> At 21:40 30/03/97 -0800, Tim wrote:
>
> >Maybe "b" could be replaced in the equation with "m" for memetic ecology?
> >Something like:
> > R(t) = c*R(t-1)*m(t-1)
> >
> >Hmmm... and if I were to continue to rant it might follow that,
>
> Ha ha ha, I like this line. It's a cute pisstake of better-than-me
> mathematicians' lines like "from this it is obvious that", which always
> precede a line of insane maths gibberish that I fully don't get. "And,
> if I talk in even more abstract nutter-language, you will be pissed off
> that:" ... :)
Thanks, it's only math after all. Not something *real*!
> > m(t) = m(t-1)*f{R(t-1)}
>
> Hang on, I actually almost get this... are you saying:
>
> State of a memetic ecology at time t is a function of the state of that
> ecology at time (t-1) and the state of Reality at time (t-1)?
Right. And understanding the nature of the function f is /very/ important
to working out this equation. I think f may not be static. f, the
feedback pressure exerted on the meme ecology by the (t-1) state of
reality may, in fact be tied into m(t-1). So that if rationalism is an
element in m(t-1) the function f would work on R(t-1) in a different way
than if mysticism, signs and portents were at work in m(t-1). Maybe it
should look more like:
m(t)=f[m(t-1)*R(t-1)]
(Hmmm... maybe that should be another operator, + or - instead of * )
But we still need to figure out the qualities of the function f to get any
closer to being able to predict memetic shifts.
-Prof. Tim