Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:59:14 -0400 (EDT)
"Malcolm" regniztar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> >> JE:-
> >> In cost theory a gross cost (one stand alone total/sub total cost),
> >> i.e.
> >> an absolute cost assumption provides something for a supposed
> >> independent system where the relative net cost is the absolute
gross
> >> cost compared to a total/sub total of what that cost produced for
that
> >> independent system.
> > JM:-
> > Is there an adult out there in sbe-land who can tell me what this
> > sentence means? Or even anyone who can simply parse or punctuate
it?
> > We now have both Edser and ReMine talking about "cost theory". What
> > are the chances they are talking about the same thing?
> M:-
> Let's say that we've got me, my mate, and the drugs dealer.
> I buy a twist of heroin for twenty pounds, share it out, and the mate
> gives
> me ten pounds for his fix.
> So the gross cost of the heroin is twenty pounds, the net cost is ten
> pounds, and the "relative net cost" in John's terms would be fifty
> percent.
JE:-
The relative net cost is 50% of the gross total cost which is 10 pounds.
If this was not a gross TOTAL cost then any calculation of a relative
net zero cost may change to become non zero over time, i.e. it is NOT
definitive. If you sold a share to your mate for 20 pounds and not 10
pounds then the relative net cost for you is zero pounds but the
absolute total gross cost of 20 pounds had to be invested _firstly_,
absolutely no exceptions to this logical order. Therefore any resultant
zero net cost is entirely dependent on a non zero total gross cost
payment being _firstly_ made. If resources for this total do not exist
the payment cannot be made so the resultant net zero cost cannot exist.
Gene centric model builders appear to take no cognizance of such a
basic. It appears they allow themselves to just carry-on-regardless
calculating any mythical zero net relative cost that suits them within
entirely within 100% relative propositions even if they have no reality.
It is always irrational to only argue a zero net cost within a total
gross cost vacuum or argue a zero net cost without defining exactly what
the total gross cost is being compared to.
> M:-
> However this is only a supposed independent system.
JE:-
All costs have to be accounted to defined INDEPENDENT systems otherwise
it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to account for ANYTHING. Enron accountants, by
only employing 100% relative suppositions of costs were able to
invisibly reverse debits into credits simply because no line needed to
exist between financially independent systems. The same logical error is
being made within gene centric Neo Darwinistic reasoning where all
propositions for fitness accounting remain 100% relative e.g. Hamilton's
100% relative Rule where fitness debits can be invisibly reversed into
fitness credits allowing false arguments to justify the evolution of
organism fitness altruism within nature.
> M:-
> The real cost of the
> heroin fix might be that I lose my job and have to go into detox, ie
> several
> thousand pounds.
> On the other hand, in detox I will then save all the
> money
> I would have otherwise spent on high living and decadence, so the cost
is
> then reduced by a few thousand.
> This illustrates the problem of cost accounting - there's not always
an
> obvious place to stop since the implications of an action spread out
like
> ripples, affecting everything.
JE:-
Like the fitness of one gene within an independently selected system
which is always comprised of many genes, the effects of the many
different costs and their many effects for the one same person who is
the ONLY financial independent entity that exists within the capitalist
system, provides a complex reality. However, unlike gene fitnesses the
financial costs for the many different actions for one individual remain
entirely ADDITIVE, i.e. the cost of the heroin and the detox are
accounted for by simply adding them together to produce one relative net
cost total per person at the end of each financial year. Any opportunity
costs such as "high living and decadence" are confined to always be
AFTER this event so while important for a rational post mortum they are
not empirically based costs. Nobody is allowed to factor in hypothetical
costs into their empirically based accounting for obvious reasons!
Natures accounts are likewise, entirely empirically based totalling
fertile forms reproduced per parent per population. All costs and what
they produce are accounted for using exactly the same fitness unit: one
fertile form. In place of the financial year nature calculates a final
relative net cost at just one point in time, when the last infertile
immature reproduced by a parent is raised to fertile adulthood.
The consistent evasion of the logical difference that has always existed
between a fitness _dependent_ and fitness _independent_ assumptions as
assumed/not assumed within _uncorrected_ simplified/oversimplified
models via gene centric Neo Darwinists has allowed an entirely
_irrational_ fitness accounting scheme to flourish within evolutionary
theory that is similar in logic to the criminal scheme employed by Enron
accountants, e.g. Hamilton's Rule as it is commonly applied. I do NOT
accuse these people of criminal behaviour I accuse them of gross model
misuse. The net result is that evolutionary theory continues to be
entirely misrepresented.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: What is life?
- Next by Date: Re: Rigor - was: Singing as prerequisite (or aid) to language.
- Previous by thread: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Next by thread: The shape of inbreeding/outbreeding depression
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
