Greatest Problem In The World That Humans Cannot Solve

james bond · Mar 30, 2017

One of the main reasons why we have scarcity is the zero-sum theory. It is an economic game theory in that there is a winner for every loser in the competition of life and for resources. This is what is prophecized in the Bible as to occur at the second coming of Christ. There will be a huge war between good and evil to settle it for once and for all. Winner gets global domination. The evolutionists have their own end game through global warming, catastrophic war, unstoppable virus or some other mass earth extinction scenario where humans are at fault.

What do you think? Is there a solution besides war or the zero-sum game?

As an alternative theory, The Gaming Theory or Nash Equilibrium was proposed by John Nash circa 1994. It states that there is a solution in a non-cooperative game situation involving two or more players where the players know the strategies of the other players. Today, we know the basics of what other countries will do based on intelligence gathering (spying), information exchange, economic and political studies, empirical studies and so on.

Nash Lecture - Nobel Prize
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1994/nash-lecture.pdf

I'm an excellent fantasy NBA and MLB games player, so decided to try out Nash's theory with my fantasy NBA league. I've been playing it for the past few months. It worked in one league where one player was someone I could manipulate into making favorite trades with me for information I was providing him as well as players. There were two other leagues, but I could not get anyone to "buy-in" to the concept of the Nash equilibrium. Obviously, not an easy thing to explain. I explained it that "co-operation" (not collusion where we make unequal trades) was better for us in order to beat the strongest opponent or opponents. Usually, one of two managers will come out with the strongest team after the draft. This "co-operation" worked as follows:

Instead of going for the best player available and having one winner and one loser, we would agree to co-operate and share information and then make trades that would benefit us most. In other words, we end up with the best team that will have a chance in the playoffs versus the one or two top contenders. The problem was I could not get anyone to agree. Everyone was selfish and acting for their own good and being greedy, i.e. using the zero-sum strategy. They would amass the best players in a heartbeat if they could.

In the end of this one league, I could not make the playoffs, but did help my opponent to and the other contenders as well. Here it is here with my notes to "Howard," the player I was able to use my jedi mind tricks on. I'm not sure if it can be read by public. The playoffs just started this week:

http://10610307522.basketball.cbssports.com/

THE POINT: The point is while animals and other species can co-operate, it appears humans can't do this. There is something inside humans that makes us greedy and be selfish, i.e. play the zero-sum game. We will provide charity to the poor and poorer nations, but we will not co-operate in order for us to survive. It is the greatest problem in the world that we cannot solve if you ask me.

Footnote: I wasn't sure where to place this topic, but do so here because of Darwin's theory of competition among species was demonstrated wrong by research and studies (see below).

NSF Study on Green Algae Finds Darwin Was Wrong About Competition
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/nsf_study_on_al/

Deidre · Mar 30, 2017

Some other species eat one another as in survival of the fittest., we aren't that bad...yet. lol

I agree with you, though. The greatest problem that we can't cure is hatred, and not enough love.

james bond · Mar 30, 2017

Deidre said:
Some other species eat one another as in survival of the fittest., we aren't that bad...yet. lol

I agree with you, though. The greatest problem that we can't cure is hatred, and not enough love.

You mean like the Black Widow? I didn't think of those species. Some are very individual.

icehorse · Mar 30, 2017

james bond said:
The point is while animals and other species can co-operate, it appears humans can't do this.

Our cortexes are our biggest strength and our biggest roadblock, no doubt.

But I think we can co-operate when we have a more evolved idea of what truly motivates us. This video gives and interesting perspective on what we're only recently discovering truly motivates us. And while the video is business-focused, the ideas are true across most everything we do:

Alison Wonderland · Mar 30, 2017

We're long beyond good and evil. People who consider themselves to have a firm handle on those two adjectives are confused and asking superfluous questions.

We're in a different age now; right now, I'd describe where we are as some kind of soft-core, intellectualized WW2-style generational crisis called postmodernism which we still haven't found a way out of.

The West needs to get its head out of its *** regarding this issue so that we might enjoy the highs that were surfed upon in the 1920s & 1960s with the pale inclusion of the 1990s.

Fire_Monkey · Mar 30, 2017

james bond said:
One of the main reasons why we have scarcity is the zero-sum theory. It is an economic game theory in that there is a winner for every loser in the competition of life and for resources. This is what is prophecized in the Bible as to occur at the second coming of Christ. There will be a huge war between good and evil to settle it for once and for all. Winner gets global domination. The evolutionists have their own end game through global warming, catastrophic war, unstoppable virus or some other mass earth extinction scenario where humans are at fault.

What do you think? Is there a solution besides war or the zero-sum game?

As an alternative theory, The Gaming Theory or Nash Equilibrium was proposed by John Nash circa 1994. It states that there is a solution in a non-cooperative game situation involving two or more players where the players know the strategies of the other players. Today, we know the basics of what other countries will do based on intelligence gathering (spying), information exchange, economic and political studies, empirical studies and so on.

Nash Lecture - Nobel Prize
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1994/nash-lecture.pdf

I'm an excellent fantasy NBA and MLB games player, so decided to try out Nash's theory with my fantasy NBA league. I've been playing it for the past few months. It worked in one league where one player was someone I could manipulate into making favorite trades with me for information I was providing him as well as players. There were two other leagues, but I could not get anyone to "buy-in" to the concept of the Nash equilibrium. Obviously, not an easy thing to explain. I explained it that "co-operation" (not collusion where we make unequal trades) was better for us in order to beat the strongest opponent or opponents. Usually, one of two managers will come out with the strongest team after the draft. This "co-operation" worked as follows:

Instead of going for the best player available and having one winner and one loser, we would agree to co-operate and share information and then make trades that would benefit us most. In other words, we end up with the best team that will have a chance in the playoffs versus the one or two top contenders. The problem was I could not get anyone to agree. Everyone was selfish and acting for their own good and being greedy, i.e. using the zero-sum strategy. They would amass the best players in a heartbeat if they could.

In the end of this one league, I could not make the playoffs, but did help my opponent to and the other contenders as well. Here it is here with my notes to "Howard," the player I was able to use my jedi mind tricks on. I'm not sure if it can be read by public. The playoffs just started this week:

http://10610307522.basketball.cbssports.com/

THE POINT: The point is while animals and other species can co-operate, it appears humans can't do this. There is something inside humans that makes us greedy and be selfish, i.e. play the zero-sum game. We will provide charity to the poor and poorer nations, but we will not co-operate in order for us to survive. It is the greatest problem in the world that we cannot solve if you ask me.

Footnote: I wasn't sure where to place this topic, but do so here because of Darwin's theory of competition among species was demonstrated wrong by research and studies (see below).

NSF Study on Green Algae Finds Darwin Was Wrong About Competition
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/nsf_study_on_al/

Sorry, but Nash Equilibrium will not yield successful results in sports. Since the object is to win. So, whatever success you think you had with it in your fantasy league was luck. That is, it had nothing to do with your attempt at applying NE, but rather, the players you chose simply happened to have better stats than did this of your opponent, in the games you played against them.

Also, the Bible and it's claims of a second coming or an apocalypse are of course groundless and have nothing to do with game theory or any other sort of economics or mathematical concepts. Just like, say, Genesis has nothing to do with science or evolutionary biology.

Your limited success in the fantasy league was due to corrolary and not causal dynamics of having attempted to infuse Nash Equilibrium into the choosing methods.

Hope this helps.

Fire_Monkey · Mar 30, 2017

Alison Wonderland said:
We're long beyond good and evil. People who consider themselves to have a firm handle on those two adjectives are confused and asking superfluous questions.

We're in a different age now; right now, I'd describe where we are as some kind of soft-core, intellectualized WW2-style generational crisis called postmodernism which we still haven't found a way out of.

The West needs to get its head out of its *** regarding this issue so that we might enjoy the highs that were surfed upon in the 1920s & 1960s with the pale inclusion of the 1990s.

You're funny!

The 1920s were hardly a time of prosperity. Not for the vast majority of the USA populace that is. Not unless you were a wealthy white male. The term Roaring 20s was a misnomer, for all intents and purposes. The 50s would have been a far better choice for you to pick, that is, if you insist upon dragging out that tired old revisionist sentimentality. That, btw, is almost always based on incomplete knowledge of the true facts of any era in which the person doing the waxing didn't experience.

Unusual Historicals: Myths and Misconceptions about the Roaring Twenties: It Wasn’t All One Big Party

Fire_Monkey · Mar 30, 2017

Deidre said:
Some other species eat one another as in survival of the fittest., we aren't that bad...yet. lol

I agree with you, though. The greatest problem that we can't cure is hatred, and not enough love.

That pic is troian bellisario.

Alison Wonderland · Mar 30, 2017

Fire_Monkey said:
You're funny!

Thanks!

james bond · Mar 30, 2017

icehorse said:
Our cortexes are our biggest strength and our biggest roadblock, no doubt.

But I think we can co-operate when we have a more evolved idea of what truly motivates us. This video gives and interesting perspective on what we're only recently discovering truly motivates us. And while the video is business-focused, the ideas are true across most everything we do:

Is it the cortex or something else? Applied to my game, I don't know what motivates the selfishness and greed? The player I manipulated was of low IQ. Yet, he was lucky enough to make the playoffs while I was unlucky with a rash of injuries to several players twice. I would say a few of his moves were irrational as Nashophiles would point out. Yet, I was able to manipulate him into moves I wanted him to make. Yes, I had to maniupulate even though it was for his own good. Then, he didn't get all of the players either. Even if he didn't get the players, the other opponents of the dominant player did so it worked out for all. We would have lost if the dominant player did that, but I took care of it once I was out. I was able to manipulate him.

If I were playing for money, then I probably would not be able to recommend this method of playing. However, if I were playing for money and put in a certain situation, then it may be a solution to give us the best chance. Even if I made that decision, there is probably slim chance I could convince the other players of our best course (unless they were smart enough to know about and understand the gaming theory). If I were playing with players who understood the benefits of the gaming theory by Nash, then it would be a great option if one player did manage to acquire a dominant team.

Alison Wonderland · Mar 30, 2017

Fire_Monkey said:
You're funny!

The 1920s were hardly a time of prosperity. Not for the vast majority of the USA populace that is. Not unless you were a wealthy white male. The term Roaring 20s was a misnomer, for all intents and purposes. The 50s would have been a far better choice for you to pick, that is, if you insist upon dragging out that tired old revisionist sentimentality. That, btw, is almost always based on incomplete knowledge of the true facts of any era in which the person doing the waxing didn't experience.

Unusual Historicals: Myths and Misconceptions about the Roaring Twenties: It Wasn’t All One Big Party

I'd extend my initial response to include that I don't believe we are stuck in some generational cycle; rather an exciting new era that has yet to resolve itself.

I'm optimistic in this respect. Others might not be.

james bond · Mar 30, 2017

Fire_Monkey said:
Sorry, but Nash Equilibrium will not yield successful results in sports. Since the object is to win. So, whatever success you think you had with it in your fantasy league was luck. That is, it had nothing to do with your attempt at applying NE, but rather, the players you chose simply happened to have better stats than did this of your opponent, in the games you played against them.

Also, the Bible and it's claims of a second coming or an apocalypse are of course groundless and have nothing to do with game theory or any other sort of economics or mathematical concepts. Just like, say, Genesis has nothing to do with science or evolutionary biology.

Your limited success in the fantasy league was due to corrolary and not causal dynamics of having attempted to infuse Nash Equilibrium into the choosing methods.

Hope this helps.

Sports isn't considered since people are interested or paying money in seeing a zero-sum game. If you read the Nash paper (link posted in OP), it talks about being applied to economics and social science. An offshoot was done by another scientists mentioned in the paper to apply to Darwinism, so I guess I did end up lucky in posting it in this forum

.

"Nowadays it almost seems to be obvious that the correct application of
Darwinism to problems of social interaction among animals requires the use
of non-cooperative game theory, but when this idea was first conceived it was
a revolutionary great insight. Of course the strategies of animals and plants
are not the result of conscious deliberation. They are thought of as beha-
vioral programs transferred by genetical inheritance from generation to
generation. Game equilibrium is achieved by the process of natural selection
which drives organisms towards the maximization of fitness. Roughly spea-
king, Darwinian fitness is the expected number of surviving offspring."

james bond · Mar 30, 2017

The fact that you understand the Nash Equilibrium should give you an advantage in playing games if some form or trade is allowed to be made. Also, the others should be aware of it. The classic example of the application not what's in the A Beautiful Mind movie but the prisoner's dilemma. I think it was in another Russell Crowe movie LA Confidential.

james bond · Mar 31, 2017

Alison Wonderland said:
We're long beyond good and evil. People who consider themselves to have a firm handle on those two adjectives are confused and asking superfluous questions.

We're in a different age now; right now, I'd describe where we are as some kind of soft-core, intellectualized WW2-style generational crisis called postmodernism which we still haven't found a way out of.

The West needs to get its head out of its *** regarding this issue so that we might enjoy the highs that were surfed upon in the 1920s & 1960s with the pale inclusion of the 1990s.

It's the easy black and white reference that most people understand when talking about religion and science. You may not know me, but I have posted both of these before:

Science 2015: The Antichrist End of the World Full Documentary (HD) (Bible)

Last Days on Earth (Liberals, atheists and atheist scientists)

Fire_Monkey · Mar 31, 2017

Alison Wonderland said:
I'd extend my initial response to include that I don't believe we are stuck in some generational cycle; rather an exciting new era that has yet to resolve itself.

I'm optimistic in this respect. Others might not be.

Everything in the Universe is cyclic.

Our entire planet and it's entire lifespan is not even a sock on the radar insofar as The Grand Scheme.

You should check out my recent post in Science, in the Biggest Explosions.

It will make you realize the triviality of generational vicissitudes.

One great perk of being a science... Especially a Cosmology....Junkie like myself is that we are always reminded that it's ALL small stuff here on the Third Rock.

FM

http://listverse.com/2011/11/28/top-10-biggest-explosions/

Twilight Hue · Mar 31, 2017

Alison Wonderland said:
I'd extend my initial response to include that I don't believe we are stuck in some generational cycle; rather an exciting new era that has yet to resolve itself.

I'm optimistic in this respect. Others might not be.

It's all in the eyes of the beholder. I think 20s was a good era as well as the 50s.

Some people win, some lose. Neither will be like that all the time. Everyone has their moments. It's good to take an optimistic take on future generations. :0)

Deeje · Mar 31, 2017

In all the years of ruling himself, despite trying all different kinds of governments, man has never learned from the mistakes of the past and therefore keeps repeating them.

Humans are lousy at ruling themselves. Power corrupts them every time....and selfishness stops them from sharing with others. There is no real excuse for poverty or homelessness in this world...humans have created these things through their own greed.

Twilight Hue · Mar 31, 2017

In hindsight, the greatest unsolvable problem the human species faces is realising in all actuality, there never was any problem to begin with.

Deidre · Mar 31, 2017

Fire_Monkey said:
That pic is troian bellisario.

Yes, she's one of my fave actresses.

Cobol · Mar 31, 2017

The greatest problem we face is the world population boom.

The worlds population is over 7 billion and this is a concern. Sure we are living longer, but not everyone has benefited from higher quality of life. In some of the poorest countries women are having more babies, stymieing development and perpetuating poverty. one billion people hungry and contributing greatly to the chances of catastrophic climate disruption. But the next two billion people the demographers expect by 2050 will cause much more environmental damage than did the last two billion added to our population.

Many past human societies have collapsed, with overpopulation playing a significant role. But today, for the first time, a global civilization is in peril, and nothing significant is being done about it in societies insane enough to believe that growth can be perpetual.

Women in every country should be given equal rights and opportunities with men, and every sexually active human being should be given access to excellent birth control methods, and, in case they fail, backup abortion. Governments should all adopt the slogan "patriotic citizens stop at two children" and adjust tax and other policies to discourage over-reproducers and those unethical elements in society that are pronatalist.

The current redistribution of wealth from poor to rich must be halted, and overconsumption by the rich must be controlled with programs such as those that transformed consumption patterns in the United States when it entered World War II. Leaders should be taught enough arithmetic to allow them to grasp the consequences of the growth rates recommended by economists which is 3.5 percent per year.

We must ensure that all are armed with the skills to leverage the vast powers of information technology to improve their lives. The good news is that information technology itself is a major part of the solution. With the decreasing costs of smartphones and tablets in the developing world we are seeing a whole new population accessing the Internet. However, there is still much work ahead of us and great opportunities to accelerate this access to information.

I believe we must work to lower the world population to 2 billion people, which was the human population of this planet only 80 years ago. When the planet is overpopulated, the weakest in society are hurt the most because strained resources go to those with more power. The biggest barrier to lowering birth rates is gender inequality, where violence against females is accepted and where women have no say in family planning, and where birth rates are highest. When women have no place in society other than to have children and take care of the home, they begin having children at young ages and have larger families. Educated women get married later, and are more likely to use birth control and will have fewer children.

Sustainability is still an unsolved problem. How we feed the planet, slow population growth, and thereby raise living standards is still an open question, and our greatest and possibly unsolvable problem.

Greatest Problem In The World That Humans Cannot Solve

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Avid Bible Student

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Well-Known Member

Code Jockey