It has been observed in physics that when a particle may have come from 2 different pools of particles and theres no way to tell which (physically lacking that information, not just ignorance), the 2 pools are entangled as a result. Could this be extended to the "observer" putting force toward being less aware of which pool it came from (if it was between entangled and not, or say more entangled by more probability-amplitude on the ket-vectors of the combinations)? The makers of Quantum Radar thought so, even though they say their experiment didnt turn out well, I think they didnt take it far enough.
There was a TED video, I forget what it was called, where everyone in the audience had a button they could hold down or not at any time, controlling 1 pixel on the big display everyone could see. Acting toward the same goal together, said by someone on stage, they were able to quickly form basic shapes and letters. This is the most misunderstood ability we have. Why hasnt it been further explored?
I want to create a Nash Equilibrium where the best strategy for everyone is to play game-theory games through the Internet, with the mouse or other forms of interaction like brain chips or Emotiv Epoc mind reading game controller, whatever form of vector input and output in general, and most importantly these vectors will amplify eachothers prediction ability by helping people to predict eachother recursively, so when some of the players watch movements of wind in the weather, stock prices, or anything needing prediction, the network would pull prediction from other people like neuromodulation.
Neuromodulation is simply the difference between my mouse movements predicting yours and yours predicting mine, whichever short term memory gets Nash Equilibrium'ed into place temporarily, the supply and demand of information flow between neurons, some acting out of surprise (See Jeff Hawkins "surprise goes up the hierarchy" of neocortex) and needing more info and others acting toward that surprise with hedged stability to push against.
This is why I need to understand games of many people moving the same mouse cursor. Its literally neuromodulation except between people instead of just brain cells, but of course brain cells will do it while playing the game, as if we were all one big brain.
I still dont think you are using the term hedge correctly though because you aren't quantifying risk.
In such a game, left/right of the mouse is like buy/sell, driven by whatever could motivate the players to try to move like the MINORITY PREDICTION as displayed on screen at the time. The risk is the other players moving their mouse in a way that puts your prediction in MAJORITY so you see it move opposite direction on screen and you lose that round, so you would lose influence among the other players who are trying to be more like those who are able to predict in the minority more often. The hedging is if the players would learn to mostly half of them move left while half of them move right, while some of them move as needed to get some other game actions done with such movements. A player would hedge against others' mouse movements by finding a way to get the total mouse movements to go a certain direction regardless of what the other players are doing, by having influence on them at the time through the subtleties of this dancing together with the mouse. The stock market is like a dance, but you might not see it that way if it takes months or years to make a single move. I'm going for something more realtime as it works on all scales.
Whats stopping me is how to remove the players (theoretically not built yet) which do not add anything to prediction ability because they just do something random or copy others or hook in a random number generator and spam the network in the worst case.
There is an important part of math... A bunch of random bit vars, observed many times together, has an XOR between each pair of equally as often 1 or 0 (the XOR finds opposite or not), but if you do that on a group of bit vars held to have the same number of 0s and 1s while being random in all other ways (like you randomize them then see how many 1s and 0s then choose some random bit vars to adjust toward standard deviation 0) then you get XOR of slightly more 1s than 0s (they are opposites more often because once you observe one of them the others are known to have more of the opposite bit). But if you take the XOR between 2 groups each of standard deviation 0 within the group, its still balanced XOR between them, unbalanced within either alone. This is what the MINORITY PREDICTION is based on. Your prediction is 1 of the bits, and the others must have slightly more of the other direction to cancel.
I need a Nash Equilibrium between all these mouse movements, but I also need a money-like system to reward good predictions so the randomness gets overpowered. Bitcoin's "proof of work" design can provide seed money, in a very basic form maybe just do a SHA256 until you get a few bits of improbability to allow a network connection, and gamble on from there.
But its not even that simple. I need it to branch into many games of this MINORITY PREDICTION since just 1 would leave a very boring game where you took commands from many others but had very little influence on your own. Instead it needs to flow together as many smaller games partially intersecting, like a bunch of stocks vibrating and related to eachother.
So I know how to measure prediction in the simplest case of mouse movements in one game, and a few other cases in artificial intelligence, but these more advanced forms I'm not sure how to proceed.
