Heisenberg's uncertainty posting

The act of observing changes the subject of observation. And so it appears that I've been linked to! Which means, I'll react to that. Also having a little more fun altering the appearence of the blog to suit my own desires, yet by making those alterations it was also kept in mind who else might be affected by those changes. At least, whether it would suit their own aesthetics. After all, the moral is that one shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but precious few follow it. I'm not throwing stones, I'm guilty of it as well even though I'd rather not be.

Personal wishes don't trump ingrained habit or the "easy" route. If it did, people would make massive quantities of money. It's far easier to wish for something, than to actually expend the effort required to get it. This is often times because the expense involved outweighs what we think of as the reward. Most often we prefer immediate gratification with a following long term debt. That way the debt disperses reasonably against the future while the pleasure is present now. These sorts of payments, though, are the ones that are most detrimental.

Which is the subject of Game Theory. What choices do individuals make for a perceived reward/cost, when they are interacting with other individuals who may be pursuing their own agenda? It's easy to say that we'd choose the route that would bring us the best reward. But there's an example of the Prisoners Dilemma where the best choice would be to work together, but it rarely actually works.

Here's the gist of it: The two players have been arrested and must make a choice of whether to remain silent about their crimes, or confess and implicate the other player. Both players must make their choice independant of the other player and in ignorance of what that other player is choosing. If they both were to remain silent, they'd be released after a minimum period in jail. However, if one remains silent and the other one talks.. the talker is released after a small period of time and the silent one is locked up for a long long time. If they both talk, they serve a moderate period of time in jail.

So, the best option would be for both to remain silent. But if they don't know whether the other player is going to talk or remain silent, the safest (read easiest) option is for that individual player to talk. That makes it so that the best choice for either player is to talk, because the other one may not want to risk remaining silent.

Game Theory is quite an interesting thing to read through. It isn't about video games or board games (though the information involved can probably be put to good use in or about those). Instead, it is about how people come to their decisions about gains vs costs. Wikipedia, to which I've linked, has a few articles on it. It is probably still better to actually find a book on it to read if it really catches your interest, as it will provide a better education than the various postings.

Meanwhile, this brings us full circle. Our independant observer recommended that I read up on it after the last post. He then put up a post of it on his log and linked this site to it. So I figured I'd do the same. And it inspired the reflections that started this post and come together at the end. If you enjoy just following the full cycle of things, you can go ahead and read from the top anew... or follow the links and find more information for yourself. Whatever choice you do, good luck and have fun.