Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Link between quantum physics and game theory found

bristol.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Link between quantum physics and game theory found

#41

Post by rthomas6 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #30

(from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1173v1.pdf ) However, in certain cases the players may adapt their strategy depending on a piece of advice. The latter is delivered to all players by an advisor. This opens the possibility for the players to adopt correlated strategies, which can outperform independent strategies. There are various forms that advice can take. For example in the case of correlated classical advice, the…

Honestly though, as a layman in math, a lot of the most important math discoveries seem like this to me. For instance, Godel's incompleteness theorem: You mean you can't make a system prove itself within its own bounds? You don't say. Or the axiom of choice: "the product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty." What a surprise.

I've since accepted they're probably really important and non-obvious from a more rigorous and formal standpoint. Maybe this discovery is the same way.

Re: Link between quantum physics and game theory found

#42

Post by iliis »

nawitus wrote: post #39
iliis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually this is not possible for some definition of possible (mainly performance). Feynman showed that you get an exponential slowdown when simulating QM with a classical computer: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~christos/classics/Feynman.pdf See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantum_simulator In this particular case I don't think a quantum computer is necessarily any help (so simulating it won't work eit…

That's like saying "you can't calculate x on a cell phone because it's slower than on a desktop". Yes, there's an exponential slowdown, but that doesn't mean impossible.

Yes, absolutely correct. Which is why I said for some definition of possible. 'Feasible' probably would have been the better choice. Keep in mind that we're talking exponential here! e^x blows up really really fast.

Yes, it's not impossible to break 4092bit RSA but it is impossible for all practical purposes [AFAIK]. While it is technically possible to run Crysis on a Commodore it is useless when you have to wait a year to render a single frame.

Re: Link between quantum physics and game theory found

#43

Post by smegel »

domdip wrote: post #40
anigbrowl wrote: post #30

(from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1173v1.pdf ) However, in certain cases the players may adapt their strategy depending on a piece of advice. The latter is delivered to all players by an advisor. This opens the possibility for the players to adopt correlated strategies, which can outperform independent strategies. There are various forms that advice can take. For example in the case of correlated classical advice, the…

It's not about some players performing better than others. It's about the game maybe having a better outcome (for everyone) in one case than the other. Maybe it's not surprising that 'extra' information improves the game. But a point of this article (IMO) was to formally show that you could link the notion of 'extra' in physics to 'better' in game theory. I'm not arguing that this is profound, but it's not completely…

Doesn't "link" imply some common cause or connection? Saying you can use A to improve B isn't really what I would describe as a link.

Why couldn't it have been titled "quantum non-locality could change game theory equilibrium"...or would it have not been sensational enough?

Re: Link between quantum physics and game theory found

#44

Post by anigbrowl »

rthomas6 wrote: post #41
anigbrowl wrote: post #30

(from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1173v1.pdf ) However, in certain cases the players may adapt their strategy depending on a piece of advice. The latter is delivered to all players by an advisor. This opens the possibility for the players to adopt correlated strategies, which can outperform independent strategies. There are various forms that advice can take. For example in the case of correlated classical advice, the…

Honestly though, as a layman in math, a lot of the most important math discoveries seem like this to me. For instance, Godel's incompleteness theorem: You mean you can't make a system prove itself within its own bounds? You don't say. Or the axiom of choice: "the product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty." What a surprise. I've since accepted they're probably really important and non-obvious from a more…

I see your point, though thte important thing about Godel's incompleteness theorem is that it consists of a proof rather than being a emre conjecture. I do admire this paper insofar as it formally describes the problem and thus gives us the tools to use tools from domain A in domain B and vice-versa, but the actual discovery part fell a bit flat for me. Perhaps I let my expectations get raised too much by the information-poor press release.

Re: Link between quantum physics and game theory found

#45

Post by upquark »

rthomas6 wrote: post #41
anigbrowl wrote: post #30

(from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1173v1.pdf ) However, in certain cases the players may adapt their strategy depending on a piece of advice. The latter is delivered to all players by an advisor. This opens the possibility for the players to adopt correlated strategies, which can outperform independent strategies. There are various forms that advice can take. For example in the case of correlated classical advice, the…

Honestly though, as a layman in math, a lot of the most important math discoveries seem like this to me. For instance, Godel's incompleteness theorem: You mean you can't make a system prove itself within its own bounds? You don't say. Or the axiom of choice: "the product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty." What a surprise. I've since accepted they're probably really important and non-obvious from a more…

There are two issues here, I think. One, as a layman in math you end up reading about / paying attention to the discoveries you can parse and understand, thus introducing a bias by ignoring the results that require years of math training to understand. Second, the specific examples you listed are not entirely accurate or even comparable (one is a theorem, one an axiom). There is a risk of misunderstanding the results when they are presented in English, oversimplified and converted to common terms. This oversimplification may lose important details (not just formal stuff) and may end up with a common-sense sounding phrase that trivializes the result and doesn't really do it justice.

Re: Link between quantum physics and game theory found

#46

Post by domdip »

smegel wrote: post #43
domdip wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about some players performing better than others. It's about the game maybe having a better outcome (for everyone) in one case than the other. Maybe it's not surprising that 'extra' information improves the game. But a point of this article (IMO) was to formally show that you could link the notion of 'extra' in physics to 'better' in game theory. I'm not arguing that this is profound, but it's not completely…

Doesn't "link" imply some common cause or connection? Saying you can use A to improve B isn't really what I would describe as a link. Why couldn't it have been titled "quantum non-locality could change game theory equilibrium"...or would it have not been sensational enough?

Yeah "link" is probably too strong because it seems to be in one direction. They apply the informational contexts of physics to a game-theoretic model. Then they show that some stuff is implied in the latter.

They also show that a payoff strategy space has the same form as a test for a Bell inequality. That's the hyped 'link' but IMO it's really weak and not newsworthy in itself.

Care about this paper if you care about thinking about games in the context of assumptions about quantum information. They've arguably come up with a reasonably clean model for that and contradicted a prior result in the process.

If you don't care about that research space then you probably don't want to spend too much time pondering the philosophy of this.

Re: Link between quantum physics and game theory found

#47

Post by mej10 »

rthomas6 wrote: post #41
anigbrowl wrote: post #30

(from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1173v1.pdf ) However, in certain cases the players may adapt their strategy depending on a piece of advice. The latter is delivered to all players by an advisor. This opens the possibility for the players to adopt correlated strategies, which can outperform independent strategies. There are various forms that advice can take. For example in the case of correlated classical advice, the…

Honestly though, as a layman in math, a lot of the most important math discoveries seem like this to me. For instance, Godel's incompleteness theorem: You mean you can't make a system prove itself within its own bounds? You don't say. Or the axiom of choice: "the product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty." What a surprise. I've since accepted they're probably really important and non-obvious from a more…

Your statement of the incompleteness theorem isn't right, and the general axiom of choice isn't accepted by constructivist mathematicians. So I think your last statement is true.

Some of the greatest mathematicians of the era were working toward what Godel's incompleteness theorems proved was impossible. That alone should make you distrust your "intuition" on the matter.

Re: Link between quantum physics and game theory found

#48

Post by paulovsk »

JamesArgo wrote: post #22
aneth4 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably you mean not disproving quantum involvement in consciousness doesn't imply it's existence. That's far more than this snipey comment deserves in the way of response, but feel free to form a thought here.

I was commenting (tersely but not with intentional snip) on this: >Personally I think consciousness, perception, and free will are a great unknown, and likely involve the makeup of the cosmos including quantum interactions. You're taking a whole slew of things we're ignorant about, waving your hands and saying,"They must be related to some great truth hidden in particle physics!" I find this kind of thinking bizarre.

I feel exactly the same way.

It makes things seem obscure and that's where guys like Deepak Chopra come in.

Re: Link between quantum physics and game theory found

#49

Post by igravious »

mej10 wrote: post #47
rthomas6 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly though, as a layman in math, a lot of the most important math discoveries seem like this to me. For instance, Godel's incompleteness theorem: You mean you can't make a system prove itself within its own bounds? You don't say. Or the axiom of choice: "the product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty." What a surprise. I've since accepted they're probably really important and non-obvious from a more…

Your statement of the incompleteness theorem isn't right, and the general axiom of choice isn't accepted by constructivist mathematicians. So I think your last statement is true. Some of the greatest mathematicians of the era were working toward what Godel's incompleteness theorems proved was impossible. That alone should make you distrust your "intuition" on the matter.

In fairness a lot of mathematics isn't accepted by constructivist mathematicians god bless their little socks.

I kind of feel that Brouwer showed mathematicians the way forward and none of them took it. Unfortunately I don't have the formal chops for the discipline so I can only look on from the sidelines and cheer for my team.

Re: Link between quantum physics and game theory found

#50

Post by igravious »

lkozma wrote: post #12
aneth4 wrote: post #6

I'm very interested in any theoretical connections between interactions of conscious beings and quantum physics. I've read a number of physicists discounting any such possibility, but it's clear to me nobody understands these things well enough to know. Personally I think consciousness, perception, and free will are a great unknown, and likely involve the makeup of the cosmos including quantum interactions. If anyone…

Roger Penrose has famously speculated on the connection between quantum physics and consciousness in his book "The emperor's new mind" and follow-ups, but as far as I know, the idea is not very highly regarded in the scientific community and the book is not very convincing either (IMHO).

I could not in good conscience recommend The Emperor's New Mind to anyone. It is front-loaded with science and math and topped off with rubbish conjectures masquerading as truth. Yay for Penrose tiles and all that but steer clear of this book.

There is no science of consciousness because there is no science of subjectivity because science deals with objective reality, the world of objects. So we need to extend the scientific method to deal with subjects and I'm not aware of much progress in that area bar a few unknown figures in the world of cybernetic research.

Post reply on HN