Re: Overlapping fitnesses

From: Jim McGinn (jimmcginn_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/05/05 

Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 01:25:43 -0500 (EST)

Jim McGinn wrote:
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

<snip>

> > One issue that must be dealt with is the dual
> > role that fitness plays in biology. It is both
> > an objective measure of success and a
> > teleological goal that an evolving entity "tries"
> > to maximize.
>
> Very, very, very, well stated. This is the big
> issue that, in part, is resolved by the concept
> of existence = mass/time.

Oops. I made a logical error here. Actually existence
is biomass x time not biomass/time.

<snip>

> Now you are asking EXACTLY the right questions,
> AND you are on the track of providing the right
> answers.
>
> I'm actually a bit overwhelmed that you are
> catching on so quickly. More to come.

Well, okay now. Where were we?

Suppose we had perfect accounting of the existences
(biomass x time) of each lifeform going all the way
back to the beginning of life on this planet and going
all the way to the end of life on this planet. Each
lifeform could be assessed it's own cumulative
existence. (Note: this could also be applied at other
levels of biological phenomena, not just individuals.)
What is a lifeform's cumulative existence?

A lifeform's cumulative existence is the sum of its
own existence (it's individual existence, biomass x
time) and it's relative existence (which, as will be
explained below, is more complicated to calculate but
also is expressable in the units of biomass x time).

Individual existence is easy to calculate. It is,
simply, a lifeform's biomass multiplied by time. An
elephant, therefore, would have a much higher
individual existence than a mouse. This is not only
because it is more massive but also because it has a
longer lifespan.

A lifeform's relative existence is much more difficult
to calculate. (In fact it's virtually impossible,
except in a theoretical sense as we are doing here.)
It involves the existences (biomass x time) of other
lifeform's. The actual calculation of a lifeform's
relative existence also involves the inclusion of
morphological similarity (biomass x time x percentage
of morphological similarity). As you can imagine a
lifeform's relative existence is an extremely large
number. This is because there have been, are, and will
be literally trillions of other lifeforms over the full
breadth of biological existence on this planet that are,
to varying degrees, relatively similar to any individual
lifeform. (I realize that this opens up another
potentially big issue: how do we actually measure
morphological similarity? For the time being I'm going
to avoid this issue. But I will say this, no matter what
method one employs a lifeforms relative existence is
always going to be a massive number in comparison to its
individual existence.)

It might seem that since I'm leading up to the conclusion
that since the vast majority of a lifeform's cumulative
existence is from it's relative existence (I guestimate
that upwards of 99.999 percent of an individuals
cumulative existence is the result of it's relative
existence) that I'm suggesting that this indicates that
altruism should be (or is) more prevalent than it actually
is (or seems). But this would be to get ahead of the game.
For the time being just keep in mind that each individual
(or, more precisely, each morphologically unique biological
entity) can be said (for theoretical purposes) to have a
unique quantity that represents it's cumulative existence.
And the vast majority of this cumulative existence comes
not from it's own existence but from it's relative
existence.

A lifeforms cumulative existence has no Darwinian value
associated with it. (IOW, the size of a lifeform's
cumulative existence tells us nothing about its fitness.)
If a lifeform's cumulative existence has no bearing on
it's fitness then what is the scientific (and heuristic)
purpose of discussing a lifeform's cumulative existence?
The answer to this question is that it enables us to define
fitness: a lifeform's fitness involves whether or not and
to what degree the lifeform's actions (the causation that
it produces over a specified period of time) results in an
increase or decrease in it's cumulative existence (the
effects of the causation that it produces over this
specified period of time). In other words, fitness
involves the incredibly small part of a lifeform's
cumulative existence that is a direct result of the
lifeforms actions over it's lifespan. The fitness goal of
every lifeform is to produce causation during it's lifespan
that achieves the maximum increase or minimum decrease in
it's cumulative existence.

Just as there are two categories of cumulative existence,
individual and relative, there are two categories by which
a lifeform can achieve its fitness goal: 1) by producing
causation that increases or decreases it's individual
existence. This involves causation that is intended to
achieve the survival, health and general well being (effects)
of the individual itself; and 2) by producing causation that
increases or decreases it's relative existence. This
involves causation that is intended to achieve the survival,
health, and general well being (effects) of other
individuals. (Note: reproduction is an aspect of a
lifeform's relative existence not its individual existence.)

    ** How to Calculate a Lifeform's Fitness **

Fitness = Individual Fitness + Relative Fitness

* Individual Fitness *

The calculation of a lifeform's individual fitness involves
the following quantities:

(C) Cost: cost of the causation that is intended to achieve
it's own survival and well being. The units are biomass x
time (this will always be a positive real number).

(B) Benefit: (benefit of the effects of the causation) the
units are biomass x time (this can be positive or negative)

(E) Effectiveness: whether or not, and to what degree, the
causation that a lifeform produces actually achieves it's
intended effect to maximize it's cumulative existence.
This can be any number positive or negative.

(Fi) Individual Fitness: net gain or loss in an individual's
cumulative existence.

The formula is as follows:

EB - C = Fi

* Relative Fitness *

In addition to the above mentioned quantities we also need
to factor in morphological similarity in order to calculate
a lifeform's relative fitness:

(M) Morphological similarity: this can be any number between
0 and 1.

(Fr) Relative Fitness: net gain or loss in an individual's
relative existence.

The formula is as follows:

EBM - C = Fr

* Fitness *

The calculation of a lifeform's fitness is as follows:

(F) Fitness

Fi + Fr = F

So the complete formula to calculate fitness is as follows:

(EB - C) + (EBM - C) = F

So, this is the formula that I employ to (theoretically)
calculate fitness. As I will explicate in future posts, the
reason why the behavior of altruism is found in some species
and not in others has to do with differences in the E value
of the above mentioned EBM calculation.

Jim

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Overlapping fitnesses
    ... The answer is, yes, their 'cumulative existence' ... > shared and private portions applies to the lower level ... > overlap exists is not good enough. ... > fitness plays in biology. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Overlapping fitnesses
    ... Actually existence ... > A lifeform's cumulative existence is the sum of its ... > cumulative existence tells us nothing about its fitness.) ... > effects of the causation that it produces over this ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: What is the Commodity of Fitness?
    ... > The commodity of fitness is existence. ... > as mass of biological phenomena over time. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Overlapping fitnesses
    ... > existence a variable that increases in time, ... > of my cumulative existence comes from my morphological ... are what the causation will or will only partly (as ... >> lifeform's relative existence not its individual existence.) ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)