Re: [psychohistory] What can a Society Do?
Actually it isn't Godel's (which just says some statements can't be found definitively true or false - it is undecidable). However, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem does(!) do exactly what you want. On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Chen Yixiong, Eric wrote:
Notes: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem forbids any system that claims to cater for all people in all situations. Surely, the claims by capitalist-anarchists do not work because of such. While the Theory of Evolution may *appear* to apply to human society, it fails (as the Theorm predicts) to apply to human societies because humans can and will think out of the system. Placed in simple terms, humans can and do exploit the social systems they encounter. This ability confers the ability to lie, to see through paradoxes and to "make-believe", and confers the greatest difference between a human and a Turing machine. Evolution Theory applies well only to beings simple enough to remain within the system rules.
-- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually it isn't Godel's (which just says some statements can't be found definitively true or false - it is undecidable). However, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem does(!) do exactly what you want.
According to the Theorem page at: http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/m/j/mjd1/arrowimpossibilitytheorem.htm I think I did not draw parallels to my writings below. The theorm seems to apply for democratic systems, but here I write about systems in general. I think we had referred to different versions of Godel's Theorem, where I use this version : "No system of rules can have both completeness and consistency (including social systems applied to humans)". I do wish to eloborate on, concerning this Theorm (which I did know of earlier but did not write about). This shows the limitations of democratic decision making and should wake up some of those who firmly believe in democracy to the Godel's Theorem's Limitations. Hence, I hope these people will consider alternative systems which apply only selectively, such as the one I advocate (in Project Sociologistics). Thanks for sharing this information with me anyway. I know I still have a lot to learn from all of you here.
Notes: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem forbids any system that claims to cater for all people in all situations. Surely, the claims by capitalist-anarchists do not work because of such. While the Theory of Evolution may *appear* to apply to human society, it fails (as the Theorm predicts) to apply to human societies because humans can and will think out of the system. Placed in simple terms, humans can and do exploit the social systems they encounter. This ability confers the ability to lie, to see through paradoxes and to "make-believe", and confers the greatest difference between a human and a Turing machine. Evolution Theory applies well only to beings simple enough to remain within the system rules.
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Chen Yixiong, Eric wrote:
Actually it isn't Godel's (which just says some statements can't be found definitively true or false - it is undecidable). However, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem does(!) do exactly what you want.
According to the Theorem page at: http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/m/j/mjd1/arrowimpossibilitytheorem.htm
I think I did not draw parallels to my writings below.
???? That sentence is without meaning as worded.
The theorm seems to apply for democratic systems, but here I write about systems in general.
But that's exactly(!) why Arrow's applies. Fairness (ie democratic) as individual choice (ie vote). The fact that there are no democratic (ie fair) mechanisms by which to make selections is what damns Crypt-Anarchic-Capitalist-Libertarian (CACL) thought. A good example is to apply voting theory to David Friedmans law by contract examples. One can cast CACL thought as democratic thought except for a single difference. Democratic thought requires all to be responsible to the same set of rules and policies. CACL doesn't. CACL thought has three fundamental flaws. One, it requires individuals to behave in a manner inconsistent with their biology. People ain't rational in any sort of consistent manner. Second, it says that if we get rid of government people will resolve their own problems. However, this statement can be turned into a 'democratic election' (ie the participants have their own choices to make - a vote) yet we can prove mathematically that such a solution is impossible if there are more than two (2) participants. Now I don't know about you but anything worthy of the label 'society' must have more than two (2) people involved. Finaly, it assumes that all issues and decisions one makes in life can be reduced to 'economic' decisions. While that is certainly possible it is clear that not all issues are deal with equitably in such a manner. (It's also applicable to Tim May's commentary a while back about the 'solved n-division' problem (which can also be shown to be a vote if the remainder is indivisible or can't be re-connected) and the fact that he seems to think that the solution that is out there now is universal. When in fact it applies to such a small fraction of n-division problems as to be worthless. The proof is in the 'remainder' and it's characteristics. Most of reality doesn't comply with the requirements for 'fair divisibility' - too granular.)
I think we had referred to different versions of Godel's Theorem, where I use this version : "No system of rules can have both completeness and consistency (including social systems applied to humans)".
But a social system isn't (just) a 'system of rules'. It also has beliefs and various cause-effect and dependency issues related to environment and biology that cause Godel's to be inapplicable. The fact that it consists of anything(!) more than a system of rules is enough to invalidate Godel's. Godel's simply isn't applicable to a broad enough set of examples. Though Godel's may keep you from proving it). The reality is that the concept of 'social system' is entirely too broad for the conept of 'self-consistent language' to be applied. Where did the requirement for 'consistency' in a social setting come from in the first place? And what does 'consistency' actually mean in that context? A naive interpretation might be that they always make decisions the same way or perhaps the same selection. Either will fail because it won't respond to changes in the environment. Clearly in conflict with the premise of being 'consistent'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
But a social system isn't (just) a 'system of rules'. It also has beliefs and various cause-effect and dependency issues related to environment and biology that cause Godel's to be inapplicable. The fact that it consists of anything(!) more than a system of rules is enough to invalidate Godel's. Godel's simply isn't applicable to a broad enough set of examples. Though Godel's may keep you from proving it).
Pardon my ignorance, but I would like to know, in a clear, consise language, about the above examples that can constitute "more than a set ot rules". Think of it: Does the laws of science really exist in the real world, or do they exist only in our heads? Put it in another manner: Do you really see this eco-system diagram when we make a stroll in the woods? Do you see mathematical equations spouting out of your car engines? Notes: More details explaining this and more on Godel's Theorem in another (now half-completed) non-political posting.
The reality is that the concept of 'social system' is entirely too broad for the conept of 'self-consistent language' to be applied. Where did the requirement for 'consistency' in a social setting come from in the first place? And what does 'consistency' actually mean in that context?
Godel's Theorem applies to all systems, including illogical (as in inconsistent) ones, except itself (so it has incompleteness too). If you insist, I hope you can show me some examples.
A naive interpretation might be that they always make decisions the same way or perhaps the same selection. Either will fail because it won't respond to changes in the environment. Clearly in conflict with the premise of being 'consistent'.
Yes, for a same set of situation with perfect information, a rational person will always choose the best choice (if it exists). (Now, I know we don't get perfect information easily, but I shall handle this seperate issue in another post, or in the paper itself, not here.) However, I don't quite understand how always choosing the best choice has anything to do with inconsistency? You may call a simplified assumption naive, but then, a lot of other people start with "naive" assumptions that eventually make full-blown theories. Einstein, for example, had this assumption that light travels at a constant speed no matter at what speed you observe it, and this definitely seems "naive" also because it has goes against "common sense". _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Chen Yixiong, Eric wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but I would like to know, in a clear, consise language, about the above examples that can constitute "more than a set ot rules".
The love of a mother for her child. Hunger from not having eaten in a week. A crazy guy killing his wife and kids in a rampage. A drunken driver who has an accident. Bottom line, Life is more than 'a set of rules'. It is an experience. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
Chen Yixiong, Eric -
Jim Choate