Marconomics is built on a basic foundation of both evolutionary theory and Economics - ie. The principle that independent individuals (be they money based humans or selfish genes) acting independently and/or selfishly can be analysed collectively as a system. I expand on such concepts as Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" and yet others as the results of evolution being complex organisms, from essentially "undirected" genetic variability being given direction via the environment and natural selection.
Marconomics sees these and many more general systems as extensions of "game theory" with multiple "players". For instance, economics on a smaller scale (a card game with gambling?) may demonstrate concepts useful in a large scale. Marconomics sees the rules of the game as the primary determinant of stability and direction of the large scale system, rather than the skills/attitudes of the individuals playing the game. For instance, a primary Marconomic principle is that technological progress has not come about, nor accelerated due to individual clever ideas or people, but through the complex economic system of rewards, legal frameworks, stable societies etc. that embody modern society. These complex systems have evolved over time mainly via "survival" (less successful systems become extinct) or other lamarckian short-cuts.
Principles
1)Marconomics rejects Logical Positivism, as a basis for philosophical argument. Marconomics regards a call to the concepts that form its basis as cheating. On the one hand, it defines reality in terms of observations, yet ignores its problems of self-consistency.
2)Perception is NOT reality. "Political" or policy arguments on which large numbers of individuals have a perceived interest are correctly placed on a continuum LINE. This is because people's views tend to be highly correllated (with their peers on the same part of the line). This is the only practical way to come to conclusions when there are a large number of individuals in the argument. Marconomics states that it is both possible and likely that no conceptual point on the line has got any of the right combination of facts or logic. Correllation in viewpoint is not the same as a logical statement. For instance if there are two logical statements A and B - even if everybody within a peer group believe both A & B, this does in no way prove (and should not even be assumed) the "if A then B" logical statement in a scientific context(even if those in the peer group are scientists).
3)Ideas as a volume in Idea space - Rather than as points on a line, Marconomics views ideas more accurately as a multidimensional volume in idea space. Whether it be a concept of God as an idea, or views on the environment, or a description of a behavioural disorder, ideas need the freedom of movement in several dimensions to better grasp reality.
4)Complex design and creation - Complex artefacts of any description or purpose always have precedents that are complex. A lineage must always be assumed to exist to a less complex precedent with either trial and error pathway for any additional complexity, or a lineage with an added component that has extensive precedent in itself. Whether the pathway to the antecedent is directed or undirected is immaterial to this principle. "Creation" of a complex artefact without precedent does not exist under Marconomic principles. "The design process" is also a complex "artefact" under this concept and thus itself necessarily has precedents and lineage that can be traced back. This Paradigm of code generation demonstrates creation/design as a unified concept (nearly)
5)Complex units can be defined as a set of multiple complex subunits for Marconomic analysis. In this there is no one "level" more special than another. It is a way of modelling what is really happening, that will be useful in bounded conditions where there is little interaction between the levels. Different aspects of analysis will be better dealt with at different levels. For instance, The Panda's Thumb, talks at length about "units of evolution" being the Gene, the Individual, or groups of individuals etc. Dawkins famously in his book points to "the Selfish Gene" as being the primary unit, while others rate the individual as the unit, others favour group selection theories. Marconomics states that all these are valid models that will give the right dynamics (and answers) in different contexts.
6) Game theory - If one is looking at a strategic context, and there are few enough units to contend with (or if the units can be grouped thus), Marconomics views Classical game theory as the correct modelling approach. "Dillemma's" are a state of play where there is uncertainty to a decision due to a lack of information of and/or dependence on decisions made by other units: in which case any decision carries irreducible risks and/or rewards either way. In a "Tragedy" scenario, a conflict exists between optimal strategies for the individual unit, and what would be optimal for the whole group if it was considered a unit in itself.
7)Blame - Marconomics views the discussion and analysis of blame as too subjective to be considered scientific with some exception. To objectively analyse blame requires agreement on who makes the rules, what evidence to take into account, and the criteria by which judgement should be made (as who is to blame) The exceptions are where there is strong seperation of powers of making, policing and judgement of laws. Then there can be something resembling scientific objectivity. Thus for the most part arguments about ill deeds ought to revolve around what strategies to take to move to a system with strong separation of powers to fairly deter, prosecute and convict evil-doers.
8) Creativity and Vision - In marconomic terms, this entails visualising an "evolutionary" (see principle 4) pathway from something that exists now to something desired or required in the future, of which a reasonable analogue exists and which personal actions can be a part of. Creativity cannot come from "intelligence" without knowledge of precedents and having available analogues - nor is creativity simple plagiarism/copying with random changes.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Preamble
Marconomics is built on a basic foundation of both evolutionary theory and Economics - ie. The principle that independent individuals (be they money based humans or selfish genes) acting independently and/or selfishly can be analysed collectively as a system. I expand on such concepts as Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" and yet others as the results of evolution being complex organisms, from essentially "undirected" genetic variability being given direction via the environment and natural selection.
Marconomics sees these and many more general systems as extensions of "game theory" with multiple "players". For instance, economics on a smaller scale (a card game with gambling?) may demonstrate concepts useful in a large scale. Marconomics sees the rules of the game as the primary determinant of stability and direction of the large scale system, rather than the skills/attitudes of the individuals playing the game. For instance, a primary Marconomic principle is that technological progress has not come about, nor accelerated due to individual clever ideas or people, but through the complex economic system of rewards, legal frameworks, stable societies etc. that embody modern society. These complex systems have evolved over time mainly via "survival" (less successful systems become extinct) or other lamarckian short-cuts.
Axioms
1)Marconomics rejects Logical Positivism, as a basis for philosophical argument. Marconomics regards a call to the concepts that form its basis as cheating. On the one hand, it defines reality in terms of observations, yet ignores its problems of self-consistency.
2)Perception is NOT reality. "Political" or policy arguments on which large numbers of individuals have a perceived interest are correctly placed on a continuum LINE. This is because people's views tend to be highly correllated (with their peers on the same part of the line). This is the only practical way to come to conclusions when there are a large number of individuals in the argument. Marconomics states that it is both possible and likely that no conceptual point on the line has got any of the right combination of facts or logic. Correllation in viewpoint is not the same as a logical statement. For instance if there are two logical statements A and B - even if everybody within a peer group believe both A & B, this does in no way prove (and should not even be assumed) the "if A then B" logical statement in a scientific context(even if those in the peer group are scientists).
3)Ideas as a volume in Idea space - Rather than as points on a line, Marconomics views ideas more accurately as a multidimensional volume in idea space. Whether it be a concept of God as an idea, or views on the environment, or a description of a behavioural disorder, ideas need the freedom of movement in several dimensions to better grasp reality.
Marconomics sees these and many more general systems as extensions of "game theory" with multiple "players". For instance, economics on a smaller scale (a card game with gambling?) may demonstrate concepts useful in a large scale. Marconomics sees the rules of the game as the primary determinant of stability and direction of the large scale system, rather than the skills/attitudes of the individuals playing the game. For instance, a primary Marconomic principle is that technological progress has not come about, nor accelerated due to individual clever ideas or people, but through the complex economic system of rewards, legal frameworks, stable societies etc. that embody modern society. These complex systems have evolved over time mainly via "survival" (less successful systems become extinct) or other lamarckian short-cuts.
Axioms
1)Marconomics rejects Logical Positivism, as a basis for philosophical argument. Marconomics regards a call to the concepts that form its basis as cheating. On the one hand, it defines reality in terms of observations, yet ignores its problems of self-consistency.
2)Perception is NOT reality. "Political" or policy arguments on which large numbers of individuals have a perceived interest are correctly placed on a continuum LINE. This is because people's views tend to be highly correllated (with their peers on the same part of the line). This is the only practical way to come to conclusions when there are a large number of individuals in the argument. Marconomics states that it is both possible and likely that no conceptual point on the line has got any of the right combination of facts or logic. Correllation in viewpoint is not the same as a logical statement. For instance if there are two logical statements A and B - even if everybody within a peer group believe both A & B, this does in no way prove (and should not even be assumed) the "if A then B" logical statement in a scientific context(even if those in the peer group are scientists).
3)Ideas as a volume in Idea space - Rather than as points on a line, Marconomics views ideas more accurately as a multidimensional volume in idea space. Whether it be a concept of God as an idea, or views on the environment, or a description of a behavioural disorder, ideas need the freedom of movement in several dimensions to better grasp reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)