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.)
Examples, Aaron, Examples
Aaron, since you have proposed thermodynamics as alternative to traditional ethical theory, let us look at a situation universally recognized as either good or bad traditionally and see what your new analysis says about it. Lets make sure that the thermodynamic angle is easily understood. Being an optimist I think we should look at something good, so I propose this example:
Dolly Ricaso, an artist beloved the world over for her painting belonging to no style but her own, experiences a strange feeling in her eye. She immediately calls Eyeman al-Lazere, a top-of-the-heap Park Avenue ophthalmologist who sees her at once. It is a detached retina, he says. Eyeman picks up his laser, and quickly and efficiently saves the eyesight of Dolly, permitting her to continue her much loved vocation.
Now there is little doubt that this is a good result. The skilled healer helping the worthy patient is the stuff of dreams. Jewish mothers want their sons to be that doctor and Bohemians see their kids as the artist. No one has any qualms at all about such a scenario except, maybe, alpha.
You see alpha is a quantity of an arbitrarily defined system. So lets look at the systems. First, look at Dollys eyeball. Has alpha increased after surgery? What about Dolly, before and after? What is the doctors relationship with alpha? Are the doctor and Dolly one system, two or many? What if you start looking at the cost of the energy in the laser, which relies on a very useful pyramid of energy waste (20 kilowatts on the sharp end of the laser starts as energy equal to 6,600 kilowatt hours of fossil fuel) how does that effect alpha?
I think you will find, as you expand the notion of system, that alpha gets closer to 1.
In fact, as parts of the cosmic microwave background coalesce, certain parts of the universe, WHICH IS NOT LIFE, will have an alpha greater than 1.
More to come. Watch for me in the owners box at the Redskins game this Sunday.
The problem with your er… pseudo-science… is that ethics cannot be found by thermodynamics or any other single law of physics. Facts from all kind of sciences and disciplines have to be understood in order to make meaningful statements about a given context.
And I think this blog is definitely not for me anymore… the author is really deviating from reason and going into hubris.
Sigh. And we were amped for an application of set theory. Mr. Kaplan’s adorable glee over the Google interview question hinted at some potential. But this is not set theory. This "challenge" is riddled with linear fallacies. The editorializing and extraneous details are enjoyable but knocking down a theory requires something more than an inability to apply it correctly.
And alpha doesn’t prohibit the good doctor from doing his work.
But these counterclaims share the same tiresome approach of misapplying the tools, predicting erroneous results and using those results as evidence.
If it is not yet clear where and how to draw the volume for Eustace, no worries. That’s a criticism of the users guide and Mr. Haspel can only pour so much into each post.
(Cue sweeping music)
Mr. Tremblay issues charges of "pseudo-science" that again seem to be rooted in an inability to see immediate cash value. That’s completely understandable. I, too, would like to return to the high quality service at the cafe. Unfortunately, "quick and easy" wasn’t on the menu. But his vague, unsubstantiated counterclaims seem more reactionary and emotional than insightful. It’s "hubris". How?
If it’s hard and confusing, well that’s not so great and it must be sketched out further.
It’s an openly derived theory rather than a guarded emotional crutch. If there is a way to skewer and dice it’s foundations, that’s great. But that’s how one separates a bad theory from one that has value. Either it progresses or we knock it down–properly.
Bourbaki,
The mansion of alpha theory, which was born practically overnight, must be demolished doorjam by doorjam by its creator. That (1) he has not defined the set to which it applies, (2) that as the set gets larger, the closer to 1 you get (maybe even assymptotically) and (3) that even inanimate systems can be defined as life under alpha theory’s rules will start Aaron off. He is nothing if not an honest referee of argument, and he will soon see the weaknesses of his argument. Unlike Wolfrum, he will snap out of it.
CMB? What do the arrangements of microwaves and universal anisotropy have to do with this? Our esteemed physics colleagues are studying istropy versus anisotropy.
Application or use cases of this stuff should and will be properly treated in its own post. To indulge Mr. Kaplan’s short attention span dilettantism, let’s restate the equation so it appears directly in front of us. We’ll take it slow.
a_c is some number greater than 1. But the actual value of a_c is not available without experiment. Remember the emprical bit? The graph for various complex systems might be smooth or punctuated by inflections. But, again, to actually calulate the number would require work.
max E([a – a_c]@t F@t-1)
Now poor Dolly is injured. But the good doctor can help her out by repairing her injury. He’s going to use a laser and some electricity.
Now which parts of this system are above a_c?
Dolly? Yes.
Doctor? Yes.
Two "alpha agents" composed of a collection of highly coordinated cells that are in turn composed of a highly coordinated collection of organelles and so on. You are free to draw the boundaries anywhere you like but it’s probably best to adjust these boundaries until the system of interest is in focus.
If there is evidence of thermodynamically transformative interactions with other systems above a_c, let’s throw ’em into the model.
These agents can interact and in one scenario the doctor can repair Dolly’s injuries.
Now which parts of this system are above a_c?
Laser? No.
Electricity? No.
But these tools can be directed towards repairing an alpha agent.
So the good doctor can direct free energy to do work to repair Dolly’s injury. That sounds like it will maximize the expected value of alpha to me.
Be careful–this is not utilitarianism. That non-linear thing is a bitch. But the explanation is for a later post.
If Mr. Kaplan can promise to throw in goodies like Malliavin Calculus or Lie Groups in the meantime–even if it’s in superficial name only, all the better.
The lesson so far? Why walk through a door when you can use your head as a blunt club to smash it?
"I merely pointed out that living organisms are Eustaces that have developed sufficient complexity to exhibit certain characteristics, and I told you what those characteristics are. Living organisms are the tail of the distribution, that’s all.
The answer to your question, of course, is no. Alpha is calculated for the entire system, not merely the boundaries that end at my skin, and the inputs always have to be considered. If I kill people for food I’m engaging in behavior that, in the context of the entire system, is radically alphadystropic, no matter what it does for my own diet."
The above quote is from an email Aaron sent to me. So it seems, Bourbaki, you have misinterpreted alpha theory as applying only to alpha agents.
Thus Aaron’s position does not have the weakness that so much of ethics and political philosophy maintains of being applicable only to humans. Personally, I think man is the measure of all things, but if you want to count the furry beasts and insects, that is your perogative. Peter Singer sure does.
The point however is this, philosophy is largely an exercise in defining the set that counts. For Rand, the set is the individual human. For the average Republican, the family, for the american liberal, the individual in sexual matters and the state in everything else, for the "communitarian", the community and for Marx it is the proletariat. If you are Chomsky it is every bad thing America has done at home and abroad, and if you are D’Sousa it is every good thing. If you are engaging in philosophy-by-proxy then you must also define the relevant set. Aaron’s set is world-wide thermodynamics. A bit too abstract for my tastes, but what of it?
For me the relevant universes are the owner’s box at Fedex Field and coal mining in inner Mongolia.
The above quote is from an email Aaron sent to me. So it seems, Bourbaki, you have misinterpreted alpha theory as applying only to alpha agents.
What’s next? A note from his mother?
An empirical theory does require measurement and a_c systems can exist outside one’s body.
No doubt it’s hard stuff but you seem eager to dismiss the theory by demonstrating your inability to arbitrarily apply it. If there is a flaw in the underlying reasoning, point it out and explain why. If there is a flaw in the equations or how they are calculated, they can be corrected. The bad news is that alpha theory probably won’t work in dramatic novel form and might not produce any zippy quotes for the wire services and cafes.
The point however is this, philosophy is largely an exercise in defining the set that counts.
It doesn’t appear that way based on your laundry list. There is very little definition at all and more assertion of very general and poorly justified dogma and ideology.
Again, misunderstanding or misapplying a theory is hardly a strike against it. Simply look at the utility function as it was derived and appears in Part 6. The set that counts is not a choice although it may be limited by available information. Inclusion is clearly based on measurable evidence.
Alpha, itself, can be calculated for any dynamic process. However, the derivation of the whole theory is a series of steps that culminates in a function. Alpha is the measurable quantity used in the maximization function.
A bit too abstract for my tastes, but what of it?
Really? You admitted to not understanding Tomonaga despite studying QED. And what of Bell’s EPR paper? And cosmic microwave background? That sounds pretty abstract. But I suspect the difference was that you were using them as ornaments.
Bourbaki,
I suspect you were using the sorting question you gave me as some sort of ornament. Well, I answered it, but you have not answered mine even after I showed you a simple method. The purpose of a math question is either to answer it or to show that no answer is possible. You have done neither, so cut the attitude.
As for the question about the set that counts, please remember that this was one of the primary discussions between Einstein and Bohr when discussing the Copenhagen interpretation. Einstein would subject every interpretation to general relativity theory and the sparring between these two giants helped sharpen the arguments of each. It is the central question of any grand theory.
[Kaplan quote] "The point however is this, philosophy is largely an exercise in defining the set that counts. For Rand, the set is the individual human. For the average Republican, the family, for the american liberal, the individual in sexual matters and the state in everything else, for the "communitarian", the community and for Marx it is the proletariat. If you are Chomsky it is every bad thing America has done at home and abroad, and if you are D’Sousa it is every good thing. If you are engaging in philosophy-by-proxy then you must also define the relevant set. Aaron’s set is world-wide thermodynamics. A bit too abstract for my tastes, but what of it?
If you are engaging in philosophy-by-proxy then you must also define the relevant set. Aaron’s set is world-wide thermodynamics. A bit too abstract for my tastes, but what of it?" [Kaplan endquote]
The relevant set is clear and unambigous. You crudely claim that Aaron’s "set" is the whole of thermodynamics, and awkward construction and misuse of the term, "set," aside, the objection you offer to this is..it is too abstract? I suppose it is more abstract than a personal giant invisble man who lives in the clouds and personally guides you through life’s moral thickets, but we pay this price in order to arrive at objectivity. Oh well, good bye invisible man.
Or think of it this way, the relevant set is the system under consideration. Any system measurable by the metrics used to arrive at alpha (or an alpha star) measurement is liable for consideration. Yes that then includes any and all things that are prone to the laws of thermodynamics and yes that’s everything including humans.
From this alpha number we can see objective measures of fit and less fit, or sick and well or…whatever terms you prefer steering clear of the loaded ones as per Aaron’s request. From this we can certainly arrive at prescribable actions assuming we favor fitness and life to sloth and death. In other words we can derive a universal ethic applicable to all people in all times and spaces. Universal, objective prescription. Pretty neat for an ethical system don’t you agree? Or do you not wish your ethics to be prescripitve beyond our own skin and you would perhaps prefer the hodge-podge ad-hoc relativism that is so the favor of many today?
That this new system then might lead to uncomfortable results for you and your own ethical system (yes it may turn out we have to consider the furry beasts and insects) is predictable and your resistance understandable, but can you offer a counter argument to alpha or do you have a proposition that you can demonstrate with as much transparency and rigor or do you have a problem with the conclusion’s *derivation*? Short of these three things, I am afraid your position winds up as nothing more than: I don’t like that answer. That may be, and I suspect that there are prescripitions that would fall out of an alpha based ethic that many may not like. Fine by me, so long as you can prove why they are not the right conclusions with transparency and rigor.
[Kaplan quote] "I suspect you were using the sorting question you gave me as some sort of ornament. Well, I answered it, but you have not answered mine even after I showed you a simple method." [Kaplan endquote]
I am sorry for being obtuse Mr. Kaplan but was your question? I see a lot of assertion and rhetoric, but I missed the actual question. Are you asking if it is true or not that the "set" (using your very loose meaning of the term) to which alpha is applicable is the set of all things subject to thermodynamics? You seem to have the answer to this one already, you simply do not like the answer, tho you are equally loathe to offer either a counterargument that is as transparent and as rigorous as alpha or point out with any explicitness where the derivation of alpha has gone wrong. Indeed the sum of your coutnerargument really does seem to be that you do not like the conclusion.
Or perhaps you misunderstand alpha because I cannot for the life of me see what would be inherently objectionable to a *true* empirically confirmable, objective, transparently derived ethic.
CT,
"Find the first 11-digit prime number occurring in consecutive digits of the mathematical constant ‘e’" This is the question I had put to Bourbaki after I found it for ten digits. I merely found it, I didn’t solve it, as there is no reason to derive either primes or ‘e’.
Do I have an objection to an objective, transparently derived ethic? Not at all. In fact, it would be lovely. When you find one, please tell me. This is not it.
What is alpha-theory’s answer to such important ethical questions as:
Genital mutilation, wrong, or a way to keep your daughter in line?
Should gays be allowed in the military?
Who should be thrown from the lifeboat? How on earth will alpha theory answer that? What inputs would you use?
A man kills his father. It might be for inheritance or it might be to end his suffering from a disease. What if he does it for the inheritance but happens to put him out of his misery? Does alpha theory even deal with intention, which most of us mere mortals think is the nub of ethics?
Alpha theory as an ethics substitute is nonsense on stilts. It is the use of equations for the purpose of evading thought.
And for those of you who think alpha theory is cool because mathematics is hard, I reply with another von Neumannism: If you think mathematics is hard, then you have no idea how hard life really is.
Mr. Kaplan,
So "defining the system" is tripping you up? It’s the how rather than the what? In other words, it is again the potential difficulty in the application rather than the derivation and underlying principles?
When an application is presented, you are free to raise an objection or present some evidence stronger than a quote to prove that the applicaiton is impossible.
"Does alpha theory even deal with intention, which most of us mere mortals think is the nub of ethics?"
No it isn’t. If you’re a consequentialist like me, intentions are barely relevent (or not at all) in most cases. Though I don’t see why alpha wouldn’t be able to deal with intentions in theory, since those are established by neuronal activity in our brains, which is equally subject to the laws of thermodynamics as the rest of us.
This series brought back grim memories of wrestling with statistical thermodynamics.
Mr. McIntosh,
False alternative alert!
I share your position that behavior is to be (ethically) judged (ultimately) by its effects, but "intentions" are the preamble to actions. My beliefs influence my conduct, believe it or not. People develop habits, values, perspectives, emotions, motives, all inside their skulls. This "inner" life dramatically influences human behavior. Some folks will join religious orders and become hermits based on such inner motives. Intentions matter precisely because the consequences are what counts.
It is the use of equations for the purpose of evading thought.
Right. I see "hard thinking" means quoting smart dudes. All progress ends with their final assessment.
As for the question about the set that counts, please remember that this was one of the primary discussions between Einstein and Bohr when discussing the Copenhagen interpretation.
Again, Mr. Kaplan, please remind us. I fear you have no idea what you are saying. Please demonstrate how this is a fly in the ointment.
And for those of you who think alpha theory is cool because mathematics is hard, I reply with another von Neumannism: If you think mathematics is hard, then you have no idea how hard life really is.
No kidding. John Von Neumann was the bomb. Just consider the life of a simple cell in the immune system and how clever it must be in the face of almost incomprehensible uncertainty.
Another brilliant guy, Susumu Tonegawa, won the Nobel Prize in 1987 for elucidating one of the long standing mysteries in immunology. Antibody-producing cells possess the ability to find an effective response to invasion by foreign substances. However, the variety of non-self materials that can invade the body is potentially infinite; the nature of the invasion is highly unpredictable.
How can elements of the genetic code that have been selected on the basis of predictable scenarios provide appropriate responses for an infinite diversity of challenges? Tonegawa showed that some of the cells of the immune system that are subjected to these stresses–like the invasion by nonself molecules during a microbial infection–were capable of setting in motion an active diversification process of their genomic expression.
The process involves the excision of gene segments followed by recombinations through alternative splicing of the excised segments. Certain parts may also be suppressed, inverted, or modified before they are re-inserted into the gene. In fact, all these reaction result in the production of new genes.
These changes, however, do not take place at random. They concern only specifically located segments in the genes called variable or hypervariable regions. In the variable domains, recombinations and restructuring do not occur randomly but follow precise rules (for example, the excision or splicing occurs only at specific base sequences).
This body of rules determines the strategies for actively exploring diversity. When implemented simultaneously by millions of cells, this strategy is remarkably innovative; it has a reasonable probability of culminating in creating an effective parry to the invader.
The first cell to find the right defense is so informed when a connection is established betwen the foreign antigen and the its newly created antibody. It is immediately selected from among the others which then give up their search. The up-regulation of appropriate cells ensues, setting up the best possible barrier against the aggressor.
This directed mutation is hereditary for only a single cell type; it is a somatic mutation that will not be inscribed in the genome of other tissues and will not be transmitted to offspring.
My beliefs influence my conduct, believe it or not.
Mr. McIntosh is correct.
The motive matter only insofar as it offers insight into the potential of future alphadystropic consequences.
There’s a long way to go before we get to higher level stuff but I think we’re on the right path. As a very preliminary exercise, based on what has been presented in Part 1 – 6, try substituting alphatropic and alphadystropic for right/wrong or good/bad or moral/immoral in your examples.
Then consider that alpha is a physically derived quantity.
Mr. Kaplan:
My apologies. That is a raised question that has yet to be answered. I mistook earnestness for sarcasm as I thought the point of that post was the question itself, not the answer, which is purely academic.
"It is the use of equations for the purpose of evading thought."
I am befuddled by this statement. Could you please explain a bit what you mean here and how the above derived alpha theory "evades thought". Had you been paying attention you may have noticed that the theory itself *advocates* thought – it is an alphatropic event(s). But as you see it differently, could you be more specific in how one uses a tool to express thoughts (with discipline and transparency) to evade thinking? I don’t get it.
Finally, just so I am clear: we all now agree on the principles upon alpha theory stands and we all agree that there has been no slight of hand and no one has a problem with either the equation or with the derived conclusion – bearing in mind to address only that which has to date been concluded? If so then the objections that remain are those of impementation and application – certainly important questions and ones that I gather are to be answered in the very near future. But before we proceed to them, I want to be sure we are all agreeing on the terms of the argument itself. As far as the posts on gotm are concerned all are willing to stipluate the argument, and are ready to debate the interpretation/consequences of the argument.
Bourbaki,
Are you saying that intentions have no relation to actions? Are you saying that my mental states are epiphenomena disconnected to my behavior, or what? Taking the real effort to learn about alpha cannot alter what I do? Intentions never affect conduct? Or, WHAT?
What I think has no bearing on what I do? Of course, this is another good instance of reductionism. It’s a load of bull.
Bourbaki,
Thank you for the intro to Tonegawa’s work. I was unaware of it, and his conclusions are fascinating.
CT and Bourbaki,
You guys seem perplexed by the the notion that equations can distance someone from thought. Let me give you a perfect example from economic lore. Robert Merton and Myron Scholes, Nobel laureates in economics, were founders along with Robert Merriweather and others of Long-Term Capital Management, a profit machine until an unfortunate Poisson event–or so all the commentators say. LTCM was a complex money making enterprise, but at its heart it was an engine to arbitrage price disparities between similar securities, commodities and derivatives. For doing this, it had lots of complex formulas running on numerous computers executing trades at lightening speed.
When there was a disturbance in the Asian capital markets, flight capital came to rest on the rock of all securities, the US 30 year bond. Because so much capital landed on the 30 year bond its price declined relative to its brother, the 29 year bond. So naturally, LTCM bought the 29 year bond and sold the 30 year. It did this with bonds, bond futures,and every synthetic that duplicated the performance of those two securities. The premise for these trades is sound–over time people will act rationally so they will do what LTCM is already doing, thus raising the price of the 29 year bond, lowering the price of the 30 and making LTCM a boatload of profits. Except–it didn’t happen.
You see no one with any money ever, ever, calls his broker and says, "Buy me the 29 year bond." It just doesn’t happen because people looking for long term safety always ask for the longest available term. Once locked into the position, if there is continuing panic, even more people buy the 30 year bond and they not only have the bond’s cash flow, but also an appreciating asset. Anyone with a background on the floor of any exchange could have seen this, but the computations of formula could not.
Jim,
"I share your position that behavior is to be (ethically) judged (ultimately) by its effects, but "intentions" are the preamble to actions."
It’s a little more complicated than that, actually. We perform unintended actions all the time — when I’m uncomfortable, I tend to fiddle with things without realizing I’m doing it. Some people uncontrollable facial tics, breathing and blinking is automatic, even walking happens automatically once you’ve decided where you want to move (can you imagine what a pain it would be to have to concentrate on moving our legs properly with every step?). And not even all macro-scale actions like going to visit your parents require intention — some people do such things while sleepwalking. So it would be more accurate to say that intentions are the precursor to some large-scale actions.
And on the other hand, as any good economist would tell you, even in cases where our actions are intended, they often have unforseen and unintended consequences. When I choose to open up a widget-shop, I don’t intend to marginally lower the market price of widgets, but it would often have that effect.
So while intentions sometimes are important because they can lead to behaviours, this is nowhere near being always true. As Bourbaki said, they are only important insofar as they allow us to better predict consequences.
Mr. Kaplan,
I suspect you are not reading much if any of the actual posts. That’s probably why we’re generating so much heat and you are throwing everything including the kitchen sink to see if something sticks–not unlike our little immunological cell!
Mr. Kaplan, do you realize that you’re using part the alpha derivation itself as an example? LTCM has been mentioned several times already by Mr. Haspel–remember non-anticipating strategies for Gaussian processes? Remember how our Nobel buddies won prizes for it but had to do a lot of hand waving about that evil Poisson? The book Mr. Haspel mentioned is not bad but there is a lot more dirty laundry in that pile.
I might even know a little about the inner workings of LTCM and HJM (Heath-Jarrow-Morton), and BGM (Brace-Gatarek-Musiela) and all the other crazy animals in that zoo. But only a little.
You might want to look into how balance sheets were being used at the time: swaps, x-currency forwards, bond haircuts, and leveraged financing before your repeat your sanitized anecdote at a cocktail party. It had a lot more to do with being able to bet with the house’s money than it ever had to do with models. In fact, the big shots didn’t even write the models–they were too busy taking free money to actually work for it.
And you’re right about hard math problems. They are hard.
I have enough trouble calculating a tip. But I don’t think that is "proof" that calculating a tip is "impossible".
If the equations suggest that all systems must optimize alpha (or alpha-star) in order to be successful, what does consciousness have to do with the derivation of the formula?
The genesis and maintenance of consciousness is important, even interesting, but is besides the point.
Admittedly, I don’t know enough math to argue up-or-down the formula’s derivation (I can’t quite understand ordinality and cardinality).
The resistance expressed above to the concept of an alpha-driven system of ethics is just that, resistance.
And yes, it is difficult to put into practice such a formulation, given the uncertainties, or unknown unknowns of motivations of human behavior.
The alpha-theory, as I understand it, allows for individuals to make wrong or bad decisions. In fact, there does not seem to be any pressure exerted by the formulation for individuals to do good.
This may be the real disconsolation of philosophy.
The involuntary actions of which you speak are immune from moral judgment. Only actions which are chosen can be ethically evaluated. Our criminal laws recognize this simple fact.
By increasing our knowledge, we can "do something" about the metaphysically given or the previously unintended, but then, and only then, does this become a moral issue.
Moral "character" is for real. It matters because it affects behavior. The effect of that behavior is the source of our evaluation, but the evaluator MUST account for whether the moral actor could have "known better," in common parlance.
Eustaces that are ants or molecules are NOT ethical agents. We cannot give them moral advice of any kind. The alpha theory can do them no good whatever. It is our ability to consciously know, and to allow this knowledge to affect our behavior, that makes us moral beings, i.e., our intentions. No intent, no ethics–that simple.
The moral actor’s context of knowledge is a critical factor to any moral evauation of that actor’s behavior.
Indeed, no volition, no ethics. Only actions which are chosen can be positively or negatively evaluated. You can say, "Gee, those ants would do better if they utilized reinforced concrete for their constructions; what a shame that they do not." Such advice, of course, would be senseless. But not to a human being. We humans can be criticized thus. Why? We can do otherwise–because we can think, plan, apply our thinking to the problem or not.
It is our mode of consciousness that makes us moral beings; it is the stuff going on on the inside that matters to evaluation–for human beings, that is.
Here,
If a man kills his father, then flux is lost upon the father’s death. Alpha-star is not maximized.
If the killing was done to ease an old man’s pain, or to steal his money, or occurs via a freak accident, we don’t know if these circumstances change the alpha-star of the killer. They must, but how to measure that flux is another issue.
Am I correct here?
The system of optimization of alpha does not tell us how to measure these fluxes, only that they occur, and that the Universe demands opitmization for success.
Is this on?
Testing, One, Two, Testing.
Aaron, Bourbaki, Jim, help me out.
Jim,
Yes we are much cleverer than ants, and ants cannot fathom alpha theory like we can, nor even be conscious of their actions in the way we are. No kidding. But alpha applies to them whether they realize it or not, and thus for humans as well. The fact that we’re better-equipped to play the game because we understand how it works doesn’t mean we’re the only ones playing it. Birds are subject to the same laws of motion just like we are, but rarely do you see humans running headlong into windows (though it does happen) because we know better. Thus it would also appear to be with alpha.
I’m reminded of the old KK problem — if S knows p, then does S know that S knows p? — which of course all depends on what you mean by "know". Does an ant "know" that certain smells mean "there’s food over here"? Most people would say that this is qualitatively different than the way we "know" that 2+2=4, but I’m not so certain that the difference is all that clear-cut. Our information processing capabilities are far more complex than an ant’s and allow us to achieve much higher levels of abstraction, but I think that if you go back far enough in our evolution (both epistemological and biological), sooner or later you’ve left "conscious" territory and started getting closer "instinctive" or "genetic" knowledge. But there’s no clear dividing line there that I can see.
Mr. MeTooThen,
You are mostly on the money.
In fact, there does not seem to be any pressure exerted by the formulation for individuals to do good.
This depends on how you interpret alphaphilic. Our cognitive abilities give us more mental agility than other Eustaces. We simply evolved a strategy to attempt to collectively filter out alphadystropic paths.
Mr. Valliant,
What is the point of ethics?
Mr. Bourbaki,
You get to ask questions without answering any of mine? Hardly fair, but par for the course.
I’ve suggested already my sympathy on this point for the position of the Greeks, Rand and Nietzsche: survival and its requirements, health and happiness. If alpha can help, then I will attend to it–my consciousness will choose the best path to take to gain this end.
Mr. McIntosh,
And, so…? Sure, as we move up through human evolution, we reach us, beings that can actually do ethics, so far, the only beings we know of that are capable of doing ethics. This is precisely and only because we are beings of abstract consciousness and choice. Ethics is the science of fiding those abstract principles (mental states) which advance your well-being and then acting in way that adheres them (choices).
The "intentions" of ants and molecules are irrelevant. Those of humans are the essence of ethics, in fact, what makes us ethical agents.
Jim,
Again, you’re trying to draw some kind of demarcation where I’m not convinced that one exists. Point to some point along our evolution where "volition" suddenly appears, and explain its basis in objective physical reality. I would be very interested to see where the magic happens.
Mr. Valliant,
You get to ask questions without answering any of mine? Hardly fair, but par for the course.
I respect your persistence but you have it backwards. Again.
You gotta start with an action. Actions have consequences. Intentions without action? Not so much. Unless you can bend spoons with your thoughts or you think you’re being watched by the big guy upstairs.
I thought the clear explanations by Mr. McIntosh answered your question. To be honest, I was busy looking for a cream to stop this rash caused by cruel intentions. I just need to cross the street in front of a mild mannered (but intoxicated) driver to get it.
I’ve suggested already my sympathy on this point for the position of the Greeks, Rand and Nietzsche: survival and its requirements, health and happiness.
So there is this play by Moliere, "Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme", in which a pompous Monsieur Jordain finds that all his life he has been speaking in prose without realizing it. Similarly, homo sapiens have been doing alpha. Just like ants. We just happen to be extremely complex, highly sophisticated, and very versatile Eustaces with a predisposition for creating fanciful terms for what we do.
Unfortunately, that plasticity cuts both ways. We can be configured to adopt some pretty foolish (read high epsilon) strategies.
Perhaps you can now answer Mr. CT’s question posted above?
In addition, based on available evidence, is alpha a consequence of ethics or is ethics a consequence of alpha? Which is more fundamental? Which is more rigorous? If we wipe ourselves off the planet, what dynamics will determine which species takes our place?
Mr. McIntosh,
No, theres no magic, and, certainly, abstract consciousness and choice are the products of a slow and continuous evolution in their direction. Most of nature struck the ancients as very magical indeed, and a physical explanation is hardly needed to a observe plain fact, and, moreover, no physical explanation will change such a fact, or make it more real, or more objective, or any less a vital presupposition, premise, and prerequisite to ethical thinking. (I never needed to know about molecules or thermodynamics to know that the pot was boiling or to use mittens when handling it.) Our very dialogue here shows that volition is very real, indeed.
Now, please tell me how you avoid the self-contradictions involved in any ethics without consciousness or choice.
Ethics is only something a being with consciousness and choice can do. It only could pertain to such a being, and only because of those features.
Bourbaki,
If this theory is correct, then ethics is an instance of "doing alpha." But ants, however much they "do alpha," never do ethics.
If you cannot recognize intentions as being real things, important things, and a vital part of human evaluation, then it is YOU who are the rank mystic, ignoring plain fact, and in clearly touch with the Big Guy upstairs…Next time you’re in touch with Him, do let us know what other obvious facts we get to ignore.
Mr. Valliant,
If this theory is correct, then ethics is an instance of "doing alpha."
Excellent. Then we agree.
And "doing alpha" means doing physics. So doing ethics is doing physics. A rigorous way to keep score without dictating how to play the game (strong solutions). It’s physics without nihilism.
Which brings us back to Mr. CT’s question. If there is no error in the derivation, we’ve just rigorously cut the cord to creationism and the big guy upstairs.
And we did it without turning ourselves into heroes or gods or forcing ourselves into the center of the Universe. In fact, alpha even applies to Vogons.
Don’t panic.
This:
Consciousness is necessary for a being to employ a system of ethics, but it is not sufficient.
The above pleas for consciousness are well taken, and in many ways unassailable.
I understand your defense of intention, that it plays a role in our ethical behavior, or decision making vis a vis the process of our cognitive and emotional calculi, and therefore, there must be some additional factor within this formulation to account for it.
And Bourbaki, thank you.
I didn’t fully think out what I meant by "pressure".
This is a fascinating turn. Are humans, like mitochondria, or wheat, or salmon, alphaphilic?
Is there a tendency (diathesis) toward alpha, do we choose alpha maximization, or are we driven toward alpha-star?
As conscious beings, we can choose to be alphadystropic, no?
Back to intentions:
If our survival and prosperity is dependent on maximization of alpha, then our intentions, do not matter. As the Universe cares little for one’s mental calculus, only the flux that results from one’s action.
Again, herein lies the true disconsolation of philosophy.
For this to be true, or verified, we must be able to know (read-predict) the flux resulting from our actions.
Now, to create normative data sets for this would be quite a feat. But again, one does not need to invoke the role or value of consciousness, in order to do this.
Am I getting closer?
This is on, right?
Mr. MeTooThen,
This is a fascinating turn. Are humans, like mitochondria, or wheat, or salmon, alphaphilic?
Yes. And you’ve got the scent of how this leads to aesthetics. And how the dichotomy of strong solutions leads to iconoclasm. But we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves despite the temptation.
Is there a tendency (diathesis) toward alpha, do we choose alpha maximization, or are we driven toward alpha-star?
We can only follow alpha-star. We improve our probabilities insofar as alpha-star is low epsilon.
As I understand the word, there is an unfortunate diathesis toward epsilon. We sometimes stick to bad strategies because rewiring our brains costs energy and we don’t fully recognize the negative costs of our actions. We do everything we can to make new information fit our preconceived notions.
As conscious beings, we can choose to be alphadystropic, no?
We definitely choose bad paths (alphadystropic).
A tougher question is: do we ever choose paths that are not alpha-star maximizing?
As the Universe cares little for one’s mental calculus, only the flux that results from one’s action.
Again, herein lies the true disconsolation of philosophy.
…
Am I getting closer?
Very close, indeed.
MeTooThen,
Mega-pace: I’m satisfied with your formulations now, with only one quibble. "If our survival and prosperity is dependent on maximization of alpha, then our intentions, do not matter." Well, they matter insofar as we can get them to be alphaphilic, so that our behavior will be alphatropic. There exists a relationship between the two which should not be overlooked. We should, at the end of day with this theory, be able to say something like: "Be alphaphiles, damn it!" Get your "head right" as they say, and your behavior will follow. Or, as we say in recovery programs to the junkie, "play the tape forward."
No, as I see it, alpha does not require consciousness to be understood. Human ethics, however, does. For alpha-theory to do us humans any good, it will have to be understood and followed.
Thus, "Consciousness is necessary for a being to employ a system of ethics, but it is not sufficient" is correct. But consciousness evolved just in order that we may do so, improving our thinking with theories like alpha (a state of consciousness) along the way. Consciousness is HOW we humans can be alphaphiles–or alpha-phobic!!
Now, Mr. Bourbaki,
One can "do ethics" without touching physics. If everything known must reduce to physics for you, then you are as crude a one-dimensional reductionist as there has ever been.
We ain’t gods, but we are sometimes heroes. Indeed, if alpha theory turns out to be correct, I will regard you and Aaron as such beings.
Copernicus did a great thing, getting us (to at least begin) to stop all of that religious earth- and man-centrism. However, in the rush to "dis" humanity’s ego, moderns have overshot the mark considrably: humans are different and the differences make us the coolest things on the planet (who knows, maybe the galaxy!) Yes, this is an evaluative term, but a rational one. We alone can consider just how pro-alpha our behavior is, among other things, and surely even you can see the value of that!
Mr. Valliant,
Just curious: can you give us an example of some action you’ve taken that was not alpha-star maximizing? Not in hind-sight, mind you, but conditioned on the filtration available to you at the time you took the action?
Take your time. I’m honestly stumped on this one but then again, I’m easily stumped.
Mr. Valliant,
To clarify, I’m stumped for my own actions. I can’t recall a non-alpha-star maximizing action for myself.
Bourbaki,
As you concede: "We definitely choose bad paths (alphadystropic)."
Are you suggesting that you will never act so now that you have a grip on alpha-theory? To know alpha is to love alpha–automatically? What exactly are you saying? Are you assuring me that you will never, never ever, act again except in reference to alpha? Surely, the discovery of alpha will help matters, no? Or are you saying that to know it is to follow it, or what?
Bourbaki,
Non-alpha-star maximizing to who? If to myself, then they are innumerable. I do not lie, cheat or commit fraud even though they might increase my alpha. Maybe we should distinguish between act alpha-centrism and rule-alpha-centrism?
Please, Mr. Valliant, is really it necessary to trash where I might go with this. You can trash that when I actually go there.
To quote you:
You get to ask questions without answering any of mine? Hardly fair, but par for the course.
I’m merely asking for an example and would be grateful if you could provide an honest account of one.
I’m all ears (or eyeballs?).
Mr. Kaplan,
I did not ask for examples of what you choose not to do.
Borbaki,
"I did not ask for examples of what you choose not to do."
Is there a difference?
Mr. McIntosh,
Good question. Perhaps this will clarify things.
When we choose to take an action we simulataneously choose to not take an (infinite?) number of other possible actions.
I’m directing the question toward an example of the path we follow rather than the many paths we avoid.
Jim,
We’re getting very close to bridging the gap now; I knew this was more of a disagreement over terms than substance. If you agree with MeeTooThen and Bourbaki that "ethics is doing alpha", then we’re more or less on the same page now. Nonetheless, I nitpick:
"I never needed to know about molecules or thermodynamics to know that the pot was boiling or to use mittens when handling it."
Certainly, but you wouldn’t be able to learn much more than that without some kind of more precise measuring tool. Different tools suffice for different tasks. The main point of Aaron’s exposition here, at least as I see it, is to provide such a tool for greater precision.
"Our very dialogue here shows that volition is very real, indeed."
Call it volition if you want, but I’ll pass. Too loaded a word for me. Something clearly exists which gives us the ability to assess alternatives, communicate, etc, but the nuts and bolts of it are not so simple.
"Now, please tell me how you avoid the self-contradictions involved in any ethics without consciousness or choice."
Well I think it would be obvious by now that I reject the whole Aristotlean framework that question comes from. I prefer to start from the bottom and work my way up like Aaron has done. Again, none of this entails denying that the self-evident phenomenon that we call "consciousness" exists; we’re just mucking about over just how it works.
Bourbaki,
Well fair enough I guess, but that’s just a difference in emphasis. Choosing to abstain from an activity is not really qualitatively different from choosing to perform an activity from an analysis point of view. I think.
Bourbaki,
Okay. I choose to commit fraud to maximize my alpha. Is that ethical?
You know, Mr. McIntosh, I think that we are pretty much on the same page now–with alpha. (I know that we are miles apart in what constitutes "the bottom" that we "work up" from.) But that’s o.k. here, since it doesn’t involve a disgreement about alpha. Let’s stick to that here, at least!
Mr. Bourbaki,
You’re as dense (or dishonest?) as they come, so I will let you find the many, many examples all on your lonesome… (Why don’t I care what the hell you think anymore, I wonder??)
Mr. Valliant,
I know I’m dense. And I won’t deny the other things you’ve said about me. But dishonest? I simply asked for an example of an action you’ve taken.
No worries. There seems to be pretty good agreement so I’ll withold my speculations for another time.
A dishonest person, by definition, evades an aspect of reality. Our discussion is replete with examples. I refuse to talk to a wall.
Thank goodness we do not know one another, so I presume your request was for human examples generally. (I am a reasonably ethical person, myself.)
Jim,
Fair enough. Let us wait for Aaron’s next installment then. 🙂