Let us suppose that there exist another kinds of logical space where another kind of mental files ( definitions of notions ) of cultural anthropology is realized. Thus,
MF1. Cultural Anthropology 1.0. is an observer - dependent speculative study of Man ( hence, culture-dependent, race-dependent, class-dependent, generally, identity -dependent types of CA are deduced and collective work of anthropologists could be considered as a kind of game, where Truth is Nash equilibrium ). Corresspondingly, sociology as a part of anthropology 1.0. is merely applied statistics of the social facts.
MF2. Anthropology 2.0. is observer-dependent scientific study ( used sci instruments, detectors, tools, experiments, computer simulations, mathematical tests, etc ) of Man ( including mathematical study of Man as mathematical object in the form of the sets, topological objects, local fields, high dim algebraic objects,functions, equations,categories, units of information, units of complexity and space-time manifolds )
A pointer and a question.
Pointer: For those who want to know, the Wikipedia article on Nash equilibrium is pretty good.
Question: I am trying to get my head around the idea of Truth as Nash equilibrium. Is the intended meaning here that everyone is stuck in positions where there is no incentive to change?
John, Thank You.
I supposed that collective work of anthropologists could be considered as a kind of NON-COOPERATIVE games, where truth-seekers can achieve some rational equilibrium. Non-exact definition of Nash equilibrium is situation when NOBODY REGRETS about the choice of another player.
Or, in other words, everyone is doing the best they can while remaining indifferent to what others may do?
It is valid in the case of non-cooperative games approximation. Different games for different cases of competition/cooperation could be formulated. It is well established area of mathematics in social sciences. Some cases can contain unknown theorems, indeed. Nevertheless, limits of mental file 1 are defined.