of an entire novel. Can't recall exactly where, sadly. At minimum, Revelation Space features it as a major plot-point and was published in , significantly predating Dark Forest. WorldMaker 37 days ago. It's related to the premise of David Brin's Uplift series, so in one way it's the basis of multiple trilogies of books. It's been one possible answer for as long as sci-fi has debated the Drake equation and Fermi paradox.
Arguably, it is a critical part of the thesis of War of the Worlds as far back as the late 19th Century. I don't see how. David Brin's Uplift universe is bureaucratic, with interspecies interactions heavily regulated and angling towards preserving, not eliminating life. Cixin Liu's vision is purely game-theoretic, where anyone who makes noise is likely to be preemptively sniped by someone else, out of pure sense of self-preservation. I don't recall seeing this concept anywhere else. The implication in the Uplift universe was that the bureaucracy and "gamification" of interspecies interactions was designed to avoid such an elimination state, but such a thing likely existed in its deep past.
The thesis, as such, of the Uplift universe was generally that mutual cooperation was hard, but should win in the long run. Symmetry 37 days ago. You're thinking of Existence from The Killing Star would be the main one that comes to mind for me. Even uses a dark forest as a metaphor though in this case it's a city park full of gangsters. I think it was that novel, but I'm not sure; but towards the end of the one I'm thinking of, as this picture of the universe was coming together, a character thought of the nighttime sky as like the eyes of hungry predators surrounding a campfire.
Not to say I think this theory about the Fermi paradox is a very good one. So who are the originators? This is n-gate worthy. Not yet, anyway Worse: they co-opt and integrate them. We're already seeing that start to happen with Mastodon as well, the gravity is real. There are a lot of instances that flat out refuse to pair with corporate or government funded servers as a result. I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook started launching a scuttlebutt system and tried to monetize it. It is, as they say, There are some forms of internet "weapons" that I think reach the same scale as the ones in Cixin's series: - Social media harassment - Review bombs - Doxxing - Swatting Luckily, the internet is not at a point where any individual who reveals their contact information is subject to these problems.
That's a good point. I think it's subject to some of the same flaws as the original article, but you're right - the Dark Forest of the internet already has ways of driving people off. I think the author was rather describing Liu's concept of a "black domain," namely "a region of spacetime in which the speed of light is lowered artificially to completely seal it off and protect it from the rest of the Universe. I would guess that happens quite a bit even in communities not set up for that purpose. In a world where some people have a reach millions or even hundreds of millions larger than others, the analogy may be much more apt than you give it credit for.
What I find so myopic is the insistence that the election was somehow a milestone in this. The precedent was already there, and the playbook already written. But it was mainly used by the dominant left wing cultural elite to enforce their favored view, so it was seen as justified. It was only when the counter culture on the right started making use of it that the moral panic took off. Before Milo there was Shanley, combining reasonable sounding intersectional medium pieces with an ascerbic Twitter persona to create a one-woman motte and bailey.
Who directed witch hunts to industry figures and got rewarded with paying subscribers for it. Before Trump there was DongleGate and ElevatorGate, showing the power of a narcissist who rewrites history to be the underdog, and whose audience doesn't listen to opposing views and experiences.
Before Cambridge Analytica, there was the Obama campaign, hoovering up all the same data, except with Facebook's full knowledge and approval, and the progressive media's admiration and blessing for leaving those Stone age Republicans in the dust. In many ways, the big tech companies are just the scapegoat. Nobody was forced to move into Facebook, they did so voluntarily. Nobody was forced to push out buzzfeed level content, they just stared themselves blind on pageviews while losing their core audience. Nobody was forced to abandon critical thinking, they just succumbed to wishful thinking and tribalism.
What about the lives that were ruined in the past and even today because of keeping the antiquated belief alive? Except a giant nope because people are narcissists that don't care about the abused. A bit off-topic, but I've kind of struggled mentally since finishing The Dark Forest.
Dark Forest Map (Betrayal)
Even though it's science fiction, it actually seems hard to argue with the theory in the book -- that civilizations must act to eliminate each other or they are overwhelmingly likely to be eliminated themselves. I'd like to believe it's not true, but so long as any two civilizations are likely to have dramatically different rates of technological advancement and so long as crossing the gaps in space between civilizations takes sufficiently long due to the laws of physics, it seems hard to deny that there might be strong reasons for civilizations to fear each other.
Keep in mind that the dark forest theory hinges on two axioms that will likely be true for interstellar relations, while remain false for terrestrial ones. The two axioms are clearly stated in the books: 1 large communication delay, and 2 unpredictable technological jumps. The idea of the dark forest is that communication delay makes it difficult to build trust, and even if you start in superior position, it's possible for the other side to leap ahead of you technologically in the middle of those very long talks.
A hypothetical Earth scenario would be an early industrial empire contacting an age-of-sail empire across the ocean via letters sent on whales, only to have the latter suddenly respond with an ICBM.
YeGoblynQueenne 37 days ago. This is a great conceit for a sci-fi novel two, actually but I wouldn't take it too seriously as a real-life argument. To begin with, it's a theory about essentially evolutionary imperatives. It says that every civilisation, regardless of species, location, or any other condition, will eventually reach the same conclusion about the nature of the universe and the rules defining the co-existence of civilisations inside it. To put it lightly, that is a very long stretch.
We have no way to know anything about how a non-human civilisation will think, or even if it will "think" in the same sense that we do they may be space-faring social insects without a real capacity for conscious thought, say- a classic sci-fi trope. We have no way to know what are the goals and rules that such a civilisation might choose for itself.
About This Game
Some may see it as their duty to protect and help life in the universe, as something unique and irreplaceable. Some might indeed see it as a survival imperative to go out and destroy or conquer other civilisations. Some might choose to develop along a sustainable path that will not end up in them exhausting their local systems' resources eliminating the second axiom of cosmic sociology.
It's a huge universe. There's space for any number of different outlooks on life, the universe and everything. I don't doubt that the Dark Forest theory is one thing that may well have arisen somewhere, somewhen, but to assume that everything that is conscious in the universe will have "developed the hiding gene and the cleansing gene", that's just assuming way, way too much and first of all- about the way genetic information is transferred.
We don't know anything about other technological civilisations. Cautiousness is well advised, but part of that is not assuming that we understand how they will necessarily think. Not everyone reaches the conclusions of the Dark Forest. But those who don't reach it are exterminated. There are about other parameters whose relative balance determine game theoretical solutions to the problem. And as with many things, Cixin Liu handwaves away all that complexity in service of narrative. Don't confuse fiction with reality.
Look at the Drake Equation as a much simpler example. Even given its simplicity, small tweaks in assumptions produce wildly different projections. Name three. I'm by no means an expert on game theory, but accepting the two axioms that are quite explicitly stated in the story, "dark forest" seems to follow quite naturally. The value of alien ideas being introduced into a culture.
The rarity of habital planetoids. How quickly civilizations spread within their local area. Not confusing fiction with reality. Simply stating the premise of the novel. I don't object to anyone handwaving away complexity in service of narrative. Virtually all authors do that. In the books, or in the real world?
In the books.
ABOUT THE MAGAZINE
It's just the author's theory for the Fermi Paradox. And it's a compelling and terrifying theory. Only if there are means to exterminate them, which in the books are rather Its an interesting theory. IMO: the difficulty of destroying a civilization is probably harder than communicating with them, and the advantages of keeping one around probably outweigh the advantages of killing them if you're already more technically advanced. A big point in TDF is that the speed of light limits our ability to communicate and understand other civilizations.
But, by extension, weapons are also limited by that limit. Of course, maybe its possible to break the speed of light, but then communication could also break this limit. So, if you're a technologically advanced alien civilization and you become aware of humanity, you can send an Envoy or you can send some Nukes or, of course, you can do nothing and watch. Just within the context of The Dark Forest Theory, there's practically no reason to send Nukes; at worst, you discover that humanity sucks and then you go ahead and nuke us.
But life is probably special; maybe humanity would make great trading partners, maybe our brains function differently and can solve problems differently, maybe our natural proclivity for war would make us great allies, or maybe we'd make great slaves for the mines on the Vartoth 12 colony. All of these are options for a civilization a thousand years ahead of us; they can pick what they'd like, but none of them would classify as a result of The Dark Forest theory. There's also a possibility that maybe this hypothetical alien civilization tried that course of action in the past with another civilization, and they were friends for a while, helped each other, then fought in a bloody war, and now that civilization is distrustful so they destroy any young civilizations while they still easily can instead of even trying to come to terms.
But that's not a Dark Forest theory situation; the Dark Forest Theory suggests that its natural for civilizations to want to kill each other off.
Dark Forest | Diamond Hunt Online Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia
Cixin book covers those aspect pretty well. One of the main element behind his version of the Dark Forest theory is something he calls the "Chain of suspicion". He argues that in a world were communication is limited by the speed of light, there's no way to establish a coherent dialog during first contact between two civilizations that would allow you to completely trust the other party. If you cannot trust that the other party will not destroy you given the chance, then the only way for you to be guaranteed not to be destroyed is to destroy them first. Even if both parties want peace, there's no way for you to convince the other party that you want peace without also giving them the time to destroy you.
It's basically a game theory situation where trying to go for peaceful communication is way too risky, and the stake in play are the survival of your civilization. It's also implied that civilization that played the "peace" card will simply get eliminated the moment they encounter someone playing the "destroy" card, making you much less likely to actually encounter a peaceful civilization. Slight digression, and I know your half joking but: I always find the believability lacking in sci-fi that suggest a civilisation capable of faster than light travel could possibly be interested in trading commodities or manual labour of another.
Such a feat provides unlimited access to the universe, all materials and energy you could ever need, such a civilisation would likely have basically achieved alchemy transmutation but for real. That is something that cannot be obtained anywhere else in the universe, even with FTL, because it's endemic. I think the Stargate universe solved this well; the civilizations capable of building FTL drives including the one that built stargates themselves didn't need to trade much with anyone one of them did use slave labor from other worlds, but for somewhat plot-justifiable reasons.
Humanity used increasing amount of FTL tech over the series, but those were either stargates, borrowed, stolen or donated tech, not something humans built themselves - and thus humanity did interplanetary trade. There are several reasons not to fear Dark Forest, chief among them, 1. Any species that develops a civilization capable of space travel must necessarily have evolved a strong cooperative spirit, and so is more unlikely to exercise homicide as a first resort.
If Dark Forest were true, and there was a murderous civilization that wanted to kill every other, we would all be dead already. You can make an entire galaxy's worth of relativistic kill missiles with the mass of a medium size asteroid. Sterilizing an entire galaxy to make sure that there is never a challenge to your rule can be accomplished in a few thousand years. Without needing any interstellar transit. Regarding number 2, wouldn't this potentially risk your discovery as well? An entire galaxy having its habitable planets destroyed would surely be detectable in some fashion.
I don't think it's accurate to assume that every species would need this. And, beyond that, TDF addresses this through the assertion that humanity, at multiple turns, didn't want to partake in this Dark Forest ideology; we wanted to make peace and friends, but the other more advanced civilizations weren't having it. So even if they had a cooperative spirit in the past, that doesn't preclude that the spirit sticks around when the destruction of your species is at stake.
That's being awfully presumptive. Constructing even a galaxy's worth of kill missiles and launching them wildly like a shotgun isn't a strategy that any logical civilization would do. They'd end up destroying tons of empty planets that could have rich resource deposits or be habitable for future colonies, and they'd know that. Maybe there are illogical interstellar civilizations, but it stands to reason that they'd be More Rare than Logical ones, given it takes some form of logic to even accomplish space travel.
Targeted strikes make more sense. So you have to have a Target. Humanity has been broadcasting RF for about years. The milky way is , light years across; at best we're detectable by 0. Maybe we haven't gotten one of these kill missiles because they haven't heard us yet. Or it's on its way. But all this requires life to common; the dark forest theory asserts that the reason life seems rare is because its common and everyone is just being quiet, but the other possibility is that life is, well, rare, and that's probably more likely.
If life is rare, then the dark forest theory kinda goes out the window because the novelty of finding new life would invariably overwhelm a hypothetical risk that your species has never encountered before. If its been years since anyone in your colony has ever talked to Earth, then you're not really a colony anymore, but it's obvious to you that Earth won't see it that way.
Your colony creates other colonies, and it takes earth hundreds of years to find out about them, if you decide to even tell them because what do you owe earth? Really starts to look Dark Forest-esque, doesn't it? How do you build a spaceship without working together with others? Who said the missles are dumb rocks? If each one has a camera on it and a few adjustment rockets, it can choose which planets to target as it approaches the star.
It's gonna take you a hundred thousand years to get there anyway, so who cares if you wreck the local ecosystem a little bit now? You're probably going to have to make changes to the planet to suit your species' needs anyway, so why be coy about it to save yourself a minivan's worth of raw material? Ants don't build colonies because they consciously choose to participate in the greater good as individuals. It's pure instinct for them to work together. Imagine if some were more intelligent and could shape or direct that instinct. A "hive mind" if you will. Regarding how long it takes to travel between habitable systems- Cixin Liu, like most other hard sci-fi authors, and everybody else who thinks about those things, seems to assume that lightspeed is just as problematic for everyone else as it is for us humans.
And yet we have no way to know that for sure. We have no idea what the average lifespan of an intelligent species is. It may just be that humans are particularly short-lived, among all the species in the galaxy, or the entire universe. If a species has a lifetime of a couple thousand years then interstellar travel, even at sub-light speeds, would be a lot more manageable than it is for us. Which to me, means we can relax a little about the risk of being destroyed by hostile aliens.
We don't know what we don't know. Chances are, if they were going to destroy us, they would have already done so in the last million years or so. We're probably a lot less appealing, as a world, than we think we are. Perhaps the universe really hates salt water or oxygen atmospheres? Who's to say? He makes a lot of interesting hash from the speed of light like the Dark Domain defense. But he more or less handwaves away the speed of light as a limitation, introducing viable FTL travel in Death's End. As an aside, one of the things I like about the books is how terror scales Reading the implication that the universe has only 3 dimensions because dimensionality reduction weapons were used in past wars triggered a small existential crisis in me.
Spoiler tags please! For the uninitiated. Dimensinoality reduction? I never thought of those weapons as akin to universal PCA before. Thanks for the image. Freaky 37 days ago. I thought it was kind of funny, because the whole point behind the Dark Forest theory is that it emerges because aliens are so unknowable, there can never be proper trust between them. Yet a relatively young and slowly-developing race is literally more sure of what humanity is doing than we are of our neighbouring countries.
And it's hard sci-fi because they were AIs made of protons , not actual fairies found in the magical forest of Elthrolien that had to be seduced with promises of space mead. That's how it goes with sci-fi, innit. You can come up with anything you like as long as it's obvious that it's just advanced technology, not magic. Cixin Liu usually manages to weave in a couple of natural laws to every impossible thing so he passes. I was more annoyed by the lightspeed contrails to be honest. That really comes out of nowhere and is a total literary device that has no basis on anything we know of.
Makes the whole endeavour space opera if you ask me - which is not bad in and of itself. But in that case, where's the nuclear energy-sword wielding hero who saves humanity?
Sure, I mean, even Star Wars is still considered within the genre despite it all being completely made-up - but the point of hard sci-fi is you're not just making it up and rubbing science-words on your endless stream of arbitrary plot contrivances. YeGoblynQueenne 36 days ago. My opinion on this might be controversial but I think there's very little difference between even "hard" sci-fi and all-out fantasy but, with spaceships. There is very little space left to write a story that is interesting and compelling if one wishes to respect the bounds of what is scientifically plausible.
Then again, if one starts to stretch the definition of "scientifically plausible" there's all sorts of things that are classic sci-fi tropes like Einsten-Rosen bridges and Alcubierre drives, etc. So it's just my opinion. But, I note that the best Sci-Fi stories I've read always took lots of liberties with the laws of nature. I'll even come up with a few examples if I really think about it.
Are we living in the same world? Quantum mechanics, relativistic effects, mathematics game theory anyone? The world is more phantastic than anything one could imagine and we know that we don't know everything. The constraint to stay in this world is the least limiting for an interesting and compelling story. YeGoblynQueenne 35 days ago. But those are not science fiction. If you tell a story that is within the limits of what we know to be possible with the knowledge that we have right now, you will end up with a very boring story.
There is a trade-off between speculation and realism, that leaves a very, very narrow space for an interesting story. Part of it is due to the fact that most of modern science has been mined mercilessly for "hard" sci-fi subjects, that have now become tropes that can't form the basis for an interesting new story anymore. For example, try to write a story where the entire premise is that someone manages to construct an Alcubierre drive. You'd get Star Trek: First Contact. Nice movie, hey.
But nothing new, there. Freaky 33 days ago. Er, no, on all counts. Stories based on physics and maths are not science fiction? Are you feeling OK? Most stories in general stay within reasonable limits of what we know to be possible - are most stories very boring? You basically seem to be arguing that all stories that aren't fantasy are boring, which is clearly untrue. The phase-space of all possible Alcubierre-drive fiction is not "Vulcans come to visit", any more so than the phase-space of all possible stargate fiction is "Ra gets quite angry".
Not really, since DFT covers how fast information travels, not biological bodies. Lifespans aren't really part of the equation. That's not to do with Dark Forest Theory, but why do you say it's about how fast information travels? I take it as a theory about the outlook of technological civilisations with respect to each other. And yes, lifespans are important. Perhaps not in the books, but in the real world our science and technology advances at least some in every generation, as new scientists and technologists continue the work of their forebears. If human generations lasted a thousand years, it would perhaps take us a lot longer to make the same technological progress that it now only takes us a few years- if nothing else because the urgency of making progress would be reduced accordingly.
Lifespans may also influence the actualy speed by which species form thoughts and communicate. Remember the Ents in The Lord of the Rings? A species that lived ten thousand years may take an Earth day to form a meaningful utterance. Technological advancement would take considerably longer for them than for us. Oh boy, read Blindsight by Peter Watts.
Kinda similar idea but more deeply dreadful. Messed me up for days. I've read Blindsight. It's a good one. Actually, the premise didn't bother me as much as the Three Body trilogy. ColanR 37 days ago. Sadly, game theory bears out that observation. Multiple actors can independently arrive at compatible cooperative solutions to the survival-and-utility game which is not zero-sum. Wikipedia says it assumes all other players are also superrational, but I think in practice a successful variant of this strategy is to identify whether other players are superrational and avoid them if not.
There is sometimes the option of converting existing self-interested rational players into superrational ones, but that is another subject entirely. ColanR 36 days ago. It would be nice if we were all superrational, but that concept just explains away the entire problem of the prisoner's dillemma: the dilemma serves to highlight our mutual lack of trust, and superrationality simply says, 'what if we did trust each other'? Since the assumptions of superrationality would be naive and foolish for any of those prisoners to assume, it solves nothing.
The idea is not to assume that everyone will be superrational or trustworthy at the beginning of the game. ColanR 35 days ago. Even so, that idea merely expresses the hope that the prisoners can be educated out of their mistrust - which still seems like saying, 'the dillemma doesn't exist, if we fix the prisoners'.
Also, the point of the dillemma is that only one prisoner has to act selfishly. If a subset of the group does cooperate, it doesn't matter because the one left out will take advantage of them all One limitation of that thought experiment is that it assumes defection is guaranteed to achieve a certain outcome. Furthermore, once you start playing multiple times with the same players, you establish an algebra of trust that also drastically changes the game.
The ability to influence other players between rounds also changes the game. That's a premise, and it's what creates the dillema in the first place. Actually, the wikipedia article on the dilemma discusses this. The nash equilibrium is actually for all players to defect. There is no engendered trust. Only in games where players know the number of rounds e. I hear you.