Nash Equilibrium: The Game Theory

Since I am going to be on leave for quite a while, then i guess i would leave you people with something to *think* while i am away. I have been trying to complete this posting for few days and at last (al-Hamdulillah) here i come for you. This thing is quite complex (welcome to the complexity of economists hehe) , so if you have any question/comment you are free to throw the ideas. Maybe I am right, but maybe i am wrong too. We share knowledge with each other ok.

Ops, anyway does the topic above rings a bell to someone? ;) hahah Ok, I was really into this economic terms last weekend when someone called me to ask me very detail on basic economic terms: Supply & Demand. Lucky her (erm..do not know whether it is really a luck or what since she was confused with so many version of answers received from her other fellow friends), I had a book written by Michael R Baye on managerial economic and business strategy. Just discovered that he was graduated from Purdue University. Hmm, hebat juga yer university tu. Mampu keluarkan ramai penulis Ilmiah.;)

Ok, back to the topic. Well, as what claimed by the economist , economics studies covering all aspect of life including economy, income level to the politic, sociology, crime, education etc etc. So as a good economist student, I am supposed to be able to relate economic theory on the aspect of life. Here I found out that actually we could also use Nash Equilibrium in proving the existence of God;). Actually, someone told me about this but in non-economic ways. So, saje je suka2 tgk tiba2 tgk ada concept yg boleh apply juga. I just give a shoot here.

That thing goes this way:
I am trying to evaluate the value for believing in GOD and believing that world existed by mother nature (as what belief by the Atheist).

With:
A represents the Non-Believer or Atheist
B represents the Believer
&
(1) represents safe condition
(-1) represents dangerous condition

With ceteris paribus (other things remain constant), suppose at one time God can be existed or not existed at all. Thus the combination of (Exist - Not Exist) and (Not Exist –Exist) will be invalid: shaded area.

We can have a table like this:




In this case, if GOD is really exist then B will be rewarded since B believes in God while A will be punished for not believing in God. One will be in safe condition, while one will not.

If God is really not exist, then both A& B will not be punished neither will be rewarded. Since both of them will be free from any judgement, both will be safe. Thus gain 1 point.

In this equilibrium we can see that the dominant strategy is B since regardless of whether God exists or not, B will be in a safe position. But A has the 50-50 chances of whether to be safe or not.

====

Another point of view… Let say I have another assumption/table.



With G represents GOD; and P represents People.

If GOD exist, for a Believer, he will be rewarded (1 point) for believing in GODbut for a non-Believer (Atheist) he will be punished (-1 point) for not believing in GOD.

If GOD is really not exist, for a Believer since he will neither be rewarded nor punished, he will be on breakeven (0 point). While for a non-Believer that will gain him (1 point) since he approves what he believe.

Now, lets examine this.
Condition 1

If we try to evaluate the relationship (R) between Safe/Happiness (V) & Insecure/Harmful (D) situation, this is what we can have:

For a Believer:
R = 1/0 = Infinity

For a Non-Believer:
R = -1/1 = -1


Condition 2
If we try to make it reverse, R between D and V (R= D/V), this is what we can have:

For a Believer:
R = 0/1 = 0

For a Non-Believer:
R = 1/-1 = -1

Which says that in Condition 1, for a Believer he will have INFINITY VALUE over the Safe & Happiness (since with the belief that there is nothing impossible for GOD, ceteris paribus). While in Condition 1, a Believer will still be in a safe position. (Note that in economics term, a “zero” value usually does not implies any loss and even at most time will be positive value in Accounting terms. But then, account is not my specialization :p )

But, for a Non-Believer in either Condition 1 or Condition 2 he will still be in ABSOLUTE LOSS.

==
The conclusion:
In the view of economics value, we choose to play at the lowest risk with highest return. If we plan to play as the Atheist or Non Believer, then that will be at the price of highest risk and low gain. If we are playing as a Believer or Non Atheist, then that will be at the price of lowest risk and highest return.

As the conclusion, in whatever way it is you will be in a safe and better position to believe in GOD. :D

P/s: Any other comment?;)