Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:31:33 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D6E84A5.7C940552@mindspring.com> References: <20020829115637.I63118-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Neal E. Westfall" wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > The modelling I'm talking about is based on games theory, not on
> > automata, and has its basis in mutual security games.
>
> Is this the same person who believes that life is not a zero-sum game?
> Isn't games theory based on the idea life *is* a zero-sum game?
No. Games theory is not limited to analysis or modelling of
zero-sum games. There are also negative-sum games. Several very
good references on the subject of positive-sum games are:
The Evolution of Cooperation
Robert Axelrod
Basic Books
ISBN: 0465021212
Micro Motives And Macro Behavior
Thomas C. Schelling
W.W. Norton & Company
ISBN: 0393090094
And a mathematical reference on "globocop" in particular is:
Nonlinear Dynamics, Mathematical Biology and Social Science
(Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Science of Complexity.
Lecture Notes, Vol 4)
Joshua M. Epstein
Perseus Press
ISBN: 0201959895
> > > Science is a religion. Like most religions, you see what you want to
> > > see; usually this is not truth.
> >
> > Science is a process, not a religion.
>
> One's definition of science is governed by his religion, or underlying
> worldview, if you will.
One's definition of many words is governed by that. That won't
make them into the consensus definition. Just as "Creation Science"
is not actually a science, because it violates the first principles
of science.
> > > There are no real points, and you can't usefully orthogonalize the
> > > world into finite integer divisions to be analyzed separately. The
> > > subject and the object are one.
> >
> > You failed statistics and modern physics, didn't you? 8-). There
> > *are* real points; even if you can't identify them, you can identify
> > their effects. And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity
> > above a quantum level is a popular misconception.
>
> What about the OJ trial?
It's interesting from a lot of perspectives; the major perspective
is that, had he not been a celebrity, the amount of prosecutorial
effort would likely have been insufficient to convict him; likewise,
had he not been a celebrity, he would have not had access to sufficient
legal representation to stave off that level of prosecutorial effort.
I would argue, however, that sensationalism as a result of celebrity
doesn't really qualify as "observer effect" in the Heisenbergian
sense. The "observer effect" in the Schrodinger or Heisenberg sense,
in the collapse of a wave function to a single state from a multiplex
of states as a result of observation, or the inability to know both
the position and momentum of an electron within h-bar/2 has more to
do with quantum effects.
Schrodinger's cat is a particular example, where a macro event is
quantum-coupled, as a result if indirect observation. It's actually
just an allegory, since the cat itself undoubtedly qualifies as an
observer. 8-).
If you want, you can actually replace "Schroedinger's cat" with
"Lambert's Schroedinger", and run the same gendanken experiment;
it has the same outcome. The issue is one of intelligence about
the situation ("intelligence" in the information theory sences of
the word), and the trap gate on the communication of the state of
the coupled quantum system to the outside observer requiring a
binary answer to a probability question.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D6E84A5.7C940552>