Top down design - Bottom up testing

With design and evolution processes being defined as essentially the same thing, just in different contexts, this opens up analysis of evolutionary processes more in the way we would analyse say software design techniques. Conversely, processes that are primarily seen as design or creativity (say new consumer products, movies, tools, software etc.) can be analysed more in line with how evolution is analysed. An important concept is that complex units (animal species, mobile phones, complex software) can be conceptually broken down into independently acting sub-units (individual animals, camera part of the phone, subroutines or software objects) to get a perspective of how the sub-unit affects the design/evolution success of the unit, or even the class of units.

There can be contexts in which because there is interaction between different levels, one cannot come to reliable conclusions. An individual animal's success may have situations which don't confer success for the species. If camera's are banned from certain situations then the whole mobile phone is devalued for that context.

When looking at countries, the way to test if a law is going to work for the benefit of the world, the ideal way to test it is to have two countries with all laws and circumstances identical except for the law change, and see which country works better, and then assume that this will transpose to it being better for the whole world. Dynamics of having prohibition countries next to non-prohibition countries will elicit all sorts of interfacial behaviour which can swamp the effect you are trying to test- e.g., it is easy for someone in prohibitionist Gujarat to point to the alcohol-fuelled chaos of the coastal enclaves that are part of Goa, Daman and Diu as evidence that prohibition is a good thing, but those enclaves are the way they are because of Gujaratis evading prohibition. This is the kind of example I am talking about for where there is interaction between different levels of abstraction. Things like mendelian traits in genetics have very little of this kind of interaction between the levels. A trait that is good for an individual is most commonly good for the whole species to have.

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.

What philosophy should we really have learnt from Charles Darwin?

I distinctly remember in grade four I was taken aside by a teacher specialising in gifted children and had me study Charles Darwin's foray to the Galapagos islands and retrace his discoveries and see what conclusions one would come up with from first principles knowing what he knew. The conclusion I came up with based on the circumstances was that all the species on those islands had adapted from species common on the mainland that had reached the islands. This contradicted previously widely held views on nature that life on earth had appeared in their final forms everywhere on earth at the same time. So far so uncontroversial. However, my take on the idea is that having seen several specific examples that neither required nor had evidence for appearance of species without precedent, that Darwin just made a logical leap to *make that an axiom*. ie. complex species have a precedent of similar complex species without exception. At a different level this is the same with individuals (are similar to their parents), and at a lower level again with genes (genes are copied fairly faithfully from cell to cell down the germ line).
A secondary part to this was that random changes (mutations) in the copy are enough to account for any *truly new* features. All other complex features that might appear truly new must be assumed to be imported from an unknown source (with similar complex precedents itself). Evolutionary biology is as far as Charles Darwin took the axiom.

There is a popular anecdote amongst evangelicals about a creation (say a human) betrays the fact that it is created, by its complexity, just as a a human artefact (say a watch) betrays the fact that it is created by a human (watchmaker). I like to turn it around and demonstrate that the complexity of a watch actually betrays that it evolved, just like living complex things have. Thus, truly new things about a watch are randomly selected by the watchmaker or other interested designers and tried through iteration after iteration and tested, in the "environment" (marketplace) or a (not truly new) feature is added (eg. mobile phone) from something with extensive precedent in itself. The design process of a designer must iterate random changes to the design and test them via thought experiment so that it gives the appearance of *not* having evolved through random changes/ rejecting obvious failures. The design process itself is also subject to evolution as a watchmaker teaches the next trainee watchmaker how to "design" new watches.



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.

How is my idea different from that of my peers?

In "scientific" environmental forums such as Realclimate, the subject matter is scientific, but the debates are entirely political for all intensive purposes. On the main line you have the "alarmists" at one extreme, and the "denialists" on the other. A rough indicator of where you might be on the line is by answering the question "How certain are you that Global Warming is caused by humans?". This might not seem like "the" crucial point in the argument, but that question is perhaps the only one that science can definitively speak about, and it is the main point that proponents of not taking action are getting traction on (by casting doubt on the objectivity or accuracy of that science). Why is it not plausible to be 100% convinced that global warming is caused by humans and be as convinced that we should not spend a single cent on reducing greenhouse gases - or alternatively, to believe that there is grave doubts that there is any dangerous warming due to greenhouse gases, but to still believe that we should vigorously pursue alternative energies, cap and trade restrictions AND new restrictive regulations. The key for one-on-one discussions on the issue is to know where the line is, even using it as a reference to more clearly define how your idea is different from that of your peers which are near a point on the line. It may not be strictly any more "scientific" than ad hoc discussions, but it brings a NEW and OBJECTIVE philosophy to the table.





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

Political/pseudo-scientific debate

Debates tend to place people with different, often opposing views in turn to make reasoned-sounding arguments to convince them and/or the audience of their point of view. Since there is a large spectrum of viewpoints, all good debaters take advantage of correlated viewpoints. In debates, these are way more important and effective than raw facts and logic. For any topic (say Global Warming) one starts with an indisputable fact (greenhouse gases can cause global warming) and attach it in a logical sounding sequence to the desired conclusion - (we need to act to reduce greenhouse gases urgently).

Visually, this process is modelled by placing everybody on a metaphorical line, even being forced by the logic of the debate to go on the line. The peer group of people near you on the line tend to have very correlated views and can be targeted by the logic of the debater specifically to push you in one direction or another. Richard Dawkins does this very effectively in the God Delusion by asking the question "What probability do you give of there being an omnipotent God which created the universe?" Thus the target audience (those who are unsure in any way) become captive to the argument.

Corellation of viewpoints of experts is often confused with logical corollary. For example, most climate experts that believe in the certainty of global warming being anthropogenic, also believe that targets of carbon emission cuts of 20% to 50% within a couple of generations are necessary to save the planet. Many in the global warming debate actually pass off the argument (If global warming is caused by humans, large emission cuts are necessary to save the planet) as scientific logic.

To generalise, just because in a scientific peer group people who believe A also believe B does not mean if A is true then B must be true.

I, for one, don't think that open debates forward either the scientific process or philosophy in general. Therefore, for objectively reasoned arguments, logic based on correlated views must be avoided:

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).

Axiomatic Reasoning

Being a mathematically minded person from a young age, I have had a great respect for formal mathematical systems such as Euclidian geometry, and the name of this blog book is in total respect and regard for Principia Mathematica, the great work on the foundation of mathematics. Similarly, I wanted to partly formalise my ideas on objective reasoning in this blog book. In reasoning, just as in mathematics, for a proof to have meaningful completeness, one must start with agreed upon axioms and demonstrate that they lead directly to the conclusion; or alternatively presume the opposite to be true, and come up with a contradiction. Note that one can still be "wrong" if the axioms don't quite reflect reality.

I often accept others axioms *For the benefit of the argument* . I don't want differences in conclusions to be a direct result of differences in starting points. The starting points can be argued about at a separate time. Logical Positivism is a denial that any *assumptions without proof* are required at all and that watertight *proofs* are still possible regardless. Without consistency of logic, proofs are not watertight, and science either implicitly or explicitly requires axioms, like it or not. Thus, anyone who rejects metaphysics and theology, and thinks axioms are not required, I would label as a logical positivist, whose implicit axioms are the rejection of metaphysics and theology as false. Having implicit assumptions, but explicitly denying that they are assumptions, I believe to be a form of cheating when it comes to philosophy. This is why I have put axiomatic reasoning as my first principle:

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.

Marconomics Definition

Marconomics is an inter-disciplinary objective study of anything and everything that is of interest to the human race, as observed by Marco Parigi.


It is necessarily broad and is founded on the primacy of axiomatic reasoning, discussion and argument.

See: Principles