Re: Hamilton's Rule: a free lunch

>>>>JE:-
>>>>...[zero] only represents a zero state of some biological
>>>>_unknown_.

>>>BOH:-
>>>Would you care to demostrate why my statement is wrong, rather than just
>>>ignoring the content of what I wrote?  I can't accept your statements
>>>without you persuading me that my ideas are wrong.  And I can't do that
>>> if you don't try and say what are wrng with my ideas.

>>>JE:-
>>>When rb-c=0 what is left?

>>BOH:-
>>What is left from what?

>>JE:-
>>Hamilton's rule is supposed
>>to be a fitness road map. Suddenly
>>no road map exists, i.e. we have gone
>>off the map because zero fitness is
>>represented. However a real fitness
>>still remains. What biological fitness
>>actually remains when rb-c=0?

> BOH:-
> The fitnesses of the two behaviours.
> But now they're equal.


> JE:-
> You failed to mention the two equal
> fitnesses are logically _opposed_.
> If both fitnesses are equal but
> logically opposed, as Hamilton's rule
> insists that they are, then _relatively_
> no fitness, i.e. just a zero fitness exists
> within Hamilton's rule when rb-c.

BOH:-
"no fitness" and "zero fitness" are not the same things.
A temperature  of zero degrees Celcius does not mean no
temperature.

JE:-
Exactly, but this is my argument _against_
Hamilton. You cannot have relative temperature
without an assumption of asolute temperature.
Nought temperature is 0 degrees Kelvin. This
point has never been reached but provides an
absolute measure of temperature. Without it,
just a relative celcius measure in is
meaningless.

Hamilton's rules attemptes to invalidly
subsitute a relative measure for an
absolute measure. Thus the rule cannot
exclude the absurdity of the population
declining to extinction when rb-c>0. Until
"0" becomes a general algebraic term within
the inequality, this absudity remains possible
within the rule.

<snip>
>
> BOH:-
> If I want to find out if I'm taller than you, I do it by measuring my
> height and your height, and taking the difference.  IF we're both 188cm
> tall, then the difference is zero.  But that doesn't mean that neither
> of us has no height at all.

> JE:-
> Exactly, but the above is my argument _against_
> Hamilton. Two and not just one, height concepts
> exist in your argument: relative and absolute
> height. In biology two concepts of fitness
> exist, relative and absolute fitness. When you just
> compare heights you are only using a relative concept of
> height so that when they are equal but opposed, the
> absolute concept of height must remain otherwise
> no such comparison was possible. Likewise, when rb-c=0,
> absolute fitness remains within the science of biology
> but remains absent from Hamilton's rule.

BOH:-
Because it doesn't need to be there.  If the question is "Am I taller
than you?", then if I'm 1cm taller, it doesn't matter if I'm 54cm tall
or 724km tall - the answer is still "yes".
Recently there has been quite a bit of work on the dynamics of
populations, but none of it (as far as I'm aware) invalidates Hamilton's
rule.

JE:-
An absolute reduction is parental fitness
has nothing to do with "population dynamics",
it remains solely the concern of fitness _definitions_.
The relative measure only answers the one question.
It can only do so because the absolute measure exists,
_implicitly_.  Do you agree or disagree?

Why did you just snip the hypothetical argument provided
which demonstrated in very simple terms the absurdity of
just measuring a relative gain in height increase if it
costs an absolute height reduction for both? Why are you
consistently evading the simple, basic argument, that any
"road map" of _fitness_, as Hamilton's is purported
to be, that utterly fails to exclude such an absurd
event, even as just a possibility, is nonsense? Can't
you reason that it is absurd for an evolutionary
theory rule to use a purported _fitness_ GAIN_ to
produce the extinction of all the biological entities
using this supposed "gain" ?


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

[EMAIL PROTECTED]