On 7/11/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

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.


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


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.


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 <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>>

    On 7/11/2012 4:29 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

    2012/7/10 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net

        Why would you not expect a theory-of-everything to include
        the behavior of people?  Note that 'govern' does not imply

    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
    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?



"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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to