- #1

Fra

- 4,140

- 612

- TL;DR Summary
- food for throught, inspiration and new perspectives to foundations and potentially new insights

The reason for highlighting this paper is to highlight (and exemplify by how different researcher think about this)

a new "perspective" to understanding the different between "ignorance of the physicists" which is reallly what Bell assumptions imples. And "ignorance of they players", which is what it de facto menas to ISOLATE the produces pair after creation, not just from the physicists but from the whole environment! (ie. ALL players in the game). As this is discussed many times here.

...

Most significantly, we observe that game theory based on Nash equilibria stands in contradiction with a violation of Bell inequalities. Hence, we propose that quantum physics should be analyzed with non-Nashian game theory, the inner workings of which we demonstrate using our proposed model."

-- https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07341

-- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8947266/

Ie. breaking decoherence and isolation in bell experiment, is in game theoretic terms may be similar to leaking "insider information" to market players, but it can be detected! now the interesting part is: "insider information" is like a hidden information, but as long as it's indeed hiddeh, it does not mess with the game. This is what bells assumption fails; and this I think at least, hosts the possibilitie to make sense of the notion of "hidden variables" to

/Fredrik

a new "perspective" to understanding the different between "ignorance of the physicists" which is reallly what Bell assumptions imples. And "ignorance of they players", which is what it de facto menas to ISOLATE the produces pair after creation, not just from the physicists but from the whole environment! (ie. ALL players in the game). As this is discussed many times here.

### Nashian game theory is incompatible with quantum physics

"We suggest to look at quantum measurement outcomes not through the lens of probability theory, but instead through decision theory. We introduce an original**game-theoretical framework, model and algorithmic procedure where measurement scenarios are multiplayer games with a structure all observers agree on**. Measurement axes and, newly, measurement outcomes are modeled as decisions with nature being an action-minimizing economic agent...

Most significantly, we observe that game theory based on Nash equilibria stands in contradiction with a violation of Bell inequalities. Hence, we propose that quantum physics should be analyzed with non-Nashian game theory, the inner workings of which we demonstrate using our proposed model."

-- https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07341

### Quantifying and Interpreting Connection Strength in Macro- and Microscopic Systems: Lessons from Bell’s Approach

"As a macroscopic example from the financial world, we show**how the unfair use of insider knowledge could be picked up using Bell statistics**. Finally, in the discussion of realist interpretations of quantum mechanical Bell experiments, cheating strategies are often expressed through the ideas of free choice and locality. In this regard, violations of free choice and locality can be interpreted as two sides of the same coin, which underscores the view that the meaning these terms are given in Bell’s approach should not be confused with their everyday use. In general, we conclude that Bell’s approach also carries lessons for understanding macroscopic systems of which the connectedness conforms to different causal structures."-- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8947266/

Ie. breaking decoherence and isolation in bell experiment, is in game theoretic terms may be similar to leaking "insider information" to market players, but it can be detected! now the interesting part is: "insider information" is like a hidden information, but as long as it's indeed hiddeh, it does not mess with the game. This is what bells assumption fails; and this I think at least, hosts the possibilitie to make sense of the notion of "hidden variables" to

**explain correlations**and yet escape bells inequality./Fredrik