From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:58:50 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids (fwd)
Message-ID: <199607230048.TAA00049@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:10:04 -0400
> From: Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
> Subject: Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
> 
> The "laws" of social scienst are not the "laws of physics". The "laws
> of physics" aren't so constant either. Theoretical results should 
> inform the intellect not serve as a substitute for it.

The laws of social science are the consequence of the laws of physics. One
of the primary, if not the primary, assumption of Physics is that natural
laws are isotropic and homogeneous. If they are not then we are all in deep
deep trouble (Vinge not withstanding). The relationship between the laws of
social science and physics is analgous to the relationship between the base
pairs in DNA and the concept of a gene. There is a distinct difference in
the nature but the latter can not exist without the former.

> If you apply genetic programming techniques to the system the strategy
> that evolves is typically a cooperative one. The facts is that the
> theory applied in an evolutionary context disproves Perry.

One of the primary observations about genetic programming is that the max
you get is best considered local and 'good enough', not optimal. An argument
based on genetic programming must admit prima facia that there is the
potential for a better answer.

                                                  Jim Choate