1. Game theory studies behavior of rational agents. Physical reality has no place for rational agents. Rationality can only exist as epiphenomenon atop stochastic behavior of matter. 
  2. Partial ordering exists on the set of stochastic games, defined by IMIT (Is More Interesting Than) relation, such as G1 IMIT G2 if and only if 
    1. every optimal (in any sense) strategy of game G2 can be obtained by trivial permutation of some optimal (in any sense) strategy of game G1; 
    2. there is optimal (in any sense) strategy in game G1 that can’t be obtained by trivial permutation of any optimal (in any sense) strategies of game G2. 
  3. Some material aggregates of uniform elements that turn energy income into stochastic behavior are curious. It means that 
    1. if curious aggregate has big enough excess of internal energy for any single game, eventually some of its actors’ behavior stops being random; 
    2. if curious aggregate has big enough excess of internal energy for both games G1 IMIT G2, eventually some of its actors’ behavior stops being reductive to optimization of G2. 
  4. There is no maximally interesting games. Spontaneous unlimited complication of behavior in curious aggregates induces rationality epiphenomenon. 
  5. Liquid solutions of macromolecules are curious. Rationality epiphenomenon, emerging on such scale of conflicts, we commonly call life. 
  6. Biological neural circuits are curious. Rationality epiphenomenon, emerging on such scale of conflicts, we commonly call psyche. 
  7. Computationally universal systems are curious. Rationality epiphenomenon, that can emerge on such scale of conflicts, doesn’t have a name yet.
2 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 2:07 PM
New Comment

People seem to like when I do this, so here's a guess at why this post is voted down.


The biggest thing is that it's on the frontpage. I've noticed the tag says this is still done by moderators, but I'm pretty sure you just posted to frontpage and not your personal blog. I don't know how to post to your blog on here.

The other reasons are more important, but only noticeable because of the frontpage.


Mainly, this is incoherent. In the repeated phrase "Rationality epiphenomenon", I don't know what you mean to say with the word "Rationality". The whole idea of emergence and epiphenomena tends to be a magnet for half-thoughts and sloppy thinking, so the word choice probably really ticked some people off.

It's not at all clear what you mean by "Is More Interesting Than", or more specifically, what the word "Interesting" is meant to do here. Your definition isn't obviously tied to interestingness, so it's really confusing.

You open with "Physical reality has no place for rational agents", which is literally a tiny bit crazy (I'll defend this statement). What on earth do you mean by that??


The list format is weird. It's too terse to explain what's going on here. It's also unclear whether this is your note to yourself, a real blog post, some scratch word / "butterfly idea" we're meant to help you build up, or some other thing that I don't even think of when making a list like this.

None of those are value judgments about you, I just saw this at -3 and don't want you to feel silently bullied. This way, you at least know why

Thanks for explanations, pal ^_^ Don't worry, I know how places with carma points work and wasn't aiming to get fast dophamine fix from sweet upvotes. I simply wrote this down while being high as kite and procrastinating over my real game theory thesis. Actually, I was choosing between dumping it here or on 4chan, but decided that it'll look funnier here. But to your questions:

"Rationality" here is used in most narrow, purely game-thoretic sense, as ability to perform global optimisation of arbitrary utility function in situations that depend on actions of other rational agents who are opimising their own utility functions. Obviously, rational agents, being highly complex abstract concept, do not quintessentially exist in our material world, which consists of pretty simple-minded particles, doing nothing but local optimizations of four fundamental forces. If we are setting aside theistic mindset, what can be percieved as "rationality" in any material form is only macroscopic interpretation, that must boil down to just randomly interacting matter.

Regarding IMIT relation - I think "interesting" isn't totally inappropriate word here. Essence of joy in every game is gaining knowledge of how to win. If anyone who perfects game G1, can easily perfect game G2, but not vice-versa, then it is reasonable to call G1 more interesting then G2.