Re: Hamilton's Rule In The Mirror
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:43:37 -0400 (EDT)
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > JM:-
> > > John, you keep throwing around that word "ongoing", but I don't
> > > understand
> > > what you mean by it and why I should be frightened by it. Please
> > explain.
> > JE:-
> > Jim, why do I have to continually repeat my arguments?
> > "sent Fri 28/01/2005 3:42 AM by JE:
> > What people seem desperate to evade is
> > the fact that Hamilton's rule only
> > takes an _arbitrary_ fitness sample from the
> > donor's total fitness. The reason why all
> > Neo Darwinian fitnesses remain ongoing is because the
> > total fitness of the donar has been _artificially_
> > deleted. This is also the
> > reason why no defined time frame exists for
> > measuring fitness within the rule and why
> > the sign of c must remain arbitrary. The only
> > _non_ arbitrary time frame that exists is the time
> > taken for one parent to complete reproducing
> > fertile forms into one population."
> JM:-
> Perhaps you have to repeat your arguments because no one
> understands them the first time.
JE:-
Ok. All you/they had to do is say so! Within the Neo Darwinistic
literature fitness remains a heuristic exercise that never ends. Here
each selectee's fitness is incorrectly considered to be changing all of
the time as generation after generation reproduces itself. Only when the
word ends can fitnesses become objective. In reality each fitness event
remains absolutely separate and discrete for each selectee because it
can be _objectively_ measured as ONE FINITE FITNESS TOTAL for each
independent selectee within one population. Such an objective fitness
concept can be tested to refutation within a natural population (not
just a heuristic model). I have outlined an experiment that can do so.
So far it remains almost entirely ignored.
Hamilton's Rule assumes a typical Neo Darwinian ever ongoing heuristic
fitness. In reality this can only mean that rb represents a random sub
total, i.e. just a sample of the actor's deleted total fitness. The only
time that ANY total fitness exists within the rule is when rb > cmax
where cmax is a real (non heuristic) fitness total expressed as a cost.
This represents the only case that actually proves altruism. Ironically
it is never discussed. Mealey in her paper "The Mathematics Of Altruism"
(to which you have replied in that thread) points out that Wilson's two
fold error was based the _false comparison_ of just a relative gain to
an absolute cost where this absolute cost represented a total
reproductive fitness. You must compare total gains to total losses.
Anybody who runs a business that is not bankrupt understands this basic
fact.
The importance of the rule in the mirror is that it proves that
Hamilton's rule remains _entirely_, a 100% relative proposition of Neo
Darwinism, i.e. no fitness totals actually exist within the rule. If you
multiply this rule by -1 the resultant mirror image (which remains
mathematically equal to the original rule) is incorrectly regarded to be
_identical_ to the original rule (please refer to replies by NAS in this
thread). Nobody can argue that they are identical as a proposition of
mathematics, only as a proposition entirely outside of mathematics. So
far no such argument has been supplied.
In the mathematical argument -rb can only mean a reverse of direction as
does -c. For the rule in the mirror the actor must receive and not
donate b to recipients related r at a cost to the actor of just -c (a
gain to the actor). This reverse rule is describing 100% relative
selfishness, which remains equal to but not identical to 100% altruism.
This proves two things. The critically diagnostic sign of c remains
arbitrary within the rule where no mutualism has been represented. In
reality, altruism and selfishness only constitute 100% _relative_
opposing propositions but mutualism represents a proposition that is
absolutely different to both.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hamilton's Rule In The Mirror
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Hamilton's Rule In The Mirror
- Prev by Date: Re: OOL X - The origin of the RNA world.
- Next by Date: ADMIN: three day outage
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's Rule In The Mirror
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's Rule In The Mirror
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
