From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Oct 22 2002 - 09:48:02 MDT
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 10/21/2002 12:07:48 PM Central Standard Time,
>charleshixsn@earthlink.net writes: Similarly, if we can create a mathematical
>theory of capitalism, we would necessarily define the environments in which a
>socialism of some sort would be mixed with it
>
>Charles,
> Could you expand on a "mathematical theory of capitalism" just a
>little bit? For most of us that propound Capitalism I imagine it to be a
>matter of morality rather than either economics or mathematics. Now, I
>believe we would agree that Capitalism has economice consequences but that
>isn't the basis for Capitalism. We believe a person has the ownership of
>their bodies and the products of their labor.
> Socialism is also based on a view of morality. They believe they have
>the right to be thugs and moochers.
>Ron h.
>
The first step would necessarily be to come to a good definition of what
is meant by the term. It seems to be used with a large range of blurry
definitions. After it is well defined, then it would be possible to
test theories as being either consistent or inconsistent with that
definition, though, of course, this would also require that these
theories be well defined. This would allow the construction of a
logically consistent framework. Then one would examine the world to
determine where that framework fit exactly. (N.B.: commonly scaling
transforms are needed during this step, as the theory is rarely as exact
a fit as a curory examination would suppose.) At this point one would
examine the interfaces between where the theory applied exactly, and
where it didn't. Attempts could be made to either adapt the model to
extend over that domain (in evolution theory the first attempt at one
such area was population scale evolution, but this was later replaced by
a kin-selection model), or to find a mixed theory. This is quite common
in evolutionarily stable strategies. It is rare that a single strategy
works well, so usually an animal adopts a mixture of approaches and
selects between them at "random" (observing from the outside it appears
to be genuinely random, but if we observe ourselves in similar
situations it doesn't feel as if we are choosing randomly). Thus, an
aggressive act may be met by flight, submission, or fight. If the
attacker can predict which will happen in advance, then that is
something of an advantage. But if the target adopts a mixed strategy
the result is unpredictable. Sometimes the result is suicidal attacks,
which while (usually) fatal to the target may well damage the attacker
more than the payoff for a successful attack. If a population displays
such a mixed strategy, then aggressive acts will be less common. By
mathematically evaluating the costs and benefits to each party of each
strategy, and each combination, we can come to a predicton of what
observed behavior will be. Then we can look at real populations to
check our answers. If they don't match, then we try to figure out what
is wrong with our model.
I'm, as I said, nowhere near to being an expert in this area. But to
advance knowledge we need well defined terms, so that we can check our
models against reality. If you can't, then you are arguing theology.
If you can, then you models will tell you not "You must behave this
way", but rather "If the behave this way as compared against behaving
that way, the costs and benefits will be x and y". And this will be a
(potentially) testable projection.
P.S.: Capitalism and Socialism are the same kind of entity. They have
both been moral-economic models that have not been sufficiently well
specified to be tested. Anyone has always been free to claim "That
wasn't *real* x" or "Those weren't really xians", but with a well
specified definition (which implies that it is based upon observable
phenomena), then one can tell.
P.P.S.: Models that cannot be tested are basically religious. You
could say idealistic, but if you trace it back it means about the same
thing, it means that you can always make it mean what you want to.
There's nothing wrong with this as a first formulation, as this is a
required step in the human thought process. But if you leave it there
it's either because it isn't important enough to find out what it really
means (it can be [usually is] a lot of work), or you are more interested
in making it mean what you want it to mean. Very natural, I do it too.
But not very convincing.
P.P.S.: A lot of this discussion is influenced by my recent reading of
Robert Anton Wilson's "Natural Law, or don't put a rubber on your
willy". The title refers to an argument that he had with, among others,
some opinons of the Pope.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:42 MST