Re: Overlapping fitnesses

From: Perplexed in Peoria (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 02/06/05 

Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 01:12:24 -0500 (EST)

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cu1ot7$2oh8$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> 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.

Request for clarification: Is an organism's individual
existence a variable that increases in time, or is it
a constant that only becomes known at the time of its
death?

> 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.

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that part
of my cumulative existence comes from my morphological
similarity with Isaac Newton. And part of his cumulative
existence comes from his similarity with me. Do I
understand you correctly?

> (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.

Request for clarification: Do you really mean "causation
that is intended to achieve" here. Or do you mean "causation
that leads to". Example: My parents would never have met,
if not for WW2. Can Adolf Hitler claim a fraction of my
individual existence as part of his fitness? Of course,
he would also take a hit from the disappearance of the
individual existences of other morphologically similar
organisms!

> (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).

Hmmm. Again you use that "intended to achieve" language. So,
it is apparently not a mistake. I think that you are going to
have to clarify just how you plan to determine "intent".

Also, do I understand that this cost is the difference between
the individual existence that the organism actually has
achieved when he dies and the individual existence that he
would have achieved had he not exerted the causation?

Or is the cost of the causation somehow paid out of some
cumulative pool of individual existence available at the
time of the causation?

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

I assume that the benefit is some delta in the individual
existence of the beneficiary. Same questions regarding
just what kind of delta as I made regarding the cost.

> (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

Hmmm. So if I intend to help someone (so as to increase my
cumulative existence), but I actually end up hurting them,
then E is negative, right? And B is negative, right? So
the product EB is positive, right?

[snip remainder]

So far, you have just supplied some "fitness accounting rules".
So, in a sense, you have only created a collection of definitions.
You can create all the definitions you like, and no one should
be offended. The "crunch" comes when you try to either prove
a theorem using these definitions, or state some candidate
"law of nature" using the definitions. I can't help being curious
as to just what that theorem or law is going to be when you
are all done.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Overlapping fitnesses
    ... >> role that fitness plays in biology. ... Actually existence ... A lifeform's cumulative existence is the sum of its ... A lifeform's relative existence is much more difficult ...
    (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)
  • 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: About Hockings
    ... rational proof of God's existence. ... If the mathematics are correct, and at the ragged edge of investigation ... Are you saying that any attempt to assign causation in the big bang is also irrational? ... we can't know, because such questions by definition concern a situation where the fundamental laws of the universe do not apply, and thus we cannot understand the causation and therefore any attempt to explain it is pointless; or, we should continue to look because perhaps we might be able to understand it, which means that at least some of the fundamental laws of the cosmos would have to apply, in which case there might actually be a "before." ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: time, the universe and all. 03-03-05
    ... A DVD copy of Fargo is a bunch of atoms arranged in a very ... dropped out of existence. ... why are you looking for a chain of causation? ...
    (sci.physics)