There was a song that I used to listen to by Triumph called “It’s Just a Game”. Their theme, at the time, was that life was just one game after the other. Ah. It was a nice theme, but you know, maybe they were right? Humans follow the rules of society, and when you have rules, you are actually playing a game.

Such as described in a particular song “Lay it on the line” where they decry the apparent game-play in relationships. It’s all just a game. Work. Relationships. Career. Family.

It’s all just a game.

And sure things have changed since the late 1970’s when I listened to this music and used the album covers to clean my nickel bags of twigs and seeds. And when I would have parties at my parent’s house with beer, whiskey, and (then illegal) marijuana.

But just because you are not wearing earth shoes, elephant bell-bottom trousers, and a fringe leather vest, doesn’t mean that the ideas and concepts of that time …

…”me and my arrow“, Bread’s “Guitar Man”, “The Peter Principle“, “The Last Whole Earth Catalog“, and 80 cent medium pizzas…

…were just short-lived conceptional fads. Perhaps what we thought at that time was actually correct. Maybe life was actually a game.

And whether you were downing Rolling Rock beer, or Coors, or an imported Beck’s beer you were too distracted to take note on the “rules of the game”. You just accepted your role. Whether it was a pawn, a rook, or a knight.

And maybe…

…just maybe…

…we all have been taking it far too seriously.

And thus, maybe we should sit back, and stop being so anal about life. So what if you want to drive home and have lunch with your family during lunch break? So what if you want to go have a smoke outside? So what if you need to stretch your legs and walk around the building to give yourself a chance to think. So what if you want to have a icy cold beer at lunch with your hamburger?

What?

Burger King does not sell beer!

My goodness!

Well they do in England. For goodness sakes!

Imagine that! Well, why not get a bottle from the quickie-mart, get some takeout burgers and drink the beer, eat the burger in a park?

That’s always a good idea. I used to do that. I would hop in my car, go through the drive through and order a combo meal, and then drive to a shady glade and sit there listening to El’ Rush Bo. I wouldn’t dare buy a beer. That would have gotten me fired. Not that they needed the excuse, mind you. In those days, they treated employees like toilet paper. Use and discard. Use and discard. Use and discard. There was always plenty more where they came from.

Of course, I do not advise sitting in the car listening to Rush Limbaugh right now. Since, he’s dead, and the narrative is still the alt-right US government propaganda. They are still following the script, set forth by John Bolton back in 2016, and drinking coke-cola daily is not good for you, and it’s lonely to boot.

But heck…

Go ahead, get a taco salad, and get a beer from the quickie mart, and go to a park.

What?

No park?

Well, how about driving your car to the never-visited cemetery at the end of the lane. Pulling over and either sitting in your car under the shade of a mighty oak tree, or getting out and enjoying the beer on a granite tombstone?

What?

The grounds-keeper might call the police for observing your flagrant display of enjoying lunch with a beer in a quiet park setting!

Sacrilege!

Like I am saying. We are playing the game too seriously, and we are way too caught up in it.

If you are a corporate drone, and you sit back. Watch how you are participating inside a big elaborate game. And …

… no one can win the game…

…you can only play.

Thus the song from Triumph called “It’s Just a Game“.

It's just a game, you're in it all the way
It's just a game, don't let yourself slip away
It's such a shame, I heard somebody say
It's just a game, and all I can do...is play

And it is a game.

And the rules of the game are constantly changing, and we are all adapting to the changing rules instead of defining our own rules.

Did you realize that they made a female version of Sherlock Holmes? Yup. I am not shitting you. It’s a bonafied version of Sherlock Holmes with his sister taking all the credit. Jeeze! It’s called Enola Holmes (2020).

When Enola Holmes-Sherlock's teen sister-discovers her mother missing, she sets off to find her, becoming a super-sleuth in her own right as she outwits her famous brother and unravels a dangerous conspiracy around a mysterious young Lord.

It’s all just a game.

Don’t get too caught up in it.

I dug up this interesting article on Strategic Culture, and it’s worth a study. Now, before we get into the subject matter too deeply, let’s consider life as a human has evolved (devolved?) into some kind of game with rules. All of which were created by other humans a long, long time ago. And we are all stuck “playing the game”, when we really don’t have to…

The Curse of Game Theory: Why It’s in Your Self-Interest to Exit the Rules of the Game

Game theory, the mathematical theory of games of strategy, was developed by John von Neumann. It was created in several successive stages from 1928 and into 1940-41. It was published in his book “Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour” which he co-authored with Oskar Morgenstern.

The crux of the theory is that an individuals’ behavior will always be motivated towards achieving an optimal outcome, which is determined by self-interest.

An assumption made is that the players in such a game are rational, which translates to, “will strive to maximize their payoffs in the game”.

In other words, it is assumed they are motivated by selfish self-interests.

Over the years, other contributors such as John Nash (Nash equilibrium) and John Maynard Smith (evolutionary stable strategy) have added to the theory.

Today,  we are now at a point where it is considered by many to be an essential tool when modelling economic, political, sociological or military behaviors and outcomes.

As such, it is taught as such in many prestigious universities as something pretty much set in stone.

But what if we have made a terrible mistake?

After all, it is acknowledged by the theorists themselves that the entire functioning of their model relies upon the assumption that we are governed by rational selfish behavior.

People feel confident about this assumption since reality has apparently confirmed this fact to them.

But what if this game is not objectively mirroring a truthful depiction of us?

What if this game has rather, been used as a conditioning tool, a self-fulfilling prophecy, a positive feedback loop?

How can we know what is true?

How can we know what kind of a person we truly are and not what we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as?

Theory of Games and Economic Behavior

Before we can answer such a question, we need to look at the forms of simplification and assumptions that were used.

This may be counter-intuitive to some, but the “philosophy” or “hypothesis” must always precede the actual model.

The [1] variables you choose to use, [2] the variables you discount for, [3] how you define the variables, [4] how you define the relationship between the variables are not being defined by the model, but rather the creator of the model.

Once the model is created it can now, theoretically, add to that beginning structure and mimic a simplified version of reality.

However, we should keep in mind that a model that has been created on a false hypothesis could still “function.”

That is, of course, if the variables are not too much in contradiction to the other variables’ operations.

Such a model is not “aware” that it is not a representation of “reality,” and cannot indicate so to its creator.

Thus, a model can be a representation of a simplified reality or it can represent a completely artificial reality.

The Disclaimers

At the beginning of von Neumann’s book, he goes through several disclaimers which are highly problematic towards the relevance of his theory.

One of them being the acknowledgement that “there exists, at present, no satisfactory treatment of the question of rational behavior.

There may, for example, exist several ways by which to reach the optimum position.

They may depend upon the knowledge and understanding which the individual has and upon the paths of action open to them, because they imply, as must be evident, quantitative relationships.”

As becomes rapidly evident, von Neumann makes endless assertions such as these.

As if they were obvious and thus need not be examined at all.

The assumption that an under-defined “rational” selfish behavior is merely quantifiable and nothing more…

… and does not account for qualitative change (a mathematician’s worst nightmare)…

… is taking great liberty in over-simplifying human behavior to conveniently fit the limited parameters of his model.

In other words, it is cheating.

You are manipulating the definitions and interactions of your variables to fit an artificial reality of your model.

An Example of how this model fails

Let me give you an example.

In Euclid’s fifth postulate, it is considered a “rule” that two parallel lines will never intersect. Euclid was alive around the time of the mid-4th century BCE, before Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) made his beautifully elegant discovery that the Earth was indeed curved and also made a pretty accurate first measurement of the size of Earth.

That is, Euclid assumed a linear geometric space upon which the real universe was expected to “fit”. While it is true that two parallel lines will never meet on a two-dimensional plane, they can meet on a three-dimensional plane.

As is now understood, line A and line G, can be measured as 90 degrees from the equator line and thus are parallel lines, and yet they can eventually interface with each other if the surface is curved.

The problem with assumptions such Euclid’s is that they are ultimately only true in an artificial situation and are not reflective of how such things will interact in reality. Also, there is no way to predict from Euclid’s fifth law, how two parallel lines would interact in a three dimensional space, let alone in n dimensional space as described by the physicist Bernard Riemann.

Ironically, in his book, von Neumann likens his “pioneering” work in the field of game theory to that of what physicists have been doing for centuries, that is, mathematical formulations that represent, albeit simplified, the “laws of nature,” concerning matter and energy. However, von Neumann again showcases that he has no comprehension as to what constitutes the foundation for such “laws of nature.”

In his Hypotheses that Lie at the Foundation of Geometry and other works, Riemann rigorously developed the notion of an anti-Euclidean physical space time shaped not by linear dimensions of an “x,y,z grid”…

…but rather dimensions defined by an ever growing array of discovered physical principles such as magnetism, light, heat, gravity, sound, etc….

… each organizing principle being ironically characterized by both a finiteness and unboundedness with quantized least-action pathways discoverable therein.

According to Euclid’s logic, you never “see” two parallel lines intersecting and thus it is unfathomable that they ever could intersect.

His “rule” was based off of shared assumptions of what we “think” we are observing in such phenomena, however, this is not necessarily reality and it certainly does not translate to a “rule” that governs all.

By von Neumann acknowledging that he himself is heavily relying on his so-called “self-evident” truths in simplifying human behavior…

… he is asserting an outcome…

… he is not proving the outcome’s natural occurrence.

The Robinson Crusoe example in Monetarist Economic Theory

According to von Neumann, the Robinson Crusoe example was used by the Austrian economic school to model an individual’s behavior towards maximizing pay-off in an environment (in this case an island) where the resources available to you are set and limited.

There are many problems with this…

… but the most unforgivable one is the assumption of a set, limited and unchanging reserve of resources available to the individual.

In other words, the Austrian school of economy and von Neumann with them, consider Crusoe’s deserted island as the perfect case study for a limited resource, zero-sum game scenario.

Ironically, this assertion is entirely missing the point of what actually occurs in Daniel Defoe’s story of “Robinson Crusoe,”…

…and it causes one to wonder whether these theorists ever read the book or rather read a two line cliff’s notes synopsis.

Henry C. Carey, Lincoln’s economic advisor, would say in his book “Unity of Law” (1872):

“Crusoe having made a bow, had thus acquired wealth; that wealth exhibiting itself in the power obtained over certain natural properties of wood and muscular fibre, thereby enabling him to secure increased supplies of food with greatly diminished expenditure of labor. 

Having made a canoe, he found his wealth much increased, his new machine enabling him to obtain still further increase of food, and of the raw materials of clothing, at still decreased cost of personal effort. 

Erecting a pole on his canoe, he now commands the services of wind, and with each and every step in this direction finds himself advancing, with constantly accelerated rapidity, toward becoming master of nature, and a being of real wealth and power.”

Does that sound like the description of a “limited resource,” “zero-sum game” scenario?

In other words, where is the “set” limit?

The limit is constantly being readjusted to what the individual creates which changes his/her relationship to the “utility” of the resource.

For example, the resource wood, depending on the individual’s innovation can be used to keep one warm and dry, cook food, create weapons, create shelter, create a ship for travel etc. etc.

The existence of yet-to-be-created potential thus offsets the entire system of von Neumann because his system has no way of predicting potential, i.e. qualitative transformations, nor how it will affect behavior.

If you cannot predict future qualitative change, which is ongoing, such as the discovery of electricity or the creation of man-made Plutonium and other transuranic elements…

… or the potential waiting to be unlocked by the very feasible fusion plasma torch that can turn landfills into resource mines…

… how can you assume a defined set limit or even a defined zero-sum game as a “self-evident” truth when you cannot even predict what is the limit?

The Supposed Paradox of “The Greatest Good for the Greatest Possible Number”

In von Neumann’s book he refers to “the greatest good for the greatest possible number” as a contradiction, because according to von Neumann you cannot maximize two or more functions at once, that in a social economy, all maxima are desired at once by various players.

That is, there is no concept that it is possible to cooperate and share an optimal outcome, without it coming out of “your” share so to speak, that comes at a cost of having less instead of more.

This is a very basic understanding of economy, and again does not account for how cooperation and creative potential can work to transform the “goods” of an outcome.

For instance, country A is militarily stronger than country B, which is rich in many raw resources. 

Country A is also stronger politically than country B in that, there are no other countries that will likely intervene against country A’s actions if it chooses to invade country B. 

What course of action will yield the greatest return to country A?

Well, there is a very obvious answer to that question; however, contrary to popular thought it will not yield the greatest optimal outcome.

The greatest optimal outcome is rather to cooperate.

It is in both country A and country B’s best interest to share knowledge, even if country A has much more knowledge, such that country B develops the capability to refine its raw resources.

By doing so, country B will yield a greater return in trade over the long-term to country A, and country A does not have to worry about a future retaliation from country B.

By developing a more advanced economy the wealth of trade is increased for both countries.

By cooperation, the optimal outcome is transformed and offers a greater return.

This is exactly the model that is being used by China presently in their philosophy of “win-win cooperation,” and it has proven itself most effective despite all attempts to villainize it as something nefarious.

Rather than fight over resources, there is a cooperation to share technology, increase resource yield and share a greater boon than originally existed.

John von Neumann goes on to state in his book, that the more players in the model, the easier it is to predict the outcome, since the use of statistics and probability are increasingly better indicators of behavior and performance. As he states:

“When the number of participants becomes really great, some hope emerges that the influence of every particular participant will become negligible and that the above difficulties may recede and a more conventional theory become possible. These are, of course, the classical conditions of ‘free competition’.”

He goes on to use the example of our solar system, with its nine major bodies, as being much harder to model than 10^25 freely moving gas particles, as per gas theory, simply due to the sheer number of objects you are dealing with.

This is truly a remarkably absurd statement, where von Neumann is asserting that if the solar system had more major bodies orbiting within it, it would thus be easier to model based off of probability.

Every planet in our solar system is a different size and weight, with a different number of moons. Every planet revolves around the sun in imperfect elliptical orbits that change slowly overtime, the planets travel along these orbits in a non-uniform way that is observable through planetary retrograde motions.

The fact is that our solar system is not some perfectly closed system that is uniform and consistent in its actions, there are cyclical changes but there are also non-cyclical changes that are occurring.

This is due to our solar system orbiting around a galactic center of the Milky Way which is itself moving in yet-to-be discovered ways within a larger cluster of galaxies.

Therefore, you cannot use any theory of probability because the system is in a state of ongoing non-linear change. The more bodies you add to such a system the more complex it becomes, not the more negligible.

For example, there exists no straightforward formula to identify all prime numbers, though there are an infinite number of prime numbers.

Prime numbers are a reflection of a non-linear process of change.

Such an oversimplification of nature shows the audacity behind the assumptions that make up such formulations like game theory.

You are nothing more than a virtual avatar in their synthetic world with programmed limits to what you can and cannot do in the game they have created for you.

• Game theory does not represent the motivations behind human nature, but rather imposes such limitations since, as they acknowledge themselves, it is easier to predict and control your chosen selfish behaviors which are encouraged and rewarded with “incentives.”
• It is a system of enslavement that encourages its slaves to fight each other for “table scraps” and never question the hand that withholds, the system that creates false scarcity and promotes antagonism over artificial stressors.
• We are taught never to question the rules given to us in these game theory scenarios, but to react accordingly to what has been defined to us as a limited set of options in an artificial scenario.

Perhaps the best indicator to this is, ironically, the very creator of the prisoner’s dilemma, John Nash. Nash had won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1994 for his “landmark” work beginning in the 1950s on game theory.

Although it is not clear whether he was suffering with paranoid schizophrenia when he developed the Nash Equilibrium, starting in 1959, Nash would go in and out of mental hospitals for over nine years.

In 2007, he was interviewed while still working at Princeton. Here is his very unselfish offering of his “enlightenment” (his words) on game theory after over 50 years of work in the field. Keep in mind he is using the definition of rational behavior according to game theory, which is defined as a selfish self-interest:

“I have had some trouble myself on the psychological level; I’ve been in mental hospitals…

I realize that what I had said at some time may have overemphasized rationality…

And I don’t want to overemphasize rational thinking on the part of humans…

Human beings are much more complicated, the human being as a businessman….

Human behavior is not entirely motivated by self-interest of each human…

...game theory works in terms of self-interest, but…

...some game theory concepts could be unsound. There is over-dependence on rationality. That is my enlightenment.”

This article was originally published on Strategic Culture.

MM Ending Thoughts

The entire West are basing all their plans, their strategies, their efforts, and their predictions upon “Game Theory”. But this theory is faulted,; tremendously faulted, and those that follow it against a society that has a better understanding of how the world works, will lose.

And the entire world is waking up to this realization.

There’s one easy prediction, though. The US is just about done as a world power, society, economy, concept or even joke. 

- One night in Amerika

Inside America you have people that are watching their world crumble around them… and it’s not a game, and they want out.

On the global stage, we see nations in competition and those that follow the “Game theory” model fail, time and time again.

The world belongs to those societies that embrace things as they are, and not as they want them to be. And that means getting off the game board, and changing out the game pieces for real, tangible and accurate measures of society.

Daily Video Report

I am going to add a semi-daily video report on what is going on in China. This is going to be my first one. I took it about 45 minutes ago. I guess you can say it’s my pissed off opinions to counter the wide-spread of lies and disinformation that bombards my morning feeds day-in and day-out.

You can view it HERE. 137MB. I talk a bit about cameras and why the “color revolution” sponsored by the NED (the CIA) failed in Hong Kong. Of course, you will never read what I am talking about in the Western press.

They have more important things to talk about, don’t you know…

• Prosecutors investigating Trump tell witness to prepare for grand jury testimony…
• CLAIM: The Don intervened to stop probe of Patriots’ Spygate scandal…
• Bezos to Own ‘APPRENTICE’ Tapes?

Do you want more?

You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.

.

Articles & Links

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.