Changing the Future

With the "Origin of Species" and subsequent refinements of evolutionary theory, directed evolution of any kind has been abandoned as a possibility by almost all of the scientific establishment. This contrasts with our high regard and even idolisation of those that write great books, invent new gadgets, and that have vision that becomes reality (eg. man landing on the moon by the end of the decade). By principle 4, nothing complex is created without extensive precedent. The only thing separating the process of evolution and the creative process is context. Both processes have elements in the transition where it is unclear what role pure chance plays, and how much is borrowed (or even plagiarised) from existing elements. Also, it is unclear how much importance to place to a "vision" of the desired endpoint of evolution/creative design. One cannot objectively determine the link between what the minds eye sees and the resulting creation. Alternatively, science has not come up with a mechanism for the same vision thing guiding evolution, though a combination of subconscious individual choices and the activity of some currently poorly understood genes has enough potential for a forward-looking mechanism of evolution. Analogies between natural processes and human design are crucial in progress towards success for any design.



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.

More Boundaries of Objectivity

If one accepts that objective reasoning and argument can only start if there is agreement on starting axioms, then one must take that most ad hoc arguments are subjective, and have motives other than getting to the objective truth of the matter.
When something bad happens, our natural human instinct is to find out why. Whether if it is for a death, injury, loss of money or change of weather, we often look for something or someone to blame, especially other than oneself, or something we cling close to. We are instinctively aware of moral hazard and a skewed profit motive, and we instinctively believe in making and enforcing laws that aim to prevent cheating the system for selfish motives. When something bad happens, we tend to put it in the context of our interpretation of the law, rather than the risk/reward calculations of game theory. Well designed law can in fact be viewed as a special case in game theory where crime, on balance, doesn't pay. With international law especially, the unenforceability of many nominal laws, a lack of jurisdictional clarity with potentially enforceable ones, and overlapping disfunctional multilateral entities each with their own agenda, the assumption of well designed law should really be thrown out. With well designed law the objectivity of the law is tested in court.


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 separation 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.

Ok, ok, it's serious, but it is still *like* a game

The whole point of abstracting a set of objects into a single object is both to simplify the model of the dynamics and to reflect a dynamic that the action of individual units cannot explain. This is the most apparent in strategic situations with humans. Many species of animals and especially humans rally behind a leader. Humans have a theory of mind and human leaders will try to predict how other leaders are going to react to get the best outcome either for themselves or their group - much like any strategic board game. Often the strategies involve sacrificing some of your own, complete misrepresentations, and outright slaughter. Game theory is still the best representation of the motivations and dynamics - The point is not to trivialise the situation, but to objectively analyse it. The leaders themselves may or may not be consciously thinking about the game-like nature of the strategies, but it neither increases or decreases the risks of the situation. The risk of the situation is a function of the dynamics and boundaries - the rules of the game if you will.

Game theory has plenty of analogues in nature as well - Whether you are talking about a group of vultures vying for the same carcass, or a territorial battle between packs of dogs, game theory brings useful models to the table.

In politics, the game of "brinksmanship" is quite common for tyrants under pressure from sanctions and various threats. The Israel-Palestine stalemate can be seen to be a Nash Equilibrium, as could have been the Cold War.

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.