Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA17851 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:56:03 +0100 Message-ID: <3AD282FD.B4CC39F1@wehi.edu.au> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:50:21 +1000 From: wilkins <wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU> Organization: The Walter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76C-CCK-MCD (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: about omniscience through memetics References: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMACECMCCAA.debivort@umd5.umd.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
The space in which semantic entities "exist" is specified by the number
of culturally active variables of discourse or behaviour. These axes
themselves arise and go extinct, and so they enter into a hierarchy of
evolution. This means that the space in which competition occurs is, as
in biology, finite - because as David Hull noted, possible competitors
don't compete - only actual ones do.
Moreover, even if the possibility space of memetic alternatives is vast
(or as Dennett would cutely put it, Vast) this does not mean that the
fitness of each coordinate in that space is identical. The metaphor of a
fitness landscape is that each coordinate in such a possibility space
has (at a given time) a different fitness (propensity to reproduce that
coordinate) to others.
When Raup worked out that, mathematically speaking, all shell shapes can
be specified with only three variables, it became immediately clear that
most of "shellspace" is not occupied. teh reason for this is not hard to
find - most regions of the possibility space are not conducive to making
a living (in the conditions of a terrestrial ocean). Some possibilities
are unfit, and so the "choices" of evolution are contrained. The same is
true of cultural evolution as well.
God may not be constrained by fitness, but the trajectory of culture
certainly is.
I tried to formulate a view of the evolution of science in this way in
Wilkins, J. S. (1998). “The evolutionary structure of scientific
theories.” Biology and Philosophy 13(4): 479–504.
The text is online at my website. Also see the piece on Shellscapes.
>
> The memespace over which memes battle with each other is finite, defined by the brains of people.
>
> - Lawrence
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf Of vinclef
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:23 PM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: about omniscience through memetics
>
> Hi,
>
> One could ask what is the significance of omniscience for memes. that means that their is an unlimited space for memes to go in . For any meme that existed, exist, will
> exist or would exist, there is no finite space to compete for because vital space is infinite. So there is no selection pressure, no darwinian evolution at all.
>
> So what about choice? choice could be a mechanism by which memes are selected along some guiding lines, in a particular cultural environment in mind.
> If omniscience means no selection, it may mean no choice possible because choice is selection.
>
> Is god really free ?
-- John Wilkins, Head, Communication Services, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam <http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 10 2001 - 04:58:52 BST