Nash Equilibrium Odds for Abolition of U.S. Government

I wanted to write something about Nash equilibrium as a tool for social research. I will move on to other topics in subsequent posts very likely. Not being a mathematician or social scientist my information on the topic is limited. Having occasion to read something on the subject I believed it worth providing a little criticism.

The Declaration of Independence of the United States is the most sacred of secular political documents. Pertaining to revolution…

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Nash equilibrium, as I will discuss below, presents challenges to formation of popular opinion sufficient to support overthrow of the U.S. Government. If globalism and unsound economic and environmental practices are sufficient reason to abolish the present government of the United States and its sedimentary personages, Nash equilibrium equations provide the data set probability that it is unlikely that popular opinion could be formed to support such a movement to rational ecological economic principals and nationalism.

The New testament parable of Jesus Christ—the parable of the talents, offers a context somewhat like that of the prisoner’s dilemma modeled and resolved by Nash equilibrium calculus, yet unlike the secular context of the Nash criteria, in which the people given the talents had not only secular concerns but eternal issues as well, secular revolutionaries have mostly issues involving allegiance and risk in which their self interest in keeping social rights and asserting geophysical control implicit experience present rather than future risk as the revolutionary movement severs ties with the corrupt global government concentrating wealth, corrupting the environment and constructing vast public debt.

I believe that philosophically it is too commonly the case that many social researchers of behavior would like a simple equation that could be applied like a magical phrase to understand how the masses of humanity behave and why. With so many people in the world it might be helpful to find a kind of algorithmic compression—an equation like game theory’s Nash equilibrium, to provide a condensed version of facts, or even omit the need to have competent human understanding altogether. If one has an equation, the why have years of reading of human social history to have a dead reckoning good judgment of why things are the way they are?

I will curtail berating ignorance in social and physical sciences regarding depth or lack of it in reading and understanding interdisciplinary topics from philosophy, history, science and such. The why people make social misjudgments isn’t so important as where they can go from a given position without creating havoc and chaos deleterious for themselves and for-others. Intelligent leadership is sometimes of more value than a legion of deterministic behaviorists finding a formula from the moon and stars to explain what they see as genetically hard-wired human behavior. The astrology fallacy of social science theory with a sacred equation is a challenge to common sense.

With the possible misguided effort to create another war front in Pakistan/Central Asia, as a wrong way to gain the security of the united States from foreign terrorists, there s ample example of the manifest stupidity in public thought created by pursuit of money, global business and lack of intelligent leadership. These are not deterministic political ad social phenomena, but default ones because of the failure to regard intelligence and reality as being as important as mass distribution of materials, concentration of representative fiscal wealth, or even the provisioning of mass social ‘laws’ of human behavior replete with equations.

Needless to say I have complete respect for Nash and his mathematical mind, it is simply the profound stupidity of the way ideas are applied existentially that is of interest here. I can only provide a brief fragment of the ideas and criticism I might have on this subject for lack of time and opportunity to construct more. I would rather be employed earning enough for housing next winter anyway, yet that is not possible today.

Reaching Nash equilibrium in the distribution of item-units of abstract, idealized representational systems is a popular method of calculating social decision concatenations of masses. A premise of authority of mind and matter relationship and definition is synthesized within a deterministic framework, and the logical fallacy of begging the point regarding the relationship between mind and matter is set-aside in the reductionist presentation of item-units as quanta within a statistical paradigm.

I had hoped here to bring something of the consideration of Nash equilibrium in social psychology to the Biblical parable of the talents, and the distribution of talents—perhaps something like the prisoners dilemma regarding a choice between conservation or defection, yet I see in second thought that the parable was not within an arbitrarily competitive social circumstances regarding inter-group distribution of talents, but instead concerned the relationship of the individuals allotted various quantities of talents to the author of existence (God) through metaphor.

Nash equilibrium is another method of forming an equation between various constants or variables. Numbers are of course largely one dimensional items given value in relation tot their position within a field. The field may be linear such as in natural numbers, or multi-dimensional to any extent. Number is essentially a coordinate value or magnitude within a field frame of reference. Numbers within a field need not change in a scalar progress at one dimensional vector, yet may increase with change in other dimensional fields with a change in acceleration through time or space. To experience more spatial extension in a brief interval than another comparative traveling item in space, is effectively to increase the value of time, yet of course in the actual world the number of levels of protocol dimensions is uncertain, and perhaps variable in relation to the manner in which a collapse of wave-field interactive selection occurs, as well as the potential actual forms of quantum field structure in any possible space-time given.

Nash equilibrium provides a reciprocal paradox, when applied to human psychology, of assuming a static dimensional representation value for calculation of the behavior and selection of social masses. The intellectual choice is reflected in nature, or even drawn from natural evolution, and the returned to conscious human choice as a statistical concatenation of individual choices selected by the complexity of evolved behavior.

I should stipulate that I believe that necessary human behavior in relationship to the physical requisites of life provided by an environment is primarily limited to discovery of methods for satisfying those needs, and that inventiveness tends to find more avenues for satisfaction of such needs, as if water could be input from special foods with enough water content to eliminate the actual needs for drinking a liquid. Such an adaptive change may alter other physiological processes in a human body over time obviously, yet intentional inventiveness to free social members from environmentally given needs seems a natural response and evolution.

Nash equilibrium of discovery of a balance within a given system is in economics a reflection of the historic evolution of a false awareness of the intended meaning of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Smith was against an oppressive aristocracy corrupting freedom for commoners to run their own affairs—it was a political as well as an intellectual revolution commensurate with the era. If alive today he would be equally against global corporate aristocracy destroying the interest of nations and national interest of ‘commoners’ in creating a nation-based renewable ecological economic system meeting the minimum living standards of all within an ecologically conservative paradigm. A free health care system for the poor, a medical corps of publicly trained doctors who would work for 7 years at 75,000 annually before returning to their own nations as licensed physicians—would reduce medical costs in the U.S.A. and increase the number of well educated physicians abroad. Adam Smith was for a healthy nation and populace free of global exploitation by corrupt elements overly concentrating capital in aristocratic networks.

Nash equilibrium is simply one tool for researching given social phenomena, yet the macro-social structure in which the equilibrium is reached is itself subject to intentional change. In eras when social scientists and politicians are not intellectually sterile, more effort is put into construction of a utopian society than in observing a declining society as ‘scientists’ with misapplied formulae and equations observing in error that a deterministic, natural and immutable phenomena is unfolding before their eyes. Such an economic paradigm is the wish of supremacists in economics who pursue cash and power for-itself without regard to the real world and real existential prospects for individual security and actualization within a healthy planetary ecosystem.