Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
Nashian game theory is incompatible with quantum physics
arXiv
Authors: Michal Baczyk, Ghislain Fourny
Year
2021
Paper ID
40893
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
154
Citations
N/A
Abstract
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. We translate physical notions of causality, correlation, counterfactuals, and contextuality to particular aspects of game theory. We investigate the causal consistency of dynamic games with imperfect information from the quantum perspective and conclude that counterfactual dependencies should be distinguished from causation and correlation as a separate phenomenon of its own. 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.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2021 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We suggest to look at quantum measurement outcomes not through the lens of probability theory, but instead through decision theory.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.