The Director of the Future Planet Research Centre- David Hunter Tow, advocates the need in an increasingly globalised world, to switch to more rigorous negotiating methods such as Quantum Game Theory, to help resolve humanitarian, resource allocation and global warming issues.
Crunch time has arrived for planet earth and its human cargo. The easy options on managing the planet for all humanity’s benefit are over.
A number of critical decision points have converged in our civilisation’s evolution, which will demand better methods of global cooperation and resolution.
Global issues such as climate change, spread of dangerous diseases, expansion of terrorism, endemic poverty, refugee relocation, food and water scarcity, equal access to the web and knowledge – all demand international resolution on a fair and equitable basis.
Political diplomacy alone is not providing the answers. In the 21st century, traditional negotiating methods, leader summits etc, have proved inadequate- not agile enough, uncertain in their resolution, lacking sufficient rigor; falling far short of the level of sophistication needed to manage the critical stresses and constraints facing our future world.
Every process and field of knowledge on which human quality of life depends is in the process of ratcheting up its decision tempo and complexity- manufacturing and engineering, computing and communications, economics and finance, health and education, science and technology.
So now with the tsunami of change upon us, the mechanisms for ensuring the quality and validity of global decision-making must also be held to account- opened to more rigorous scrutiny.
A number of techniques hold out promise for salvation, including the application of algorithmic and artificial intelligence, new network and adaptive system theory and innovative paradigms. But none holds out greater hope than Game Theory and in particular its latest incarnation- Quantum Game theory.
Game theory had its genesis well over 50 years ago, providing a mathematical basis for capturing the essence of strategic negotiations between parties or game resolution. Economists, evolutionary biologists, social scientists and even diplomats have all attempted to harness its magic to underpin their analysis of a wide range of game scenarios.
Originally the theory focussed on analysing economic and business negotiating processes, including the bargaining tactics of firms, markets, and consumers in the division of public goods and assets. But it soon expnded to encompass political, sociological, and psychological patterns of behaviour. In each area researchers have developed game theoretic models in which the players seek to maximise their gains in negotiations by applying a more rational and mathematically rigorous approach.
Typical applications of the theory attempt to find an equilibrium solution or optimum zero-sum outcome in these contests, based on the competing strategies of all participants. The parties involved seek to optimise their strategies so as to achieve the most desirable outcomes for themselves.
These strategies are therefore based on norms of rationality and self-interest, but at the same time expose major weaknesses in the method. As has been demonstrated recently with the collapse of standard economic theory, humans are rarely rational, and the concept of reaching a stable equilibrium point does not exist in our complicated society, with billions of interacting variables. In addition cooperation between parties often achieves better outcomes than aggressive self-interested competition.
In traditional non-cooperative Game theory, the most famous mathematical scenario is the Nash equilibrium, in which players are assumed to know the strategies of the others and finally have nothing further to gain by changing their own self-serving positions. But in many cases the players might improve their payoffs if they could agree on a more coooperative strategy incorporating more flexible positions.
But classical Game Theory has another big flaw. It is based on participants receiving clear and reliable information of others’ strategic intentions. This also rarely happens in real life, in which cheating or duplicitous tactics in negotiations are often the norm, allowing loopholes for recalcitrant parties or ‘free riders’. These are players who for whatever reason, are not willing to pull their weight or stand by their commitment to make the sacrifices required for the greater good; but nevertheless will still attempt to share in the overall benefits. This is the elephant in the game room that quantum theory can address.
Benefits for example are often about rights to ‘public goods’ or globally shared rights and resources such as clean air, adequate food and water, human rights, basic health care and education.
In the ‘public goods’ game a number of individuals or governments choose how much to contribute to achieve a desirable public benefit. such as commiting to the maintainence of CO2 levels below a dangerous threshold or trade access by developing nations to wealthy markets. The total value of the financial or social contributions are then multiplied by a factor representing the payoff that should accrue from such a contracted investment. The assessed benefit is then redistributed back to the contributors.
If all the players add to the common pool, then everyone benefits from the investment outcomes. But if some cheat by not contributing their fair share or reneg on previously negotiated commitments, other players may also lose the incentive to be involved and the projected payoff will be lost to all parties.
The quantum version of game theory helps avoid this dilemna. In the quantum game, players are linked by the uniquely quantum phenomenon of Entanglement. Technically any two physical particles such as electrons or photons that are originally linked, stay bound together even over vast distances and timeframes. When one particle changes its properties such as its spin or polarisation, the other also immediately changes in a complementary way. Each particle therefore keeps tabs on the other and automatically reacts if a change is sensed.
Enterprises and governments are already using quantum entanglement in encryption devices and soon prototype quantum computers. It therefore appears feasible to apply such technology to achieve more rigorous negotiating outcomes. Participants could verify the authenticity of others’ negotiating positions, substituting tokens and readout indicators for entangled particle interactions.
All players in a game will then be linked in an unbreakable network. A change in the state of any one token will instantly indicate an undisclosed anomoly in strategy or commitment to all others, who can then immediately adjust their own negotiating positions in response.
This reduces the opportunity for free loading or fraudulent behaviour by any of the negotiating parties, thereby guaranteeing a fairer outcome. In the high stakes global negotiations rapidly escalating in this century, in which the future of the planet is literally at stake, it is vital that such fail-safe methods are applied.
Technologies such as entanglement that can help authenticate agreed positions are now desperately needed. The recognition is increasingly clear that the only by cooperating genuinely on a global basis can the major problems of humanity be solved.
Free loading, when the future of humanity is in the balance, is not an option anymore.
The Director of the Future Planet Research Centre- David Hunter Tow, advocates the need in an increasingly globalised world, to switch to more rigorous negotiating methods such as Quantum Game Theory, to help resolve humanitarian, resource allocation and global warming issues.
Crunch time has arrived for planet earth and its human cargo. The easy options on managing the planet for all humanity’s benefit are over.
A number of critical decision points have converged in our civilisation’s evolution, which will demand better methods of global cooperation and resolution.
Global issues such as climate change, spread of dangerous diseases, expansion of terrorism, endemic poverty, refugee relocation, food and water scarcity, equal access to the web and knowledge – all demand international resolution on a fair and equitable basis.
Political diplomacy alone is not providing the answers. In the 21st century, traditional negotiating methods, leader summits etc, have proved inadequate- not agile enough, uncertain in their resolution, lacking sufficient rigor; falling far short of the level of sophistication needed to manage the critical stresses and constraints facing our future world.
Every process and field of knowledge on which human quality of life depends is in the process of ratcheting up its decision tempo and complexity- manufacturing and engineering, computing and communications, economics and finance, health and education, science and technology.
So now with the tsunami of change upon us, the mechanisms for ensuring the quality and validity of global decision-making must also be held to account- opened to more rigorous scrutiny.
A number of techniques hold out promise for salvation, including the application of algorithmic and artificial intelligence, new network and adaptive system theory and innovative paradigms. But none holds out greater hope than Game Theory and in particular its latest incarnation- Quantum Game theory.
Game theory had its genesis well over 50 years ago, providing a mathematical basis for capturing the essence of strategic negotiations between parties or game resolution. Economists, evolutionary biologists, social scientists and even diplomats have all attempted to harness its magic to underpin their analysis of a wide range of game scenarios.
Originally the theory focussed on analysing economic and business negotiating processes, including the bargaining tactics of firms, markets, and consumers in the division of public goods and assets. But it soon expnded to encompass political, sociological, and psychological patterns of behaviour. In each area researchers have developed game theoretic models in which the players seek to maximise their gains in negotiations by applying a more rational and mathematically rigorous approach.
Typical applications of the theory attempt to find an equilibrium solution or optimum zero-sum outcome in these contests, based on the competing strategies of all participants. The parties involved seek to optimise their strategies so as to achieve the most desirable outcomes for themselves.
These strategies are therefore based on norms of rationality and self-interest, but at the same time expose major weaknesses in the method. As has been demonstrated recently with the collapse of standard economic theory, humans are rarely rational, and the concept of reaching a stable equilibrium point does not exist in our complicated society, with billions of interacting variables. In addition cooperation between parties often achieves better outcomes than aggressive self-interested competition.
In traditional non-cooperative Game theory, the most famous mathematical scenario is the Nash equilibrium, in which players are assumed to know the strategies of the others and finally have nothing further to gain by changing their own self-serving positions. But in many cases the players might improve their payoffs if they could agree on a more coooperative strategy incorporating more flexible positions.
But classical Game Theory has another big flaw. It is based on participants receiving clear and reliable information of others’ strategic intentions. This also rarely happens in real life, in which cheating or duplicitous tactics in negotiations are often the norm, allowing loopholes for recalcitrant parties or ‘free riders’. These are players who for whatever reason, are not willing to pull their weight or stand by their commitment to make the sacrifices required for the greater good; but nevertheless will still attempt to share in the overall benefits. This is the elephant in the game room that quantum theory can address.
Benefits for example are often about rights to ‘public goods’ or globally shared rights and resources such as clean air, adequate food and water, human rights, basic health care and education.
In the ‘public goods’ game a number of individuals or governments choose how much to contribute to achieve a desirable public benefit. such as commiting to the maintainence of CO2 levels below a dangerous threshold or trade access by developing nations to wealthy markets. The total value of the financial or social contributions are then multiplied by a factor representing the payoff that should accrue from such a contracted investment. The assessed benefit is then redistributed back to the contributors.
If all the players add to the common pool, then everyone benefits from the investment outcomes. But if some cheat by not contributing their fair share or reneg on previously negotiated commitments, other players may also lose the incentive to be involved and the projected payoff will be lost to all parties.
The quantum version of game theory helps avoid this dilemna. In the quantum game, players are linked by the uniquely quantum phenomenon of Entanglement. Technically any two physical particles such as electrons or photons that are originally linked, stay bound together even over vast distances and timeframes. When one particle changes its properties such as its spin or polarisation, the other also immediately changes in a complementary way. Each particle therefore keeps tabs on the other and automatically reacts if a change is sensed.
Enterprises and governments are already using quantum entanglement in encryption devices and soon prototype quantum computers. It therefore appears feasible to apply such technology to achieve more rigorous negotiating outcomes. Participants could verify the authenticity of others’ negotiating positions, substituting tokens and readout indicators for entangled particle interactions.
All players in a game will then be linked in an unbreakable network. A change in the state of any one token will instantly indicate an undisclosed anomoly in strategy or commitment to all others, who can then immediately adjust their own negotiating positions in response.
This reduces the opportunity for free loading or fraudulent behaviour by any of the negotiating parties, thereby guaranteeing a fairer outcome. In the high stakes global negotiations rapidly escalating in this century, in which the future of the planet is literally at stake, it is vital that such fail-safe methods are applied.
Technologies such as entanglement that can help authenticate agreed positions are now desperately needed. The recognition is increasingly clear that the only by cooperating genuinely on a global basis can the major problems of humanity be solved.
Free loading, when the future of humanity is in the balance, is not an option anymore.
