The Inaccessible Game
Abstract
In this talk we will explore a zero-player game based on an information isolation constraint. The dynamics of the game emerge from a “no-barber” selection principle that prohibits external structure. The aim is for the game to avoid impredictive-style inconsistencies. Motivated by the selection principle we will derive a “selected” trajectory in the game that consists of a second-order constrained maximum entropy production along the information geometry.
The No-Barber Principle
In 1901 Bertrand Russell introduced a paradox: if a barber shaves everyone in the village who does not shave themselves, does the barber shave themselves? The paradox arises when a definition quantifies over a totality that includes the defining rule itself.
We propose a similar constraint for the inaccessible game: the foundational rules must not refer to anything outside themselves for adjudication or reference. Or in other words there can be no external structure. We call this the “no-barber principle.”
Without such consistency, we would require what we might call a “Munchkin provision.” In the Munchkin card game (Jackson-munchkin01?), it is acknowledged that the cards and rules may be inconsistent. Their resolution?
Any other disputes should be settled by loud arguments, with the owner of the game having the last word.
Munckin Rules (Jackson-munchkin01?)
While this works for card games, it’s unsatisfying for foundational mathematics. We want our game to be internally consistent, not requiring an external referee to resolve paradoxes.
Figure: The Munchkin card came has both cards and rules. The game explicitly acknowledges that this can lead to inconsistencies which should be resolved by the game owner.
The no-barber principle says that admissible rules must be internally adjudicable: they depend only on quantities definable from within the system’s internal language, without requiring e.g. an external observer to define what’s distinguishable, or a pre-specified outcome space or \(\sigma\)-algebra, a privileged decomposition into subsystems an externally defined time parameter or spatial coordinates.
Entropic Exchangeability
The no-barber principle leads to what we call entropic exchangeability: any admissible constraint or selection criterion must depend only on reduced subsystem descriptions, be invariant under relabeling of subsystems, and not presuppose access to globally distinguishable joint configurations.
This is an attempt to introduce a consistency requirement that prevents the rules from appealing to distinctions the game itself cannot represent.
What This Excludes
Many seemingly natural constraints violate the no-barber principle. For example, partial conservation which assumes only some variables are isolated, privileges those variables. A time varying \(C\) would require an external time parameter. The notion of observer relative isolation would require an observer that cannot be defined externally. Probabilistic isolation also requires an externally defined probabilistic space.
Foundations: Information Loss and Entropy
The Inaccessible Game Setup
{Inspired by the no-barber principle, we set up the game in a way that attempts to avoid “external structure”. The first two things we need to do this are 1. A representation of information loss 2. A prohibition of information exchange with the game
At this point there’s a challenge, how do we obtain a representation of information loss without including external structure? Our best suggestion is the axiomatic frameworks of Baez et al (Baez et al. (2011)) and Parzygnat ((Parzygnat?)
Open Questions
Many questions remain:
- Can we formalize the no-barber principle more rigorously?
- What is the right internal notion of “stage”/sample space for the game?
- When are selections actually forced (vs design degrees of freedom)?
- Can this be extended beyond symmetric configurations / beyond the origin?
- What other structures emerge from internal adjudicability?
These point toward future work at the intersection of information theory, geometry, and foundations.
Thanks!
For more information on these subjects and more you might want to check the following resources.
- company: Trent AI
- book: The Atomic Human
- twitter: @lawrennd
- podcast: The Talking Machines
- newspaper: Guardian Profile Page
- blog: http://inverseprobability.com