Re: Maximum entropy principle!
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:30:38 -0400 (EDT)
"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > In natural selection, Fisher tells us that fitness is maximized in
> > > this second sense. Hamilton revises this to claim that it is
> *inclusive*
> > > fitness that gets maximized. Neither is claiming that we have
reached
> > > perfection, nor that we will get there quickly. We just won't go
> > > backward.
> > I'm sure Hoelzer, Fisher and Hamilton didn't *really* say this ;-)
> > In a maximisation process, there's no guarantee that the maximand
will
> > not decrease. Hill-climbing processes can still occur on an island
> > that is sinking into the ocean, after all - where they tend to
result
> > in an inexorable loss of altitude.
> Yes, in "Hoelzer/Fisher maximization", the dynamics of the process
> (evolution of the endogenous variables) is such that the maximand
> doesn't decrease by this dynamic. However, if the maximand also
> depends on exogenous variables (and it probably does) then it may
> well be that changes in the exogenous variables will cause the
> maximand to fall.
JE:-
All the maximand concept demands is that something is maximised within a
set of limits. If a maximand becomes less when the limits are less, this
does not prove that a maximand is not now operating. It most certainly
does not mean that a maximand can be selected to be reduced! A fitness
maximand can only be selected to increase using whatever resources
limitations it is forced to work with. Empirically, all REAL events
remain strictly limited but simplified/over simplified models of
empirical events can (magically) become unlimited. The misuse of such
models to replace the theory they were simplified/over simplified from
is very common within today's evolutionary theory but remains entirely
irrational.
> In fact, and this actually happens in "Red Queen" theories, it may
well
> be that changes in the endogenous variables, under the "maximizing"
> dynamic, will actually feed back into the "exogenous" variables so
that
> if you expand the model just a little, that "maximizing" process is
> actually
> driving the value of the maximand lower.
JE:-
As however, just a contraction_! A maximand cannot be selected to be
reduced. When it is the proposed maximand stands refuted. Whenever you
confront a contradiction simply check your basic premises...
>snip<
JE:-
Van Valen's Red Queen proposition allows for the evolution of an ongoing
but stable fitness war within nature via a relative gain for an absolute
loss using just an irrational -/- model of a so called "spiteful"
fitness relationship which simply cannot evolve within nature. If the
Red Queen has to always run harder and harder to just stand still then
her total resources must become less and less providing an absolute
fitness loss unless Van Valen's model provides infinite resources. Just
like Hamilton's Rule, a 100% relative gain that costs an absolute
fitness loss can only provide extinction. Mother Nature is not as stupid
as gene centric Neo Darwinism thinks she is....
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Human design and natural "design"
- Next by Date: Re: Human design and natural "design"
- Previous by thread: Article: Strange fossil defies grouping
- Next by thread: Understanding MinEP and MaxEP
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
