—
Let's outline the outlines of the model with which we will have fun next. Any simulation starts from a model point. For mechanics, it is a material point, a body with an infinitesimal dimension. For psychology, this is a mathematical point. It can have any material parameters (mass, dimension, temperature, etc.), but these parameters are not important in our modeling. Because we model psychological, not mechanical interactions, and psychological interactions are not regulated by the laws of mechanics. Instead of a physical filling, our point will have a purely mathematical filling. In other words, our mathematical point is a set of numbers that have some kind of sequence. These numbers reflect her own psychological parameters.
In reality, our point can have any physical content, have any dimension, and such points can interact with each other mechanically. Moreover, their own psychological parameters will be a derivative of such content. But let's assume that inside each point there is its own source of movement and freedom to choose the direction of movement. Then the laws of mechanics will fade into the background. Because such points may not interact mechanically. Moreover, such interaction may be undesirable for them. What can be outlined as a task is to prevent mechanical interaction. For example, so that the dots do not break from the collision. The internal source of movement and freedom of choice will become a means and tool for solving the problem.
If we are talking about a reality where mechanical collisions are undesirable, then we can neglect the mechanical reality itself to solve the problem. Instead, we will introduce mathematical reality — a world where there are only mathematical points separated by "empty" space. There is no need to focus on its physical content when modeling. We can describe the route of a point based on mechanics only if the point is "brainless". But if a point is able to choose its own route of movement, and has an internal source of movement, then its movement can no longer be described by the formulas of classical mechanics. From "brainless" mechanical movement, the point will move to "meaningful" psychological behavior. And if so, then classical mechanics can be taken out of the bracket, along with the physical filling of the point.
—
Let's imagine that our mathematical point runs along a notebook sheet in a cell, from one intersection to another. This is also necessary in order to ignore the definition of distances. Since the distances between intersections are the same, the definition of these distances can be neglected for the purity of modeling, remaining exclusively in the space of values, which will be the same set of numbers having some kind of sequence. The point has four options for free movement — forward, backward, left and right. But there are some intersections on the notebook sheet, where our point should not fall in any case, because it will end fatally for her. Intuition tells us that we cannot rely on chance, because the question of death here is a matter of time. Plus, we would call the behavior of such a point chaotic throwing. Therefore, we must fasten to the point the traffic conditions that will protect and not allow. The conditions should leave the point free to choose and prohibit making a decision to move in a dangerous direction. The contradiction lies on the surface — freedom of choice and lack of freedom of choice. After all, you can not bother, simply coding the route of movement to the point — here you will go straight, and here you will turn left. But this will completely kill the freedom of choice, as well as devalue the internal source of movement. Complete freedom of choice is even scarier — chaotic (random) movement and behavior in general. For a change, let's assume that other points run along the notebook sheet from one intersection to another, a meeting with which can end fatally. Then even with a given route, a fiasco is inevitable, we cannot foresee all the accidents. With a random route, it is inevitable, especially since they also win the lottery. Also, coding "for all occasions" would require a sequence of numbers of such sizes that simply do not occur in nature.
We will assign a mathematical point and each intersection some kind of threat and danger value (we will do the same for other "dangerous" points walking around the sheet), which they represent to others. But in such a way that the threat value at "dangerous" intersections (and at other traveling points) is higher than the intrinsic threat value for our model point. And we will prescribe a condition to the point that it should always move forward, but as long as the values in front of it are less than its own. Otherwise, the point must change the direction of movement to some other. Regardless of the choice, at the output we will get a condition for the movement of the point, and a change in the direction of such movement. As soon as there is a value greater than its own ahead, it will become a command to turn somewhere (or maybe move in the opposite direction). We reserve the freedom of choice for the point, the movement is limited only and exclusively by the feeling of fear of stepping in the wrong place. It makes sense to call such a condition an instinct of self-preservation, the purpose of which is to avoid interaction with some "dangerous" area or point.
If we impose a point with higher values at neighboring intersections, then it will not run anywhere. Fear and the instinct of self—preservation will cancel any movement, like a compulsive command - sit and shake with horror. Thereby protecting our point from dangerous mechanical (temperature, chemical, any other) damage. If we assign a higher value to some other point traveling on the sheet, then when we meet, our point will shy away from it in the same way as from a "dangerous" intersection. If we assign the maximum value to a point, we will get a fearless point, which any intersection and other points are knee-deep. Therefore, she always walks straight and does not turn anywhere until she leaves the ill-fated checkered leaf. If we assign a zero value to a point, we get a cowardly point that is afraid to take a step, even if the neighboring values at intersections are not large. If you make a bag of exceeding points for a point, then the point will rush inside and look for a way out — the value is less than its own. And if there is no way out, then she will live in a bag forever.
The movement of a point in such a model will be a search for a value less than its own, as the path of least resistance for an electric current. Accordingly, anything that threatens the existence of a point should have a value greater than the value assigned to the point itself. Thus, combining values for each point or intersection turns into a way of organizing and solving some specific tasks. A stunningly cowardly point where cowardice keeps her alive by ordering her not to go anywhere. If we assign a higher value to it, we will get a braver, but also a more mobile point. So something else must keep life alive. It makes sense to set maximum values to the environment if existence in it is dangerous in some way. But the most important thing is under what condition the point can change the direction of its movement. Just one thing if there is any threat. And there is no need to return a million conditions for each case.
—
Let's play a little with the model. Imagine that the points have not one, but two eigenvalues. The first is courage, the second is a threat. The condition will also change the appearance, the point can take a step forward only when its own courage is greater than the external threat. Outwardly, it may seem that this is the same thing. After all, even in this case, our point will run along the notebook sheet until it hits a value that exceeds its own (as long as courage is above the threat). But there are some details. Last time, the dot ran on the leaflet while its own threat was higher than the threat of the environment ("dangerous" intersections or points). Roughly speaking, while she herself was a threat, and no one posed a threat to her, because her own importance was higher than the value of the environment. As soon as she met a point that had a value higher than her own, it was time to take her feet in another direction. And the set of numbers having some kind of sequence for the points consisted of one number. And now of the two. And now we have a variety of options for further continuation of the movement.
If we assign the maximum value to both parameters to the point, then we will make the point as fearless as possible, and pose the maximum threat to others. She is not afraid of anyone, everyone is afraid of her. Therefore, like an icebreaker, it moves only forward along the notebook sheet, and other points run away from it in horror, like pins from a ball. There are no "dangerous" intersections for her either. And she doesn't really need any traffic conditions, because it's impossible to force her to turn off with the same introductory ones. If we assign a minimum value to both parameters to a point, then we will make it as cowardly as possible, and not posing a threat to others. She is afraid of everyone, no one is afraid of her. Therefore, she will rush around the notebook sheet, constantly hiding from the surrounding "dangerous" points (and for such, everyone is "dangerous"). But there are also "dangerous" intersections. Such a point also does not particularly need traffic conditions, because it will be very difficult for it to take a step forward when it has to constantly dodge to the side. If we assign the minimum bravery to the point, but the maximum threat, then we will make the point a harmless creature, but they will shy away from it like from fire. It will be impossible for such a point to move, because the intersections around it will have values above her courage. But such a point will not need to go anywhere, everyone shies away from it anyway. If we assign maximum bravery to a point, but minimal threat to others, we will get surrealism, where no one is afraid of a point, but she herself is not even afraid of a fire, where she will die. They don't live long.
Thus, our mathematical point, living in mathematical space, has complete freedom to choose its route. In addition to the limitations of this choice, which we collectively called the instinct of self-preservation. Where danger is a value that exceeds the permissible (bravery). As an order, move as far as you have the courage. We do not prescribe her to make the "right" choice, but we cut off the "wrong" options from the choice. And then the route of movement and the model of behavior will tend to the principle of least threat as least resistance. Of course, such behavior can no longer be described in the language of classical mechanics, nor can such behavior be called random and chaotic. If, instead of mathematical points, we imagine material ones, then the movement of the latter would be a constant avoidance of any collisions in violation of all conceivable and inconceivable rules of classical mechanics.
We remember our general task — to prevent mechanical interaction. To solve the issue, it makes sense to set the maximum threat parameters to the points, and to make the points as cowardly as possible for reliability. It is this combination that will finish the classic mechanics, because even before the collision, the dots will run away from each other in horror. The remaining combinations will divide the dots into predators and victims. Which will allow us to create the collisions we need. Predators are supposed to catch up, so they are brave and terrify others. Victims are supposed to run away, so they are cowardly, and no one is afraid of them. The notebook sheet is littered with the corpses of dots that turned out to be too brave and looked into a "dangerous" intersection, or too cowardly to take a step aside when a predatory dot reached them. There are brave dots lying around who traveled without posing a threat to others, so their century was short-lived.
The most advantageous strategy of behavior with such introductions will be a high threat parameter that will scare anyone away. Have teeth knee-deep, or at least mow down under the horror. But another strategy to ensure survival would be to find zero in mathematical reality — the safest place as the place with the lowest threat parameter. And the benefit would be a state of rest at a safe intersection, where nothing threatens the frightened points. After all, the best guarantee to avoid a collision is the absence of movement as such. Although this does not guarantee against visitors. But our point runs without stopping, we only set it a condition for changing the direction of movement. Therefore..
—
Let's continue playing with the model. It has a drawback, it is suitable for an object that is already in motion, as a regulator of this movement (the instinct of self-preservation). The task of the regulator is to choose the safest route. Without the height difference, high temperatures, and other points that are assigned the maximum threat value — in general, so as not to die. And there is a condition that ensures survival during movement. But what will stop an object that is now running around the sheet like a wind-up? Among other things, the running of the dots is completely meaningless, they are rushing not somewhere, but just like that. Therefore, we will dilute the model.
Imagine that there are not only "dangerous" intersections on the notebook sheet, where it is better not to run into. But there are also some "delicious" intersections, where you need to run, because it's nice and quiet there. For a change, imagine that a whole pack of starved dots is running around the sheet. And everyone needs a "delicious" intersection, where they break. But no one can use the previous algorithm, because it regulates only the change of direction of movement, avoid the intersection, and not find it. Therefore, once again we will assign a certain value value to the mathematical point and intersection, which will reflect the saturation, as far as they are "tasty". And so that the saturation value at the "tasty" intersections is higher than the saturation value of the model point itself. The condition itself will remain the same, as long as the value of the model point is greater than the value of the intersection on the way, it should take a step forward. But if its value turns out to be less than the value in front, then now you don't have to turn aside, but just stop.
Now our mathematical point will run around the notebook sheet until it finds such a crossroads in mathematical reality, where its value is greater than its own. And if there are no such intersections, then the mathematical point will run as usual, which we observed earlier. But if a "delicious" intersection is still found, then the point should stop. This will be a condition for stopping the movement (and any action) as a return to a state of rest. Here, the point also has freedom of choice, movement is limited only by a feeling of hunger, because of which some directions will not be interesting for the point as "tasteless". It makes sense to call this condition the same instinct of self-preservation. But its purpose is to find the right interaction for yourself to calm down.
If we assign the maximum values to intersections, then there is no need to run anywhere, it remains only to choose the one that carries the least threat. However, if the dot is insanely brave, then this will also be superfluous. Such abundance will give us a sedentary point. If we assign minimum values to intersections, then the starved point will look for a "tasty" place for the rest of its life. We can create a whole clearing of minimum values, and be sure that this is a "dead" zone for points. If you assign the maximum value to the point itself, then there will be intelligibility, not to offer anywhere. Because the existing intersections are somehow not impressive, I want something more interesting. Such a point will also look for its happiness for a very long time, but it will not find it. And if you assign her maximum courage, then not for long. If you assign a minimum value to a point, you get an omnivorous point. Any place will suit her, even right here, where I'm standing.
Now the movement of the point will be a search for a value greater than its own, as the most peaceful place. Everything that contributes to the survival of the point should have a value greater than the value assigned to the point itself. These are markers for the points where you should go and where you should not. With our own point parameters, we set who can and who can't. The combination of values for each intersection here also turns into a way of organizing existence as an additional prescription — move as far as your appetites are enough. In the first algorithm, the higher the parameters of a point, the more places it can visit, and the higher the parameters of intersections, the fewer points they will visit. With the maximum parameters, we closed intersections for everyone to visit, except those with the same maximum parameters. In the second case, the lower the parameters of the point, the more places it will fit, and the higher the parameters of the intersections, the more points they will visit. All together will become the "invisible hand of the market", choose the best and avoid the worst. We do not deprive the point of choice, but we define this choice.
—
Imagine that the points have not one, but two values. The first is the desire to devour, the second is the value from the example earlier, how much another point or intersection is "tasty". The condition will change slightly, now you need to walk until your own desire is greater than the counter value. Again, something is wrong, I want more, I need to move on. But if this is it, then it's time to stop. The desire has the most common features, including to devour in a "tasty" intersection, while not dying from danger. But for our point, the most important desire is just to stop hanging around like a damn. That is why some intersections are valuable to her, there you can "tasty" rest. Of course, if the value value turns out to be greater than the intrinsic value of desire.
New combinations are opened. If we assign maximum values to a point, then its appetites will become truly brutal. She needs to satisfy her huge desires somewhere, and this search promises to be eternal. But the nutritional value of this eternally dissatisfied point will be recognized by everyone. If we assign her the minimum parameters, then anyone will suit her modest desires at the level of disregard, and she is happy about that. But at other points it will not arouse any interest. If you make the point the maximum desires and the minimum value, then the point will spend its endless search for "delicious" happiness in proud solitude. And her desire will never be mutual. If you assign the minimum requests and the maximum value to the point, then the main thing in this case is to be the first on the point.
Now the sequence of numbers has increased to four. Points can be dangerous or harmless, brave or cowardly, desirable or disgusting, with high or low requests. You can play around with a variety of configurations. For example, a harmless, brave, desirable and fastidious dot. How long will she live on our notebook sheet? Intuition tells us that such a thing will take a long time to wind up on a leaf, which means it will end much faster than dangerous, cowardly, disgusting and omnivorous dots that will never end. But it is not difficult to see that one duplicates the other. Why cause horror if you can cause a feeling of vomiting. The effect will be the same in the form of a lack of interaction, which we recognized as undesirable from the beginning. Why be cowardly when you can be omnivorous. And this will also have an effect in the form of a lack of mobility, and therefore a potential collision.
It's all about the external environment, that very notebook sheet. Where there are intersections through which we encode the behavior of the point. And now their sequence of numbers is now equal to two — they can be "tasty" (where you can and should be) or "dangerous" (where you don't need to be). There is no need for them to be brave or fastidious, because they are not moving anywhere. But what if we want collisions? Then the behavior pattern will change. Either manage fear or hunger (desire), but one of the two will simply become redundant and superfluous.
—
So there will be another cut — a social one. Where the dots don't eat each other, they huddle together. And the interaction of points is desirable here, as well as their maximum accuracy. But fear guarantees us that the dots will avoid interaction, shying away from each other in horror, so it is in flight. We want the opposite, and only desire can give us that. Which, like fear, is inner restlessness, lack of peace. To complete, we need to assign rest points where and with whom the desire can be satisfied, and everyone will be able to sleep peacefully. And so do we, because the dots will not scatter from each other, which is what we are trying to achieve.
It is enough in the algorithm to understand by desires vital requests, which can also fly into the stratosphere. And it will result in the formation of demand for points of value. For a change, it will be a wide set of junk, each of which will have its own value (or its opposite, to which the horror still makes sense). The offer from the point will be formed by its own value, which is still the same set of junk. The strategy has changed to the opposite, now we need to achieve interaction. It is no longer profitable to cause terror in others, everyone is running away. It is not profitable to cause a feeling of vomiting, such an illiquid is not needed for nothing, even if it is unpretentious, and its requests leave a lot of room for maneuver. And if the requests of the point make up the complete works in several volumes, then let them be handed over to waste paper. The ideal option may seem "tasty" and unpretentious point. But this is not her strategy, for her, the benefits of such a configuration may be far from obvious.
Changing the management model will not affect the very essence. Where some interactions are cut off through values, and others are prescribed. This is what we will do, balancing supply and demand as a condition for termination and return to a state of rest. The condition will consist of two components. The first component will involve the magnitude of the desire of a mathematical point and the magnitude of the value of another point for interaction. Together, the values will form the demand from the mathematical point. The second component will involve the magnitude of the desire of another point for interaction and the magnitude of the value of a mathematical point for it. Together, the quantities will form a sentence from the mathematical point. Thus, our model point should take a step forward until both components return true. As soon as both return true, then it's time to stop moving.
Now we have new opportunities for organizing our existence. To prohibit interaction (including mechanical interaction), it is enough to make one of the two parts of the condition false. For example, by zeroing all the value. In this variant, the dots will be worn on a notebook sheet, not finding a market for themselves and their illiquid. Because they seem unattractive to other points, even if other points seem attractive to them. There is a supply, but there is no demand. Or by assigning maximum values to desires. There is a demand, but there is no supply. And the running continues, because from the available offers I want to spit, everything is so terrible and miserable, there is no one to choose from. Only if we reset the scale of desires (take what they give) and set the maximum value parameters, then everyone will calm down. The interaction will happen immediately, because this will do. Moreover, where you will find even better, if the parameters are already at the maximum level.
In such a model, the movement of a point will be a search for values greater than its own desire and less than its own value. To continue to exist, you need to form a pair (group). This means that the value value for points should always mutually exceed the value of desire. The final difference is called the benefit. Which can be different, but without it there will be no stopping in motion. Then the inevitable stratification will occur — the best for the best, the worst for the worst. This is a kind of psychological organization of existence, where through the amount of desire for points it is prescribed with whom it is possible to form a pair, and with whom it is impossible. And through the value value, who can and who can not. Accordingly, the higher the requests of a point, and the lower its value, the fewer other points it can interact with. The rest will be put in its place by the "invisible hand of the market".
However, the stratification will also occur in the food section. At the top will be the points that pose the greatest threat to others. It is they who will capture the most "delicious" places, from which they will drive away the hungry by the very fact of their presence. And only brave people who are not afraid of anyone will be able to challenge this right from them. Those who cannot, sit at more modest intersections. It's not so "delicious" anymore, but you can live. Especially if you carry at least some kind of threat. And somewhere at the bottom there will be a complete squalor that poses no threat to others, as well as interest. And they are also not drawn to exploits, so they are content with crumbs from the table, which the points with exceeding parameters disdained. This is if there are any crumbs for them at all, because the number of "tasty" intersections is not rubber, it has a finite value, like the notebook sheet itself. And all the delicious and accessible points have been eaten for a long time, only the tasteless ones travel through intersections in search of their happiness, but everything is not the same. The others sat down who where. Which means..
—
Previous chapter — Sorting and general organization of points
—
Next chapter — Social organization of points
—
Comments