This has to be a very loose thought that is relevant to an overview of TWOC. It must be so because it is complete cutting edge on the line of thinking that I am developing (not the act of thinking but the direction of the coherent logic).
It has to do with observation and games, which has been explained before to be related to our perspectives on them. And then the different rules and regulations and the different ways they are implemented and/or represented also necessarily effect the make-up of the field that initiate, represent, or quantify “action” within these models, games, or the reality we mean to represent.
First there is some simple model I wish to present that would be either viewed on a 2-d plane or 3-d (or I guess obviously n-d).
Especially for convenience we view this model in a circular fashion of different players of a game already locked in an NE. The circular fashion has to do with both the concept of individual (ie players) and also observation which will become apparent as we continue.
These players are trapped in a NE which suggest that no player can UNILATERALLY deviate. We can represent this with hands, that act like strategy choices that are already hanging on to some equilibrium strategy that is then the highest rewarding strategy for the individual given the situation.
That is to say there might be a higher paying strategy that is within the individuals grasp yet they could not safely reach for without fear of losing out to other players in some form or fashion.
If all players played this higher level strategy then there might be said to be gain at least on average to all players involved.
Then we might suggest this situation in which if ALL players simultaneously reached for this strategy there could be maintained a form of equilibrium. Of course this requires a form of cooperation that must be attained essentially technologically.
Observation and Measuring Devices
Here we bridge this metaphor with its usefulness. We can imagine this situation but with the possibility of hidden strategies or hidden actors. If we understand for example that we might not want to be the last person left with our hand in the cookie jar so to speak, or the last individual playing the inferior strategy, that all others have begun to cooperate on, there might then be some discomfort or uneasiness related to an opponent whos strategy we cannot see (like a player sitting across from us but from an obstructed view.
Certain types of uncertainty in this regard could play different roles then in both the ultimate achieve and achievable NE’s that come into play or could come into play.
Taking it further this is obviously related to measuring and observation devices that might be able to more accurately (or less) obtain information that is necessary for optimal decision making in this regard.
It is important to reiterate there must be models or game that benefit in this regard to worse observation and device as well sort of like an equilibrium that can’t be disrupted because the participants are either too dumb or lazy to deviate (readers not familiar with TWOC will have much to protest about this possibility).
So the observation device, or mechanism and its accuracy dramatically comes into play in regard to stability of equilibrium and what could be optimal strategy that could be achieved.
Re-Solutance of Relativity
Then we have an interesting understand in regard to the relationship of relativity and TWOC. Since rules and propriety and players and society, and fields etc. are all interchangeable from different orders and different perspectives, we should be able to see and understand the relationship of the observer and the observed.
Krishnamurti often suggests that the observer IS the observed, and I think this is relevant here especially when we bring in the analyzer of the data (even though clearly the analyzer in this regard is the analyzed as well!)
The observer in this regard should not be seen as a separate conscious entity (or possibly still could) but rather some mechanism or subset of a mechanism or subset game itself. The importance here lies not with the observation device but rather the analyzer of it, which itself (him/herself) is also simply an observer.
I don’t know if I can take this further here, I may need a formalized language.
There may be some suggestion here that the overall result of experiments that seem probabilistic are simply some fair distribution of possibilities (ie NE) that are to be rendered by our understand of games but in TWOC understanding.
Another Possible Solution
So there is another possible solution available I think that may be strange at first but obvious in some was. It comes from a conjecture that IF the field of players had levate towards a new or higher existing equilibrium (whether impossible implausible improbable or not..) it seems it could be suggested it might be impossible to move backwards because of the implied momentum.
This suggests through paradox’s like some of zenos that a fluctuation in measuring, analysis, or observational capacities among competing entity could excite the players to a new solution. This could happen without the actual implementation of a higher order technology in what would be the tradition TWOC explanation.
Much like tricking the entities into co-operation but still in the form of competitive nature as the basis of stability. This is new, I haven’t read anything of this sort, and I don’t expect to.
This also seems to be the beginning of re-solutance in regard to bohmian science and the nashian kind which has great ramification in regard to the Szabonian economics that are no doubt to arise.