Bounded rationality is kinda sorta like a renormalization problem, maybe?
You've got some thingy you want, and you need to think about how to get the most of it, but thinking costs time/energy/whatever, and trades-off against getting more thingy.
But to figure out exactly how that tradeoff works and how much of it you should do, you need to think about thinking (and thinking costs time/energy/whatever).
But to figure out... you get the idea
And maybe everything is nice, and this recursion is exactly solvable. But if it isn't, maybe you can just cut it off at some point, and replace the infinite tower with some effective value. And maybe that value depends on exactly where you put the cutoff in some nice way. And maybe some large class of these things flow to the same fixed points as the cutoff gets really big or small.
Or maybe this is just bullshit. I don't know what I'm talking about.
I've convinced myself that in some contrived unrealistic cases this analogy is exact, wouldn't like to guess whether it generalizes.
If it does, I expect it will offer no advantage whatsoever to decision making, but a fabulous new range of confusing and annoying ways to talk about problems. Imagine: you could say a consideration is "irrelevant", and mean something slightly different from what everyone assumes you do.
















