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.
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.