Re: Total Darwinian Fitness as a FALSIFIABLE FITNESS MAXIMAND
- From: johnhewitt22@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:14 -0500 (EST)
Hi John,
I would like to be able to say that I agree, I do actually have the
feeling that there are things here that I do agree with and would like
to use, at least to the extent of seeing its possible context with of
my own work, but my problem is that I do not *fully* understand what
you are saying.
For example, you use terminology from set theory but I do not see how
you are linking that branch of mathematics to evolutionary theory
itself, I am not even clear how you are defining the various sets that
you use. That being so, it is hard for me to perceive your discussion
of nested sets alongside my own approach to evolutionary theory and
the successive ranks of evolution that I define.
Could you please tell me whether or not you have assembled your ideas
into one place for easier reference.
Sincerely
John Hewitt
On Mar 19, 9:41=A0pm, John Edser <ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
johnhewit...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Your comments about nested sets bring to mind my views on evolution.
As you may know, I think it is incorrect to regard evolution as
fundamentally a genetic process; instead, I hold that evolution should
be regarded as fundamentally a data process and therefore best
described in terms of data systems.
JE:-
Hi John,
I think that most things boil down to nested sets of information.
I call the evolutionary ideas that
emerge from that perception bioepistemic evolution. As you will also
know, data systems can be arranged in ranks of super-systems, systems,
subsystems and sub-subsystems etc. ad infinitum.
JE:-
Amazingly enough, everything from epistemology to music have to be
arranged using prioritized (nested) sub systems (data) if they are to
make rational sense, i.e. nothing very much remains equal. Computer
programmers seem to be miles ahead with their use of non reversible
nested sets. Evolutionary theory traditionally employs trees which are
only nested sets (sets which cannot be reversed). The difference between
nested and reversible intersecting sets couldn't be more stark. There is
nothing new in my use of nested sets because they constitute "proper"
sets within standard set theory. It is my application of nested Vs
intersecting sets to evolutionary theory which is new.
That led me construct
bioepistemic evolution as a multirank selection system in which the
different ranks have this kind of hierarchical, systems - subsystem
relationship to one another.
JE:-
You may need to reconsider how nested sets can possibly be naturally
selected. It should be clear that a nested fitness subset can only be
selected via the selection of its most outer set i.e. the largest
fitness set that nests all the others. This being the case, just a
single fitness maximand replaces a multi-ranked fitness when using
nested subsets. To select a Russian Doll inside a doll set you have no
other choice but to select the largest doll which contains it. The
relationship of these nested dolls non additive. =A0The same argument
applies to reproduction. You have to reproduce an entire doll set not
just one contained doll. Of course this does not apply to intersecting
sets of fitness.
(Bioepistemic evolution is an example of
what many people call multilevel selection but it is constructed in a
less arbitrary way than some of the approaches found in the scientific
literature.)
JE:-
Proposed fitness multi levels actually constitute wholes and not parts,
i.e. reversibly intersecting sets of fitnesses provides a population of
independent, intersecting fitnesses. Nesting fitnesses as true
multi-levels can only allow a single total fitness, even to select a
nested subset. This critical fitness is represented by the size of the
largest set which contains (nests) all the others. This is what TDF
measures as a single, constant fitness maximand per parent per
population. It is TDF totals which naturally 100% intersect to produce a
default selective result.
It seems to me possible that your nested sets are, in some sense,
linked or related to these different ranks of evolving systems but I
do not understand your ideas sufficiently well to grasp the possible
connection between them. Can you clarify what you are saying about
nested sets or refer me to a more extended discussion?
JE:-
Nested sets can be visualized as (necessarily unequal) concentric
circles within which circle size remains extremely significant. OTOH
Venn diagrams only depict reversibly intersecting sets so circle size
remains not significant. Darwinian fertile organisms are the only valid
level of selection within Darwinism. Here one selectee constitutes one
nested fitness of parts where only the largest outer set intersects with
every other within a population. i.e. the fitness relationship of one
TDF to another remains additive.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The evolution of human speech explained
- Next by Date: Octopus fossil
- Previous by thread: Re: Total Darwinian Fitness as a FALSIFIABLE FITNESS MAXIMAND
- Next by thread: Is the paradigm of genetic code evolution wrong?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
