Although alpha itself is simple enough at the molecular level, the derivation is complicated, its exposition has been spaced out over several posts and, alas, several months, and a summary is in order. Besides, the girlfriend wants one. Now 100% formula-free!
In Part 1: Starting From Zero
The history of philosophy, ethics in particular, was reviewed and found wanting. It continues to stink of vitalism and anthropocentrism, despite the fact that the idea of a “vital force” was thoroughly discredited by the 1850s. No ethics to date has managed to improve on moral intuition, or explain it either.
What fun is a game with no rules? There must be some common structure to all living systems, not just human beings, and based on its track record, it is science that will likely discover it.
In Part 2: Rules — The Laws of Thermodynamics
We sought rules that are precise and objective without indulging dogmatism. The laws of thermodynamics are the most general we know. They are independent of any hypothesis concerning the microscopic nature of matter, and they appear to hold everywhere, even in black holes. (Stephen Hawking lost a bet on this.) Thus they seemed a good place to start. We postulated a cube floating through space and called it Eustace, in an ill-advised fit of whimsy. A little algebraic manipulation of the Gibbs-Boltzmann formulation of the Second Law produced a strange number we called alpha, which turns out to be the measure of sustainability for any Eustace, living or dead, on Earth or in a galaxy far, far away.
In Part 3: Scoring — The Alpha Casino
We laid out a scoring system for Eustace built entirely on mathematics using alpha, a dimensionless, measurable quantity. Alpha measures the consequences of energy flux. All is number. Along the way we explained, via Bernoulli trials, how complexity emerges from the ooze. The dramatic effects of probability biases of a percent or less are dwarfed by the even more dramatic biases afforded by catalysts and enzymes that often operate in the 10E8 to 10E20 range.
In Part 4: Challenges — Gaussian and Poisson Randomness
We introduced two general (but not exhaustive) classes of random processes. Gaussian (continuous) randomness can be dealt with by a non-anticipating strategy of continuous adjustment. Relatively primitive devices like thermostats manage this quite nicely. Poisson (discontinuous) randomness is a fiercer beast. It can, at best, only be estimated via thresholds. Every Eustace, to sustain itself, must constantly reconfigure in light of the available information, or filtration. We introduced the term alpha model to describe this process.
In Part 5: Strategy — Strong and Weak Solutions
Increasingly complex organisms have evolved autonomous systems that mediate blood pressure and pH while developing threshold-based systems that effectively adapt filtrations to mediate punctuated processes like, say, predators. We introduced strong and weak solutions and explained the role of each. Weak solutions do not offer specific actionable paths but they do cull our possible choices. Strong solutions are actionable paths but a strong solution that is not adapted to the available filtration will likely be sub-optimal. Successful strong solutions can cut both ways. Paths that served us well in the past, if not continuously adapted, can grow confining. An extreme example, in human terms, is dogmatism. Alpha models must adapt to changing filtrations. Each generation must question the beliefs, traditions, and fashions of the generations that preceded it.
In Part 6: The Meaning of Life
We finally arrived at the universal maximization function. We introduced the concept of alpha*, or estimated alpha, and epsilon, the difference between estimated and actual alpha. Behavior and ethics are defined by alpha* and alpha, respectively. All living things maximize alpha*, and all living things succeed insofar as alpha* approximates alpha. From here we abstract the three characteristics of all living things. They can generate alpha (alphatropic). They can recognize and respond to alpha (alphaphilic). And they can calibrate responses to alpha to minimize epsilon (alphametric).
That’s it. An ethics, built up from thermodynamics and mathematics, in 700 words. The entire derivation from premise to conclusion was presented. Can anyone find fault with the sums?
(Update: Jesus von Einstein comments.)
For all of this Objectivist glorification of the human capacity for abstraction (see other thread), it is ironic that they are unable or unwilling to see abstraction applied to ethics.
Notice how the "challenges" are all "concretes" rather than attempts to unravel the foundation of the theory.
Bourbaki,
The foundations of theories are concretes, concretes are what theories are built from, unless the theories are false or mere tautologies. Anyway, that’s just an example of how badly my poor brain can misinterpret what you said.
So maybe I’m taking everything you’re saying the wrong way.
Maybe the problem is that there needs to be a definition of terms here, for the layman. When you use the word "concretes" do you mean what I rather carefully defined and exampled, or something else that I should be aware of? If so, that’s OK, just let me know so I can keep track conceptually where we are. If it’s not an "Objectivist" view and is instead a more consensus view, explain it simply, even to a dummy, as I’ve given a go at explaining and laying out the rationale for my position on the subject.
By the way, do you think that these discussions are of no interest to your theory? If so, I’ll stop.
Casey
Mr. Fahy,
If you were to disprove a mathematical theorem, f(x) = y, you could do it in a number of different ways.
You could try computing f(x) for a large number of possibilities to find one that did not match the predicted ‘y’. You would only need one exception to either prove the theorem wrong or to force it to be reformulated.
Another approach would be to follow the proof and uncover a flaw in the logic.
If the purpose of the exercise is insight and unifying results, we tend to concentrate on systematic methods and avoid the isolated results.
If the theory is invalid, either method works. You are free to attack it either way–even by invoking references to Selmer Bringsjord (Clay Prize winner? I don’t think so).
I’ll take that as a yes.
Mr. Fahy,
you should really read Ludwig von Mises’s "Human Action" on macro-praxeological prediction
I am familiar with Mises; both Ludwig and Richard.
Let’s unite their ideas into one more example because I think we’re close. Keep in mind that this is an analogy but it may make Parts 2-6 easier to understand.
Consider a stock picking game. You have a pigeons crapping on the Wall Street Journal, monkeys throwing darts and a group of star hedge fund traders.
Each individual has a trading account with a different sum of money.
Whether they "know it or not", if their return relative to their initial wealth falls below a treshold r_c, their account is closed. At the end of each day, their returns are calculated.
Now consider only the performance of each portfolio.
Is there a closed-form solution to always win at this game? No. Will the star hedge fund traders always win? No. Will they sometimes get caught up in trends (e.g. tech stocks) that can ruin them? Yes. Do their intentions when they pick a stock affect the return? No. Might the hedge fund traders use options and stocks together to hedge certain risks in a way that monkeys and pigeons can not? Yes. Can these financial innovations free them from the consequences of the market? No. Does knowing that maximizing r is the objective help? Yes.
So how do we gauge who will be around to play tomorrow?
max E([r – r_c]@t F@t-1)
Now swap out money with alpha and please explain what changes. If you can improve on this strategy, you have an even bigger theory on your hands and there are some very big banks that would let you name your price.
Let’s ignore the filtration for a second–it’s tripping people up. Consider a purely hypothetical system.
(1) Humans with a "perfect" alpha model (zero epsilon)
(2) Humans with the "perfect" ethical framework
Where do these diverge and why? How does the "wild-card" of consciousness change (2)?
Keep in mind that when alpha is not maximized, free energy is literally wasted. Not "invested" in high risk/high return opportunities but burned into waste heat and decay.
Bourbaki,
a) People knew about gravity, they just didn’t know it applied in the heavens. Nobody knew about alpha.
b)There is a closed form solution not to lose the game, assuming you know what the monkeys are doing.
c) Finally, you pinned the tail on the donkey:
"(1) Humans with a "perfect" alpha model (zero epsilon)
(2) Humans with the "perfect" ethical framework
Where do these diverge and why?"
This is the question. I list cults as divergence. What’s your answer?
This is good. Watch out! A new idea! Didn’t they shut down the patent office in 1900? (They didn’t–I was joking).
a) People knew about gravity, they just didn’t know it applied in the heavens. Nobody knew about alpha.
I’m sure the same sentiment applies to germs, atoms, and DNA. Galileo, Newton, et. al. were simply tidying up the sums. They did nothing to increase our understanding?
b)There is a closed form solution not to lose the game, assuming you know what the monkeys are doing.
A closed form solution for the financial markets based on knowing what a group of monkeys is doing? Please show it to me! We’ll rule the markets! I’ll gladly provide the capital. And the monkeys.
Is there a paper by Selmer Bringsjord I can read? Will I need to take out tiny ads in local papers?
c) Finally, you pinned the tail on the donkey: This is the question. I list cults as divergence. What’s your answer?
You completely misunderstood the question. You are confusing alpha and alpha-star. You think cults qualify for the hypothetical "perfect" alpha model?
For an alpha model to be "perfect", it must be zero epsilon. How can any dogma possibly be zero epsilon?
But also keep in mind that churning your portfolio just to look busy isn’t alphatropic either. Sometimes you just gotta take a sabbath and think about stuff.
Bill and Casey,
Consider the sheer waste of time that is arguing with Bourbaki:
"Let’s ignore the filtration for a second–it’s tripping people up. Consider a purely hypothetical system.
(1) Humans with a ‘perfect’ alpha model (zero epsilon),
(2) Humans with the ‘perfect’ ethical framework."
People can even know the perfect alpha model and still actively and systematically work against it. (THAT’S "where.") Indeed, before people knew about alpha, they indeed could not have been "pursuing" it. When they do, then they still only MIGHT pursue it. Now, molecules and ants may be inexorably doing this, but humans frequently pursue their alpha* in the afterlife … I still wonder if that really "counts."
Human "filtration" and "reconfiguration" happens by means, not of natural selection, but by conceptual consciousness. For alpha-theory to really be an improvement, people will have come to understand and accept it and employ it in their conduct. Until then, they may be quite explicitly (and literally) "pursuing" something else altogether–like death. That’s the mechanism of alpha* pursuit, such as it is, for humans. We do not wait for evolution to change us phsyically. Nor do we wait for the environment to recondition us. We think, consider, and act on our conceptual beliefs which may or may not conform to alpha. I do agree with Hayek, that many human social institutions are the unconscious result of a kind of evolution and selection-process, much of which is unintended and unknown to us, but retained because it furthers our (and its) survival. But making these things conscious IS possible to humans and it is really the only way of preserving such an institution in the long run–for human beings. All of this "unconsidered" stuff can very easily be trumped by conscious religion and ethics, precisely because we don’t know why we’re doing it.
Also, I’m still dubious about the actual ethical implications of alpha. I will wait to see if produces the same thing as "good" (muchless "perfect") ethics, something I know about with some confidence. I want to see alpha handle a variety of difficult ethical questions, first. If it’s answers line-up with what I already know with great clarity about ethics, then alpha is step closer, at least.
"For all of this Objectivist glorification of the human capacity for abstraction (see other thread), it is ironic that they are unable or unwilling to see abstraction applied to ethics." Objectivism has a whole collection of ethical abstractions and principles. (See Tara Smith’s ‘Viable Values,’ just for example.) Don’t ya just love folks who shoot off their mouths wildly against something from a position of that kind of total ignorance?
And, I wonder, why exactly don’t monkeys and pigeons have hedge-funds? I mean, precisely, why–the mechanism itself, not the thermodynamic reasons for developing such a mechanism, or why the mechanism saves energy, or why we can expect such a mechanism to have evolved, etc.–but the exact "why"? How do we do that except by self-critical thinking, concepts and choices?
Bourbaki,
To not lose the investment game relative to the monkeys, just mimic the monkeys. This should be as obvious as the strategy in matching pennies.
Germs were novel, but seen entities. Atoms were discussed since Democritus. DNA? Since Mendel we were looking for clues. Nobody is looking for alpha. Nobody. I realize the last creatures to discover water would be fish, but good grief, even fish would have found something like this.
Thermodynamics as proxy for ethics? Why not electro-magnetism or gravity or anything else with some laws to which conservation attach? I know, a theory of ethics based on angular momentum! Yes, that’s the ticket. This whole is Rylean category mistake.
Mr. Valliant,
Welcome back!
We do not wait for evolution to change us phsyically. Nor do we wait for the environment to recondition us.
I take it you live in a hyperbaric chamber on the mothership and have no need for an immune system?
the same thing as "good" (muchless "perfect") ethics, something I know about with some confidence.
Oh yeah. That’s self-evident. Just check out the rants of your fellow droid:
Some of the "ominous parallels" between pre-Hitler Germany and the United States that Peikoff identifies are:
* Liberals who demand public control over the use and disposal of private property social security, more taxes, more government control over the energy industry, medicine, broadcasting, etc.
* Conservatives who demand government control over our intellectual and moral life prayer in the schools, literary censorship, government intervention in the teaching of biology, the anti-abortion movement, etc.
* Political parties devoid of principles or direction and moved at random by pressure groups, each demanding still more controls.
* A "progressive," anti-intellectual educational system that, from kindergarten to graduate school, creates students who can’t read or write students brainwashed into the feeling that their minds are helpless and they must adapt to "society," that there is no absolute truth and that morality is whatever society says it is.
* A student radical movement (from the 1960’s through the violent anti-nukers and ecology fanatics of today) who are, Peikoff maintains, the "pre-Hitler youth movement resurrected." The radicals are nature worshippers who attack the middle class, science, technology, and business.
* The rise of defiant old-world racial hatreds disguised as "ethnic-identity" movements and "affirmative action."
* A pervasive atmosphere of decadence, moral bankruptcy, and nihilist art accompanied by the rise of escapist mystic cults of every kind astrology, "alternative medicine," Orientalists, extrasensory perception, etc.
In an introduction to Peikoff’s book, Ayn Rand describes The Ominous Parallels as, "the first book by an Objectivist philosopher other than myself" and goes on to say that, "If you do not wish to be a victim of today’s philosophical bankruptcy, I recommend The Ominous Parallels as protection and ammunition. It will protect you from supporting, unwittingly, the ideas that are destroying you and the world."
Don’t ya just love folks who shoot off their mouths wildly against something from a position of that kind of total ignorance?
Indeed. You got me. I’m an "Orientalist"!
And, I wonder, why exactly don’t monkeys and pigeons have hedge-funds?
Did you miss the explicit instructions to consider only the portfolios?
To not lose the investment game relative to the monkeys, just mimic the monkeys. This should be as obvious as the strategy in matching pennies.
Who said this was relative? It’s with respect to the markets (Universe)
You and the monkeys would go bankrupt at the same time. Damn–there goes the money printing machine.
Bourbaki,
Games are usually between participants. If it is not between participants, then it is not a game, is it?
Mr. Kaplan,
Games are usually between participants. If it is not between participants, then it is not a game, is it?
Aren’t the financial markets composed of participants? So your "closed-form solution" was to know what every other participant was doing?
I thought you were going to point out that r_c could be the risk free rate so you could buy Treasuries and repo them with a triple-A counterparty.
Then again, my ears perked up when I heard set theory, the Copenhagen debate, and alternatives to the theory of evolution. I, too, am an optimist and am eagerly awaiting your formulation of alpha theory using only angular momentum. If you do it, alpha theory will become something like M-Theory with lots of candidates.
Unfortunately, in this case, our cost of funds will probably be (wild guess) in the LIBOR + 50 bps range so that strategy wouldn’t work. Plus, why would we need the monkeys?
I’m sorry, but I’m not so sure about investing in an omniscience strategy. Although Mr. Valliant was a bit too harsh on Mr. Marbles–he does have a fund and he’s doing quite well–but I would think twice before putting the nest egg in there. Nevertheless, he works for bananas and looks damn good in a tuxedo.
And remember, the whole exercise was an illustration to make Parts 2 – 6 easier to understand. We could just stick with the math and physics.
Bourbaki,
Re Investing: Screw triple a counterparties. If the game is to last as long as you can knowing that you are out of the game with a loss, then sell covered calls on low beta stocks making new highs. At least you got the cash.
Re M-Theory: I agree with uncle Shelly, I don’t understand it.
Bourbaki,
I’m not "back" for you or your free-floating portfolios. If you cannot see the difference between a real portfolio that must be created by human beings and whatever animal analogue you care to stretch and belabor and confuse, then you are hopelessly blind to reality. Your pathological need to attack Rand and her ideas rather than focus on the specific points of substance raised here and your admitted inability to see the points I do make, rendering you, by your admission, unable to respond to me, makes dialogue with you impossible. Surely, you can see that by now?
Mr. Kaplan,
What if volatility was cheap? Would you sell volatility at any price?
Maybe I should keep my four dollars in my mattress. If I buy one more sub, I get a free one.
Mr. Valliant,
Cheer up. What good is a philosophy if it can’t take some heckling?
If you cannot see the difference between a real portfolio that must be created by human beings and whatever animal analogue you care to stretch and belabor and confuse, then you are hopelessly blind to reality.
I do see a difference. Monkeys sometimes outperform the humans. But fear not–alpha theory won’t have you working for Mr. Marbles anytime soon.
Bourbaki,
In real life you are correct about pricing. But you put forward a game that could be lost, but not won. In that circumstance, I avoid volatility.
Mr. Kaplan,
But you put forward a game that could be lost, but not won.
Like life?
Bourbaki,
Yeah. That second law is a bitch.
"Your pathological need to attack Rand and her ideas rather than focus on the specific points of substance raised here and your admitted inability to see the points I do make, rendering you, by your admission, unable to respond to me, makes dialogue with you impossible."
You are either completely obtuse or so enamored of the Hive-Mind that you are no longer able to see argument when it is front of you. Bourbaki has time and again offered arguments (with transparency and logical connections and proof) and you time and again mistake it for an ad hominem. Perhaps back at the Compound you guys are unused to it, so for your sake let me assure you that this is called "argument" and "discussion". I know it is scary stuff to have to do, but many of us find our lives enriched by it. Of course this presupposes that you able (if not willing) to be persuaded.
But given posts like "no matter what alpha says it supports Objectivism" and "a good philosophy does not need to change with the march of science", I hold out little hope.
Oh well. I bet you guys have nifty robes at least.
C.T.,
Newton’s proven science was not "overturned" by anything discovered later. Neither were the truths of logic discovered by Aristotle. Our understanding of both has greatly sophsticated, but, like Objectivism, established truth need never worry about subsequent discoveries. It must, of course, actively remain open to new information and thinking. (As I have demonstrated here, but not Bourbaki.) There is also an epistemoloigical heirarchy and order to knowledge (one of the many points ignored by Bourbaki), as well, with the necessary base of all knowledge being more secure than what is built on it, like the relationship between sense-perception and axiomatic concepts to theories of physics. We do not wipe out all prior knowledge when we discover something new. We add to it, show why and under what circumstances it applies, etc. But truth always remains truth. This is heresy, I know, so I don’t need to tell you to get the angry mob with the torches worked up.
"Randroid," used by you or Bourbaki, just to cite but one of the many, many examples you ignore, is not a reasoned argument. You are just as dishonest as he is.
Later!
"but, like Objectivism, established truth need never worry about subsequent discoveries."
Should anyone ever offer the establishment of the truth of Objectivism as solidily as that of Newtonian physics than I will agree it need not fear subsequent discovery. Note that this establishment need be more robust than an Objectivist claiming Objectivism to be true.
Actually not entirely. Even Newtonian physics allows for its disproof.
CT,
"Note that this establishment need be more robust than an Objectivist claiming Objectivism to be true.
Actually not entirely. Even Newtonian physics allows for its disproof."
Yeah, but Dawinism doesn’t. NB–that horse well flogged.
Bill – That depends if we’re talking evolution the theory/theories or evolution the facts. Evolution qua fact is not falsifiable precisely because it’s a set of facts, not a theory. Organisms change and evolve. This, I should hope, you don’t dispute. Evolutionary theories seek to find the underlying mechanisms behind these changes that occur and should at least in principle be as open to falsification as any other biological theories.
And as for the rest of you… Yeesh. It comes to this.
Bourbaki and CT: "Randroids! Cultists! Silly doo-doo-heads!"
Jim and Casey: "You just don’t get it man!"
While I am substantively in agreement with Bourbaki and CT, I am having trouble not cringing at all of this.
Matt,
You missed it. I do not believe Darwinism (as opposed to theories about the development of specific organisms) is falisible. In short, I believe we have (1)cut off observing instances that tend to undermine Darwinian theory, and (2) have assumed the theory in cases that may not be justified. I conclude that Darwinism is not a scientific theory at all, but a meta-theory which prescibes an accounting for all subsidiary arguments. I will shut up now before Bourbaki sees this post.
I will try not to indulge the temptation to be a "doo-doo-head" myself. And, yes, I had it coming.
I will shut up now before Bourbaki sees this post.
Not a problem. Perhaps you’ll find this helpful.
Models are supposed to be replaced if something better comes along. Science is generally competitive enough to allow this to happen and there is still plenty of debate among biologists about what drives adaptation. But scientists are not immune to confirmation bias.
But Mr. Kaplan, you seem to have a chicken and egg problem on your hands. Wouldn’t you dismiss any alternative theory out of hand simply because it was new and others had not already been looking for it?
Bill,
Well if we want to get right down to it, Darwinism is just a macro-scale application of alpha theory. Organisms which tend to exhibit alphadistropic behaviour relative to their surrounding environment tend to die off (in Darwinian language, they are "unfit"). So Darwinism is falsifiable insofar as thermodynamics is falsifiable. You can certainly phrase it in ways that make it falsifiable, such as "any animal which consumes sources of food in its environment faster than those sources can replenish will inevitably die off". Just because the predictions are glaringly obvious doesn’t make them unfalsifiable; it’s just that the potential falsifiers would be absurd.
Or at least that’s how I see it, but I’m not a biologist.
Mr. McIntosh,
The epistemic standard of "falsifiability" is a purely philosophical position, specifically, an epistemological one (a product of useless previous philosophizing?), but one that I question in many other applications.
For example, do direct observations have to "falsifiable"? Sure, experimental results must be replicable, but, ultimately, how does one "falsify" what has been claimed to have been observed except by more observation or its absence? Is the validity of observation itself something that must be "falsifiable"? At most, isn’t this standard applicable only to abstract propositions (just for starters)? Then, hows about the standard of falsifiability itself–does IT have to be "falsifiable," etc., and why?
Please tell me why exactly this standard is being assumed and adopted as universal? If you can stick to alpha theory and not appeal to any "meta"-anything–certainly no previous philosophy–to do so, all the better.
Matt
You are right as to the degrading of civility and maturity. For my contribution to it let me offer my apologies for my childish behavior to Mr. Kaplan, Mr. Valliant and Mr. Fahy and anyone else that may deserve it.
CT and Bourbaki – Good men, now play it clean from here on in and no more R-word! :)
Jim,
"For example, do direct observations have to "falsifiable"?"
No. Sensory observations/basic statements are singular and not subject to falsification (though sometimes they may not be telling us what we think they are, but that’s slightly different). When Popperians like myself (and Bill, presumably) talk about falsification, we’re only talking about universal theories such as the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc. There’s a logical asymmetry between universal theories and singular observations: universal theories are falsifiable but not verifiable (as in we can’t abslutely be totally sure of their truth, though we can corroborate them through experiment) and can predict singular events, while singular instances/observations are verifiable but not falsifiable and can falsify a universal theory.
Matt,
Yes I am a Popperian in this sense: In order for a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable. There are a lot of other kinds of theories that happen to be correct that are not falsifiable. They just aren’t "scientific".
Bourbaki,
You mean Gould wins and Dawkins loses, but Darwin remains above it all, paring his fingernails? Well, at least Gould liked baseball.
Mr. Kaplan,
I’m not sure what a glib summing up of two popular accounts achieves. Each author must do a great deal of hand waving to get the message across to a lay audience. It’s a very important task but popularizers should not be mistaken for spokespeople.
I’m not so sure how much of the debate was actually between Dawkins and Gould and how much of it was "hammed" up between self-styled Bacons and their own "distempers".
As I understand it, Gould saw an uncrossable divide between science and ethics that is bridged by alpha theory. Dawkins, or more likely, those who speak for him, mistakenly separated the filtration from the unit of selection, the gene.
Consider the main types of biopolymers (nulceotides and protein) that are all constructed by the same underlying model–a regular repeating backbone with variable side chains, consisting of four bases and translated into twenty amino acids. This type of stucture generates a gigantic number of polymers with ‘n’ monomers: 4^n polynucleotides and 20^n polypeptides.
For a polynucleotide with 300 bases, coding for a small protein, the number of possible sequences is 4.0E180–more than the total number of electrons in the known Universe.
The value of ‘n’ is 3.0E3 to 5.0E5 for viruses, 10E6 to 10E7 for bacteria, and 10E9 to 10E10 for plants and animals.
We know that the environment affects gene expression and mutation. So in a sense, Dawkins stance on gene determinism is akin to Poincare’s stance on refuting the second law of thermodynamics.
Boltzmann crunched the numbers for a cubic centimer of gas.
If you took a cubic centimeter of gas in some ordered state and let it sit for 10E[trillion] years (that’s 10 to the trillionth power or so), you have a non-zero chance of the gas returning to its ordered state.
You are free to crunch the numbers for the biopolymers. My tip calculator only shows ‘ERROR’.
C.T.,
One thing I do know, I got out of hand myself.
Mr. McIntosh,
I’m beginning to think that we would agree about everything if stuck in a room together. Will you agree with me that there is an epistemology underneath alpha, the development of centuries of science and philosophy, whether the authors admit this or not?
Jim,
I think so. If we consider ethics to be an advanced form of doing alpha, then I suppose epistemology can be considered an advanced filtration system.
Mr. George,
Why not scale up Crooke’s radiometer? Others have tried and ended up here.
But how would any of this change our conclusions?
Bourbaki,
Merry Christmas! (Does that annoy you?)
Anyway, anyone who is a tenured professor at Harvard, Oxford or similarly snooty school is by definition a spokeman for his position, even if he is a popular author. Sorry, but I have had to put up with Dershowitz as a spokesman for my profession, much to my consternation.
Hello –
Well with due respect to the considerabe number of cogent points made, I think, from my perspective anyway, that one of your premises is wrong and is fatal to your result.
All is not number.
The taste of beer, the feeling of orgasm, jealousy, the feeling you get when you help an old lady carry her groveries – these might be *represented* in some mathematical fashion, but the map is not necessarily the territory.
Second, I will "be that guy" and quote Nietzche to the effect "there are no moral phenomena at all – only a moral interpretation of phenomena".
Lastly, and etymology and the dictionaries of philosophy aside, I would suggest that morality and ‘ethics’ go to the mode of analysis/interpretation/understanding of a given fact pattern.
Old fashioned empathy seems a great and valid way to interact with the world on a personal level – morality is the reduction of suffering.
Right action in the abstract would seem to be a form of Pragmatism where the problem is people’s initial valuation’s matter.
In any event, please take these thoughts in the spirit in which they were offered – i.e. a rather amicable, flexible one.
And there’s a better than average chance I misunderstood portions of your piece anyways.
-JvE
If, as I claimed at some length, I can assign an alpha number to all events, then "All is number" is a conclusion, not a premise. It could be wrong, but then the error must lie in my derivation and must be pointed out. A map is a model of a territory: this is the territory.
I agree with you and Nietzsche that there is only a moral interpretation of phenomena. Alpha is a theory of optimality; you may call it morality or ethics, as most people would, or you may call it something else.
I agree with you about empathy too. Alpha theory claims that everyone acts on an alpha model to maximize alpha star; in other words, that no one aims at alphadystropy. In still other words, people act for reasons, and suboptimal action is a result of a high-epsilon alpha model and nothing else. I realize that all sounds pretty Vulcan, but at bottom it’s a surprisingly empathetic theory of behavior, don’t you think?
Aaron,
Since you appear to have replaced Homo Economicus with Homo Alphastaricus, how do you answer the critics of the former like Daniel Kahneman?
Mr. Kaplan,
Can you be more specific?
Sub-optimal or irrational behavior is already addressed by epsilon.
One very important result of Kahneman and Tversky work is demonstrating that people’s attitudes toward risks concerning gains may be quite different from their attitudes toward risks concerning losses. For example, when given a choice between getting $1000 with certainty or having a 50% chance of getting $2500 they may well choose the certain $1000 in preference to the uncertain chance of getting $2500 even though the mathematical expectation of the uncertain option is $1250. This is a perfectly reasonable attitude that is described as risk-aversion. But Kahneman and Tversky found that the same people when confronted with a certain loss of $1000 versus a 50% chance of no loss or a $2500 loss do often choose the risky alternative. This is called risk-seeking behavior. This is not necessarily irrational but it is important for analysts to recognize the asymmetry of human choices.
The choices aren’t quite so inscrutable given your own observation (see above discussion of game theory) that we’re playing an asymmetric game.
It would be helpful if you could illustrate how Kahneman’s theory diverges from alpha.
Choices, Values and Frames seems to go hand in hand with what we’ve been discussing here.
The game at this link is no longer active but you could observe behavior at a casino to learn many of the same lessons.
I haven’t visited this site in a wile, and my what a contentious comment area has emerged.
I am normally loathe to comment on very long threads (associated with very long comments sections, as well), but I would like to respond to Aaron’s three points above, since he suggests that no one else has.
1. & 2. Aaron, if I recall your earlier posts correctly, you were trying to put philosophy (as practiced on blogs) on a firmer ground by removing the mutable opinions of people and replacing them with the immutable structures of science.
So let us suppose that I have no argument with the laws of thermodynamics. As you have stated things, the laws of thermodynamics are ironclad. In other words, they will hold whether I accept them or not. As a result, I really do not see where you have shown that Eustaces flourish "insofar as they _pursue_ [alpha]," or that all we wild Eustaces "_act_ on models, which we call alpha models, to approximate it." (emphasis mine)
At most you have shown that thermodynamics favors some Eustaces over others. You have not shown that any Eustaces are aware of that fact — In fact, you have repeatedly emphasized that philosophers, throughout history, have been blithely unaware of it, and that even scientists only realized it over the last couple of centuries — nor that they choose to act on that fact in any way even if they are aware of it. (I apologize for that horrible sentence construction, and for my repeared use of the phase "in fact" in what follows.)
In fact, if I take your argument on its face, I don’t need to do anything it all to move philosophy forward. After all, thermodynamics works in one direction, as you have also pointed out. The sheer passage of time has surely led us towards the maximization of whatever function you propose. Even if that function itself has been changing over time, we should still have made some progress up its hill. If that were not the case, if the maximization function could be changing so rapidly and radically that progress could not be made, your thermodynamic model would be pointless.
So to summarize: I do not see that you have motivated any _necessary cognizant (or even incognizant) action_ on Eustace’s part (a survival instinct, I suppose, as that phrase is suggestive of the origins of your approach). In fact, I think your model does not require it, as it would appear to pose a undirectional model of progress for any organism located within it — any object, really, that follows the laws of thermodynamics.
As a result, I can only conclude that under your model we are currently at or approximately at the highest level of philosophical attainment the world has ever known.
I am a bit too tired to properly address the consequences of this observation now, so I will only say this. People who made this sort of argument in the last century of the last millenium were generally met with the retort of WWI. Then, at least in American arts and letters, they were met with the retort of the Great Depression. Then WWII. Then the USSR. Then…Well, you get the idea. The point is, philosophy and humanity in this day and age should be rightly suspicious of unidirectional theories of development.
And frankly, given your "pre-Disconsolation" posts, I would have expected you to be rather cynical about them as well.
Since you say there has been much discussion of point 3., I will leave that one alone.
Finally, I apologize if I have missed your point. I do intend to return and try to work through the comments section a bit more. But if you do intend to argue that the question of "What is optimal behavior for living systems?" is a question best answered with physics, I am afraid I will always have to disagree. Physics is what "is", not what "ought" — even more strongly, physics is what "is", _regardless_ of what "ought." A philosophy based on physics will therefore necessarily true or necessarily false, regardless of whether or not I personally assent or dissent from it. But such a philosophy, and certainly such an aesthetics, is plainly absurd. My life is full of "oughts," like what I ought to have for dinner, when I ought to leave for work, and how I ought to finish this comment already. Any philosophy with no room for "oughts" has no room for actual living, breathing people making active, conscious decisions in a living, breathing world.
However, I do recognize that eliminating people tends to streamline the philosophy. Your equations are relatively simple, after all. So please, feel free to build your castle in the air. But I’ll remain here on the ground.
Anon.
Aaron,
Does your theory have as a basic assumption that survival is the fundamental objective of our or any rational existence?
I’ve only been following from a distance and have only skimmed the comments quickly, so I apologize if you’ve spoken to this point already.
Bourbaki,
Kahneman (I think it was him) set up a very interesting experiment not cited in your links. In it, he gave two parties, who are in different rooms, who never meet and never will know who the other is the chance to share $100. The method is known to both participants ahead of time. The first party gets to choose how the $100 is to be shared: 50/50 or 90/10 or 75/25 or 99/1, whatever. The second participant has the right to accept the split or veto it. If there is a veto neither gets anything.
If the second participant is homo economicus, he will accept any split that gives him more than $0. Why? Because he is in a better position (a) than when he started, and (b) than he would be in if he vetoed the split. However, Kahneman discovered that in a large number of cases when the first participant was too aggressive in his split, the second participant vetoed it. Thus, something else than rational economic behavior was at play in the second participant’s decision.
While I believe you are correct that sub-optimal behavior is addressed by epsilon, irrational behavior is not. Alpha is that towards which all things aim, period. Thus, if a participant in, well, life chooses not to maximize alpha by vetoing a trade that would increase free energy (which is what money is recast as here), then the theory falls.
Mr. Kaplan,
Alan Alda participates in that very experiment in SIA Frontiers on PBS.
From the show:
ALAN ALDA Well, if they give me a ridiculous offer, then I lose money because I don’t accept their ridiculous offer?
JIM RILLING That’s correct. If you reject the offer, neither of you get anything.
Refusing to reward or facilitate behavior that is perceived to be unfair is not necessarily irrational.
Alpha is that towards which all things aim, period.
And, you are, again, mistaking alpha for alpha-star.
Anon,
"At most you have shown that thermodynamics favors some Eustaces over others. You have not shown that any Eustaces are aware of that fact"
Nobody said they have to be, but it can certainly help them if they are.
"In fact, I think your model does not require it, as it would appear to pose a undirectional model of progress for any organism located within it — any object, really, that follows the laws of thermodynamics."
Aaron is proposing no such thing. He specifically said that once any Eustace drops below a_c (alpha critical), it’s game over for them. Yes we are currently at the highest point we’ve ever been at, but we can still lose ground by pursuing alphadistropic behaviour.
Physics is what "is", not what "ought" — even more strongly, physics is what "is", _regardless_ of what "ought."
Aaron knows this. If I understand it correctly, alpha is not normative, it’s strictly a tool. It doesn’t tell us what we should or shouldn’t do, merely gives us a way of evaluating certain policies with some degree of rigor and precision. You are free to pursue radically alphadistropic behaviour if you like, but it’s not a good idea if you value survival.
Although it’s not a perfect analogy, financial examples can be illustrative. We just need to keep in mind that we’re working with an analogy. Consider a business in a free market. There are many more ways to lose money than there are to make it. And there are constraints that no firm can violate.
Further, there are no surefire ways to always make money. If there were, all businesses would be engaged in that activity. Opportunities depend on market conditions, efficiency, competition and the resources available to a firm. A highly evolved species can still be wiped out–just look at our hominid relatives.
In many ways, alpha theory is as "prescriptive" as free market theory. Any collection of pescriptive recipes (simple or complex) will still be accountable to the underlying physics (or economics).
(There hasn’t yet been any explanation of aesthetics so let’s hold off on how it might be absurd.)
Then WWII. Then the USSR. Then…Well, you get the idea. So please, feel free to build your castle in the air. But I’ll remain here on the ground.
Mr. Anon, you’re playing Chicken Little while excusing yourself for your positions by complaining that you’re tired–yet you’re still intent on kicking up a lot of dust with vague assertions.
I knew sooner or later we’d run up against Godwin’s Law. Since these are simple equations (as are most equations in physics), why don’t you give us an example of how alpha leads to dystopia?
Let us consider what alpha can deliver: an objective, openly derived metric by which we can judge the fitness, sustainability, health, liklihood to survive or whatever of any system that is liable to the LoT. If we agree that sustainability is to be preferred then it is clear that we can derive prescriptive or at least favorable actions. I assume further that what one "ought" to do is that which favors sustainability. Alpha *may* allow us to determine what this is tho that also may require more information on our part than we can actually ever have. What it can do is allow us to measure a system and determine if any given action is more or less likely to favor sustainability. I for one am perfectly comfortable calling this prescription. Further I am comfortable placing a value on one behavior over another – that which favors sustainablity is to be preferred.
Good issues, and I pine for the answers to them:
"I do not see that you have motivated any necessary cognizant (or even incognizant) action on Eustace’s part…" Why do anything? Why is survival something I should lift a finger for? Why can’t my alpha* be sadism or power-lust–why not? Why can’t someone say, "Sadism and power-lust feel really good, and I much prefer these pleasures to longevity or optimal whatever." Can this be addressed? Or, is the foregoing the most we can expect here?
"If I understand it correctly, alpha is not normative, it’s strictly a tool. It doesn’t tell us what we should or shouldn’t do, merely gives us a way of evaluating certain policies with some degree of rigor and precision. You are free to pursue radically alphadistropic behaviour if you like, but it’s not a good idea if you value survival." IF I do? Why should I? Aren’t some pleasures superior to old-age?Aaron, is this premise true, and, if so, is your theory really ethics?
Mr. Valliant:
Filtration and alpha* being what they are organisms certainly may and certainly do pursue alphadystrophic behaviors (tho it has not been established that either "power-lust" or sm is such a behavior, but I assume that is how you intended them). However, such behavior will lead to a decrease in alpha and a hastening towards system incoherence and dissolution.
Therefore such behavior is not to be recommended, and thus we arrive at prescription.
That it can be determined that there are prescriptive behaviors and we can determine what these behaviors are (or are not) is not the same thing as saying that no organism will act contrary to them.
This discrepancy is captured in its entirety by the section on epsilon and alpha*.