Re: Sense Within Evolutiomary Theory



"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-

>snip<
> So now I know the difference between 'relatively opposed' and 'absolutely
> opposed'. But I still don't know the difference between a relative
> proposition and an absolute proposition.

JE:-
These differences are just commonplace. Absolute propositions are
articulated absolute assumptions, e.g. TDF. They are all just inductions
(guesses). Only absolute propositions can allow relative propositions
(articulated relative assumptions) to exist because they are always just
deductive from absolute propositions.

Contesting relative propositions such as the earth is a sphere and not a
flat disc entirely depends on an accurate _articulation_ of the absolute
proposition of what the earth is supposed to be. This is always so much
easier in retrospect! The genius of the first person to REASONABLY
articulate what the earth is must never be underestimated. You cannot ague
that the earth is this or that unless you firstly assume that something
called "the earth" exists which you can articulate in a _rational_ way. In
the sciences these absolute propositions must be refutable and not just
verifiable.

An example of just a relative proposition for the evolution of altruism in
nature is Hamilton's Rule because it has no fitness frame of reference, i.e.
no absolute fitness _assumption_. This is because it does not define a TOTAL
fitness, i.e. the "street", yet it allows opposite sides of this missing
street to be compared! For the rule to transform itself into a rational
empirically based proposition which is not just a dictate, the total fitness
of the actor has to remain and not become deleted, i.e. the total fitness of
Hamilton's proactive actor, NO MATTER HOW YOU DEFINE IT, can only appear on
ONE SIDE of Hamliton's Rule.



> This stuff would probably be easier to understand if I were still a
> ten-year old.

JE:-
Indeed yes. The reason why is because most 10 year old's INDUCTIVE thinking
is much more flexible (less gummed up by prejudice).


> > The OFA side of the street is entirely unstable compared to the OFS
> side. If
> > anybody is tempted to walk down it on their own for more than just a
> short
> > period then the whole street may start to disintegrate from under their
> very
> > feet (you move towards extinction). This is because the TDF of the
> exploited
> > must become reduced so the expanding populations of the exploiters just
> end
> > up working harder and harder to find less and less to exploit. This may
> be
> > because of OFS exploitation OR OFA donations which is just the
> exploitation
> > of the exploited by themselves. Either must reduce the TDF of the
> exploited.
> > As the populations of the exploited become less and less the opportunity
> to
> > form stable mutualised associations instead of just unstable non
> mutualised
> > association becomes increasingly reduced. This is why, at all times, OFM
> > competes and wins against single acts (non mutualised acts) of OFS or
> any
> > acts of OFA (as either donations by the exploited or stealing from
> them).

> Hmmm. Did you ever consider the possibility that the exploited don't
> need to reproduce much to maintain their populations?

JE:-
But they do need to reproduce more. IF the exploited are ACTUALLY being
exploited and are not just quietly investing and making it look like they
are being exploited for cynical political purposes, THEN their TDF MUST FALL
EVERY TIME THEY ARE EXPLOITED, no exceptions. This being the case the
population of the exploited must get smaller and smaller. If they don't then
you have the empirical proof that OFA was not operating even if it appeared
that it was.

You can replace TDF with any other empirically refutable proposition that
you like but you CANNOT, for any reason, delete TDF or the refutable
proposition that you use to replace it. Of course, Hamilton et al did delete
it by allowing the total fitness of the actor to appear on both sides of the
rule. This is the reason why EMPIRICALLY, the rule cannot even distinguish
between OFA and OFS. Hamilton's gene spreads only because it includes OFS as
well as OFA operating _simultaneously_. Why? Because -rb<-c is
mathematically the same as rb>c so -c and +c are both supposed to be OFA
when of course they cannot be because +c and -c are _contrary_ propositions.
This argument applies when c>0.

> That perhaps
> the exploiters can produce more exploitees by their own reproductive
> processes? Recall that the exploiters disproportionately carry the
> "gene for altruism". After all, they are disproportionately the relatives
> of the exploitees.

JE:-
It would be mutualism if TDF increases for both. If it doesn't it is just a
dead end. No matter what you do, the TDF of any exploited must decrease
otherwise they were proven not to be exploited.

As the exploiter's TDF increases they will quickly find out that at some
point the cost of exploitation is simply not worth the effort because of the
increasing cost of ever increasing competition among their own growing
population for ever diminishing numbers of the exploitable. But this is not
the greatest cost. This remains well hidden as one _enormous_ opportunity
cost. Every act of OFA, non mutualised act of OFS or utterly pointless act
of mutualised OFA, costs one potential act of OFM because they are self
exclusive alternative fitness events. An investor knows this. What is the
point investing in x that only pays 1% when y, which may have about the same
risk pays 5% producing an opportunity cost of 4%? Anybody who does not think
that selection does not reward minimizing opportunity costs by the use of a
_complex_ search strategy should THINK again.

Regards

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxx






.