  Conventional noncooperative game theory hypothesizes that the joint strategy
of a set of players in a game must satisfy an "equilibrium concept". All other
joint strategies are considered impossible; the only issue is what equilibrium
concept is "correct". This hypothesis violates the desiderata underlying
probability theory. Indeed, probability theory renders moot the problem of what
equilibrium concept is correct - every joint strategy can arise with non-zero
probability. Rather than a first-principles derivation of an equilibrium
concept, game theory requires a first-principles derivation of a distribution
over joint (mixed) strategies. This paper shows how information theory can
provide such a distribution over joint strategies. If a scientist external to
the game wants to distill such a distribution to a point prediction, that
prediction should be set by decision theory, using their (!) loss function. So
the predicted joint strategy - the "equilibrium concept" - varies with the
external scientist's loss function. It is shown here that in many games, having
a probability distribution with support restricted to Nash equilibria - as
stipulated by conventional game theory - is impossible. It is also show how to:
i) Derive an information-theoretic quantification of a player's degree of
rationality; ii) Derive bounded rationality as a cost of computation; iii)
Elaborate the close formal relationship between game theory and statistical
physics; iv) Use this relationship to extend game theory to allow
stochastically varying numbers of players.
