Thanks Jay for your insights on this topic.
Something that troubles me about how I understand game theory is that individuals that behave as Christ calls us to, turn the other cheek, give also the cloak and go the second mile wouldn’t survive long.
So either Christians don’t usually behave this way or there is something missing in the game theory model?
One thing to consider is that turning the cheek is a response to the Jewish judicial system concerning punishment. Eye for an eye. That’s about revenge after the fact. It’s not actually related to self defense and life preservation.
This application of principles in physics is both interesting and amusing to me. To be sure there is a great deal of hype as usual to heighten the sense of importance in order to draw more interest from a non-scientific readership. But it simply isn’t true that the evolution of cooperation has continued to stump biologists for a long time – not at all. There have been a great many rather straightforward explanations of this. However, the mathematics from these physical models may help in the construction of simulations of how this can happens, and perhaps that will be enough to convince some of the more stubborn ideologues who keep clinging to this particular gaps theology.
It is also helpful to know that Game Theory the application of mathematics to competitive decision making and strategy selection. In that sense, it presupposes that both players are trying to win. A for instance scenario would be where one uses game theory to decide on the best all-round closing strategy to deploy as the end game in a chess match.
The prisoner dilemma whilst well known is not in every way exemplary of game theory, which is probably why it is well known. It is also unusual in that it suggests that in some circumstances winning requires temporary cooperation with ones competitor.
That said, one could argue that as a Christian one ‘wins’ by not lowering oneself the antagonisers level. Such a Christian might not last long in this world if the ‘competition’ is persecution, but she looks forward to treasure in heaven. In that sense, Game theory might say that the best strategy for the Christian to deploy in a ‘competitive scenario’ is the strategy that trades on an eternal perspective. Here I’m using competition and win in a technical sense, it goes without saying that persecution is not a game.
I’m no expert in game theory, but I do have a passing interest in it. There are plenty of good (and cheap) introductions on Amazon and the like.
Dunno if that helps any?
I’ve read a bit on Evolutionary Game Theory, and I’d like to clear up some misconceptions above. This is a this very different field of research from biological evolution. Game Theory relates to the mathematical study of decision making, originally from economics (John Nash, featured in “A Beautiful Mind”). Evolutionary Game Theory studies how decision strategies evolve in a population. I’m not a physicist, but I can see how ideas from thermodynamics might be applied to a “system of interacting agents”.
EGT has applications in biology and evolution, but does not depend on biological evolution. If you are one of those people who do not accept biological evolution, don’t panic, this really is a different topic.
Thanks Dan. I was going to avoid this one since there is so much misunderstanding here (in the thread) about what the model could mean. I think the biggest problem with the thread is that it’s not about the work of Adami and Hintze but about a 3-year-old blog-post-like “article” in an MIT publication. That article is about a preprint of the actual paper, which was published one year later (linked below) and has been cited 6 times in the two years since. All the overstatement about how the paper would change everything and everyone… is not the authors’ words.
Their paper is about using game theory to see how certain modeling conditions yield cooperation. This topic is certainly relevant to biological evolution, and the authors mention that in their abstract, but the paper is not about biological evolution nor does it make the claims made in the awful MIT publication.
I won’t intrude into religious questions about cooperation and the like, and there’s no point rehashing the fact that Roger is wrong about evolution and ecology and the relevance of game theory. But I think it is wise to look more carefully at the sources of these kinds of pieces. At the least, please consider comparing the words of the blogger with the words of the scientists. They are vastly different.
Human cooperation involves a bit of mind-reading called “shared intentionality” that chimps and other creatures can’t duplicate. Shared intentionality is defined as having joint goals, joint intentions, mutual knowledge, shared beliefs – all occurring in the context of cooperative motives. In short, if I know that your goal is X, I can work with you to achieve that goal.
Good clarification. Thanks. It’s the “decision-making” aspect of how cooperation could emerge from competition that game theory tries to shed light upon.
True. I mentioned somewhere up above that the MIT blog was an overstatement, but I should’ve linked the article. You and your dang professional standards!
As @LM77 said, game theory is a mathematical model of how people make decisions to maximize their outcome. Jesus wasn’t instructing us on the best way to become wealthy, unless you’re a fan of the prosperity gospel!
"This is the3 position of Dawkins ands others who mislabel the Christian way of life aqs altruism, which it is not. We need to take these statements of Jesus in context.
Going the extra mile refers to the fact that a Roman soldier could compel a Jew to carry his heavy pack an mile This certainly was not a pleasant task, especially since the Romans were unclean Gentiles and pagan overlords. On the other hand as Jesus pointed out Roman rule had its advantages. An unpleasant ask is just made more unpleasant when we do it grudgingly. Jesus’ answer was to perform the task willingly, since they has nor choice and even offer to go an extra mile in order to demonstrate that they were unfazed by this power the Romans has over them. His answer was not to give into unjust power, but to demonstrate that we are not letting unjust power intimidate us.
Turn the other cheek is similar. A bully trie4s to provoke people to retaliate against him or her. The bully slaps us on the cheek in order to provoke a fight. We fell into the bully’s trap when we respond in kind. Jesus did not. During His trials and execution, He never said a mumbalin’ word, even t5hough He had every reason to. He stood up to injustice and kept His dignity as a strong person, not a weak one We all need to do the same.
You are right, @LM77. The goal of the Christian is very different from that of the unbeliever. The goal of the Christian is the Kingdom of God, which is love and peace for all, or I would say maximize all benefits, physical, mental, and spiritual benefits for all. It is not to win for him or herself, but to win for everyone, but that does not mean that evil is allowed run wild destroying and imprisoning others. Do unto other sa you would have them do unto you.
Thermodynamics is about interacting gas molecules. Gas molecules are not interacting he study yourself. Biological agents and moving molecules have very little in common…
he study yourself. Biological agents and moving molecules have very little in common…
agents. Take my word for it as someone who is doing an in-depth study in this area, or do the study yourself… Biological agents and moving molecules have very little in common…
[quote=“sfmatheson, post:26, topic:43092”]
there’s no point rehashing the fact that Roger is wrong about evolution and ecology and the relevance of game theory.
Just because I dare to criticize Dawkins does not mean that I am wrong about evolution and ecology. It is mor5e 5than clear that the fact of the tole of lichens in the creation of the environment of our earth proves that cooperation did not have to evolve in biology. It was there from the get go. Symbiosis and cooperation are basically the same, although humans cooperate based on their world view, while bees and ants based on instincts.
The re4al game theory can be found in the book Non Zero by Robert Wright, which shows that people can and do maximize the Benefits of life by sooperfating, a fact that almost all people agree with with having to go through the prisoner’s dilemma. The modeling of society as made up of Suckers, Cheaters, and Grudgers is just wrong as Dawkins uses it. The only think I would add to that is that it had been a revelation how many people have accepted a Cheater as president of the USA.
As I see it this question is basic to our way of life. When we buy something, we expect not to be cheated. We expect to pay a fair price for something that works. It might help if we can get a bargain, but I hope that we do no do to the store trying to cheat the owner. Life is a non zero game. There are no winners or losers unless you make yourself into a cheater out to con others. The premise of the Selfish Gene is mistaken because life is not built on selfishness , but the Logos. This is a fact, just as the Selfish Gene is a myth as in Darwin’s Myth. .
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.