On 7/11/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Stephen:
Well itæ„€ not cooperation between computer programs, but cooperation
of entities in the abstract level. This can be described
mathematically or simulated in a computer program. In both cases, it
starts with a game with its rules goals wins and loses is created.
Hi Alberto,
OK, but can we think of the abstract level as the dual of a
physical level where physical objects play out their scattering games?
What is described by mathematics and/or simulated by computer program
does not have to just be some abstraction. We cannot assume absolute
closure and any implied externality is just semantics of the
abstractions. Abstractions simply cannot exist as free floating
entities, for this leads inevitably to contradictions.
If the game is simple and/or played by a small number of players (for
example two) This game is analtyzed with Game Theory techniques to
obtain the stable strategies that make each player to optimize its
wins in a way that they can not win more and it is inmune to attacks
from other players. This is a Nash equilibrium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
I understand and agree! My point is that equilibria to obtain, but
we cannot substitute the abstract descriptions of games for the actual
playing of the games. There is a duality involved that cannot be
collapsed without stultifying both sides.
But when the game is too complex or the players use different
strategies or they evolve and adapt, specially when the sucessful
entities give birth to new generations with mutant and/or strategies
which are a mix of the parents ones (in a way defined in the game)
Then it is necessary to simulate it within an computer programs. This
is part of the work of Axelrod. evolution of generations is modeled
with a genetic program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
Yes! This is where we get into law of large numbers situations and
have some change of discovering the emergence of aspects of reality that
we have just been assuming to be a priori given. Some examples of this
are Penrose's "spin networks" and Reg Cahill's "Process physics".
to summarize, any entity that collaborate need memory of past
interactions of each other entity , In other words, it needs
individual recongnition ablities and a form of "moral evaluation" of
each individual.
I agree, but how do we treat the notion of memory such that an
arbitrary entity has the capacity to access it? We humans have a large
memory capacity that we carry around in our craniums...
It also needs to punish free riders even at the cost of its own well
being, in a way that the net gain of free riders is negative. or else
the fhe collaborators will fail and the defectors/free riders will
expland.
I suspect that free-riders will be, like the poor, always with us.
So the collaborators need to collaborate too in the task of
punishing free riders because this is crucial for the stability of
collaboration in other tasks.
But there is a problem with this. There does not exist any finite
and pre-given list of what defines a free rider!
Forgiveness is another requirement of collaboration, specially when
the entities produce spurious behaviours of non collaboration, but
collaborate most of the time. A premature punishment could make a
collaborator to punish in response so the collaboration ends.
This rule is a form of pruning, so we can easily see what effects
it has in networks of collaborators. It is an aspect of currying or
concurrency.
In these games the goals are fixed.
This is only for the sake of closure, but closed systems have very
short life spans, if any life at all. The trick is to get close to
closure but not into it completely. Life exists as an exploitation of
this possibility.
In more realistic games the goals vary and the means to obtain them
depend on knowledge and asssumptions/beliefs, so an homogeneity within
the group around both things should be required for collaboration.
Right!
For sure there is a tradeof between mind sharing and punishment. Less
mind sharing, more violent punishment is necessary for a stable
collaboration.
yes, but can you see how this rapidly suppresses any potential for
further evolution. It is in effect the establishment of closure that
seals off those involved. North Korea is a nice real world example of this.
To verify mind sharing and investment in the group collaboration,
periodic public meetings where protocols/rituals of mutual recognition
are repeated to assure to each member that the others are in-line. For
example, to visit a temple each week, to discuss about the same
newspaper or to assist to minoritary rock concerts. (or to mutually
interchange checksums of the program content of each entity)
Certainly! This shows a rational for the "rituals" that we see as
"traditions" in cultures, for example.
But this is not the last world. It is a world of infinite complexity.
For example, a strategy for avoiding free riders or mind sharing can
be exploited by meta-free-riders. Among humans, when trust is scarce,
sacrifices in the temples, blood pacts and violent punishments become
necessary.to <http://necessary.to> avoid free riders and maintain
stable the collaboration.
Are you familiar with Hypergames
<www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/%7Eparsons/events/gtdt/gtdt06/vane.pdf>?
Novelity is the result of openness, but at the cost of allowing free
riders. They are a necessary evil.
All of this does not change wjheter the entities are humans, robots or
programs. Evolutionary game theory is a field in active research by
economist, lawyers,moralists, computer scientists, Philosophers,
psichologists etc.
Good stuff!
. Matt Rydley "what is human" is a good introduction.
I will add this to my list. Thanks! I found this,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47413560/69/MATT-RIDLEY , so far...
2012/7/11 Stephen P. King <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
On 7/11/2012 4:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/7/10 meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Why would you not expect a theory-of-everything to include
the behavior of people? Note that 'govern' does not imply
'predictable'.
A phisicinst theory of everithing , despite the popular belief,
does not "govern" the behaviour of the people. No longer than the
binary logic govern the behaviour of computer programs. I can
program in binary logic whatever I want without limitations. the
wetware whose activity produces the human mind could execute
potentially any kind of behaviour. Our behaviour is not governed
by anything related wth a phisical TOE, but by the laws of
natural selection applied to social beings. I can observe the
evolution of such behaviours (in a shchematic way) in a binary
world within a computer program as well. Robert Axelrod
<http://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEvolution_of_cooperation&ei=jTj9T77NB6iy0QXah8mmBw&usg=AFQjCNGua7j080q_oP5ft9ABtXu7bG99dg&sig2=KKUr0FxQezNKKU0MNCQ1vw>dit
it for the first time.
On the contrary, the antrophic principle tell you that is the
mind the determinant element for the existence of a TOE. A
phisical TOE It is just the playing field and the stuff upon
things are made.
Dear Albert,
Interesting that you bring up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cooperation ! Could you
elaborate a bit on your thoughts? Do you have any ideas how to
model cooperation between computer programs? The main problem that
I have found is in defining the interface between computations.
How does one define "identity" for a given computation such that
it is distinguished from all others?
--
Onward!
Stephen
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
