On the Re‐Framing of Heisenberg Via The Synthesis of 3 Player Pro‐Cooperative Games With Base Byzantine Generals Problem - jalToorey/IdealMoney GitHub Wiki

On the Rheomode to frame

(This section which serves to create the rheomode 're-framation' which is used in other essays has now been updated as the wording was incorrect from its original intention, and so across other essays etc there may need to be related updating)

We need a word/Rheomode to call attention, to the framing of a content, which in effect changes the nature or observations of the content.

In the spirit of Bohm's rheomodes we can think of 'framation' as to change the nature of the observations of content, by calling attention to the way it's framed.

And thus 're-framation' can be to call attention or awareness to a previous framation to change the nature of the framated content (ie 'to framate again').

Nash Pro-cooperative 3 Players Games

Related to the display charts we are presenting is a concept of "pro-cooperative games".~Nash meme pro-cooperative games

From Nash’s Research Studies Approaching Cooperative Games with New Methods he outlines the concept of pro-cooperative games with 3 players:

When Three-Player Games Might be Pro-Cooperative

If we consider, for simplicity, games of three players that are DEFINED by the specification of a “characteristic function” for the game then, in this familiar category of games, (we can ask) which of them should intrinsically favor that the players will be induced to cooperate similarly to how they might behave if they were in a simple (generalized) “bargaining problem game” with three players?

How Some Games Might Not Be Pro-Cooperative

A specified game may also have intrinsic characteristics that make it plausible that, even though it is a “cooperative game” in that the players are regarded as free to undertake all sorts of cooperative acts of collaboration (outside of the formal structure of the presentation of the game), they might NATURALLY not act in a simple pattern of cooperation (and the sharing, somehow, of wealth and resources) but rather there might be various differing forms of behavior that might possibly emerge as the observable behavior of the players.

This is analogous to the patterns observed in international politics and warfare, where shifting alliances and patterns of opposition have emerged regularly, for example, in European history.

On the Re-Framation of the Base Case Byzantine General’s Problem as a 3 player Pro-cooperative Game

Nash’s specification and framing of pro-cooperative 3 players games fits our generalization of the base case framing for the Byzantine general’s problem via considerations of the wave particle duality/uncertainty.

We consider consensus on either attack or retreat as if there may be observation of a wave or a particle depending on the consensus of the observers (or there may not be a collapse beyond flux between either possible phenomenon if there is no consensus.).

The rest of the mapping we feel is quite natural EXCEPT for the concept and necessity of consideration of the number of players.

Considerations of Natural as a Natural Objective Arbitrator of Truth Via Observational Consensus.

Hence, no solution exists for three generals that works in the presence of a single traitor.

If we consider the extension of our mapping here there is an issue. Depending on how the observations and experiments are arranged between the variables that determine consensus on what is observed it can be said or shown that reality can’t be used for such convergence (with a Byzantine General type mapping of wave/particle duality we can’t use observations to define consensus because we mean for consensus to define ‘that which is observed’). This is naturally and simply and obvious issue with the Copenhagen interpretation.

We feel it's what Einstein meant with his probabilistic complaint.

Hidden Players in Regard to Mapping of 3 Player Pro-Cooperative Games to The Base BGP Via Quantum/Uncertainty Considerations

We might consider reality as determined by nature, the observer, and the experimental details etc. Is the scientist doing the experiment the observer? Or does the impartial scientist not involved in the experiment count?

The problem here is when the ‘west’ wants their war opponent (ie russia) to confirm. We can’t expect a scientifically unbiased confirmation with regard to anything that has strategic political ramifications.

We can certainly then see the intense futility if there was a third player that was a shadow player, intrinsically assumed to not exist.