Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

I am not sure you are getting the game theory correct. Can you define what you mean by:

"fair game" (what mathematical test can I use to distinguish a fair game from an unfair one).

"better equilibrium" what mathematical test can I use to distinguish a "better" equilibrium from a less good one).

.."fair game" is a street English expression on context it has nothing to do with Nash Equilibrium.

An Equilibrium refers to a system that is in homeostasis. That is to mean a situation on which all parts involved are set on a conglomerate of rules that they have to abide to and work. There are better and worse Equilibriums to get as opportunities rise with change. The march of History and Civilization is and has been pretty much about that.

Game theory applies to everything from Economics to Politics to Law systems Social behaviour and dynamics in Ethnic groups, Status groups of belonging, families, etc. It is literally everywhere. If if looking carefully you can see it also in Chemistry and Physics.
Statistics works precisely because these equilibriums repeat back and fourth as the environmental pressures change. For more information see Nobel laureate John Nash Equilibrium. There is a movie on him made some decades ago, I think it has called a beautiful mind. His theories have developed on all sorts of fields and end up granting him the Nobel.
I had some ideas of my own about the matter but I become much more interested in Game Theory after I saw the movie. It has ever since played a big role in my Philosophical analysis of social dynamics.

Pay attention Albuquerque!

I didn't ask what "equilibrium" means. You used the term "better equilibrium". I asked you what distinguishes a "better" equilibrium from a not better equilibrium. Game theory is mathematics (which I have not only formally studied, I also use it rather regularly). If you are going to use a term like "better" in a mathematical context, you need to define what "better" means.

So answer the question please. What test can I use to determine if an equilibrium is "better"?

...it is quite easy pal, a better equilibrium is one which is more energy efficient for the group providing the same amount of work, or even less...in the same vain that there are better and worse algorithms to solve a problem.

...oh one last thing if you studied it why don't you know anything about it??? The all conversation on this thread shows you just don't understand it not even vaguely!

And you pay attention Sir because I am going to be blunt straight and arrogant.
You will never find a better thinker here on A2K so be careful because it is your image that will get damaged on the long run not mine. What I had to prove to myself or the world I already did! I am not looking for a spot at the sun light but I am honestly fed up with mediocrity around me travestied on formal knowledge! Much of what I read here on A2K is status quo bullshit and superficial consensual analysis. Shame!

You are sounding like Oralloy now.

Mathematically speaking (and Game Theory is mathematics) you are setting up an optimization function. In order to calculate an "optimization function" you need a mathematical test. That is all I am asking for.

- You used the term "better" (which is a poor term with no way to define).

- You are now proposing that the test be "energy efficient". You kind of define that as same amount of "work". Now you are going to have to define work in a way that I can measure mathematically. If one person writes a very good poem, and another person weaves 3 square yards of cloth.. who has done more work?

I don't care how smart you are or how insulting you are. I am simply asking you to define your terms.

See work as it is used in Physics or Computation. if you don't know what it is google it. Speaking of work I am done doing the work for you.

I don't think "work" as defined in Physics is a logical measure. Work in Physics is a force applied over a distance. We could measure that (I suppose)... but I don't like that as a optimization function because it counts people who lift things very highly. A brick layer building a wall would be counted highly as work. The activities of artists, or musicians or or teachers or engineers would count very little.

I think I would optimize for some economic value... it would have to have different measures for manual labor, and intellectual occupations.

The interesting problem is that any definition of work that isn't the strict Physics definition will be some arbitrary measure that assigns value to labor based on subjective considerations.

Choosing a different optimization function (i.e. a different measure of subjective value) will lead to a different solution.

A force applied over a distance refers to energy spent to achieve a goal complete a task get into an objective. So "energy efficient" totally applies.
Same goes for computation, the least amount of steps to complete a task, again energy efficient. How come you just don't relate words??? Its just like an impossible task for your brain architecture...could it be some form of linguistic autism? I wonder seriously...

Now lets make these crystal clear so that children can understand it!

You could build a space rocket over a sequence of many lifetimes and that includes gathering the resources and making the materials, project assemble, and a 1000 years of thinking about how to do it alone in the desert without any social background on ideas or cultural tech wisdom to back you up. For the purpose of the thought experiment lets say I give you a youth pill so you can live that long.

We could gather 10.000 thousand men and put each one alone to work and compete and wait 1000 years to see which one would come up with the best project in the end if we could get one at all to get it done which I highly doubt.

A more productive way to do it goes with cooperation and a social contract that ensures a minimal amount of fairness so people are willing to trade cooperation and specialized know how to achieve the task if they feel the pay off is fair enough and benefits everyone in the end.

To complete the task which one of these methods is more energy efficient eh?

And there you go now you know why cities look like computers seen from an air plane and why civilization is not an accident and why Moral behaviour is the cement that keeps us all alive.

A society that does not cooperate in an energy efficient manner is doomed to fail dissolve and go extinct!

Moral Realism simply states what Science always defended in all other fields. That there are objectively more efficient and less efficient attempts at cooperating in a very complex system. Which in turn means that there will be natural selection and convergence on the most efficient algorithms for proper cooperation. The ones that endure tend to have the same overarching structure. Done, you have Universality without loosing diversity!

Hence why their philosophy can be described as NEGATIVE nihilism....or NEGATIVE NEUTRAL.

The problem with your thought process is that you aren't defining your terms or using them consistently.

1. I accept your very valid point that cooperation leads to desirable results.

2. When you are comparing outcomes, you need to define what the desired outcome is in specific measurable terms. This is your problem.

Obviously you are correct about the space rocket... but it isn't practically meaningful. If some rocket program manager has to choose between two different ways of working, the term "energy efficient" can be measured in all sorts of ways each of which may lead to a different decision what is "best".

Are you measuring hours of work, or cost of work? If option A means 10 hours of work from someone making $15 an hour and option B means 5 hours of work from someone making $120 an hour, which is "best"?

Do you care about things like safety? If I can add a safety check that adds 2 days and $10,000 to the project, do I do that?

All I am asking is for you to define your terms in meaningful, measurable ways. If you can't do that, then what you write is impractical and meaningless.

No Max...whatever unit of measurement you use to account for "work" as in number of tasks per hour or second or whatever you want you always go down to energy period. In fact is the other way around you can chose whatever is adequate to a specific field for measurement of efficient social cooperation so long you apply the idea. Any one you pick will give you the same equivalent result. The best algorithm will be the one who costs less "work" to achieve the same level of productivity. As the idea applies to all sorts of social interactions in distinct contexts in different jobs you can pick whatever unit represents energy coost in your field/business/investigation, etc.

I can give you a very recent example regarding the vaccines for COVID-19.
There was a massive sharing of information between different pharma companies and scientists to quickly get a pack of solutions. The amount of intellectual work fell drastically as more and more experts and helped in multiple finds to find the correct approach.

Who does more work; an artist who paints a painting or a bricklayer Who builds a wall?

You are offering platitudes. You haven't offered a practical way to compare the amount of work done by one process over another.

In that case you can't compare across different fields. The thing you can do is compare painters with painters and masons with masons. Again you can use whatever is best adequate to your field of operation to see how your group is fairing. And by the way this is how it is done in practice. And remember all things being equal you better isolate other parameters that affect productivity.

EDIT from 2 posts above:

I can give you a very recent example regarding the vaccines for COVID-19.
There was a massive sharing of information between different pharma companies and scientists to quickly get a pack of solutions. The amount of intellectual work fell drastically as more and more experts helped in multiple fields to find the correct approach.

How are you defining "work" now? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

1. Before you very clearly defined work as "the number of tasks done".

2. In the COVID-19 example you have more scientists very clearly doing more tasks to work on more projects.

The most efficient way (as far as number of tasks done) to develop a COVID-19 vaccine would be to have one single team of scientists trying different options until they got one that worked. Once you have multiple teams, you have repeated work. Each team needs to develop a set of knowledge and procedures separately.

The race for a COVID vaccine is optimized for time. As a society, we are willing to pay significantly more for getting a vaccine NOW then it would cost if a vaccine could be developed using more efficient processes. We don't care how much work individual scientists or teams do, as long as we get the vaccine quickly.

No!
The parameter you want to measure here is the sharing of information and the amount of different field experts that did it..
The number of tasks overall used fell drastically compared to previous years work on other vaccines as the sharing of information and the number of fields involved reduced the amount of trial and error that several isolated teams would be bound to repeat. There you have your metrics.

Lesson learned here you should share your failures not just your successes.
As you do it the amount of tasks falls down for the set of groups as a whole.

I am curious about whether you are making this up, or if you actually have data to back up this claim.

I would specifically like data to show.

1) There is significantly more sharing of data between scientists on different teams.

2) That this actually reduced the number of trials needed from previous efforts.

If you actually have data (more than random snippets from google searches) then I would be appreciative.

No confusion here I am using common sense and I am sure I am right for obvious reasons. There was a couple of news on the TV that really did point out to data share across pharma companies. But I have no actual data.
Still I am right and if you don't know why that is the case after I explained it crystal clear then that says something deep about your comprehension skills.

How hard can it be to grasp that sharing data about failure prevents other groups from following in the same pitfalls that others did previously. The same concept applies from fathers to sons and from generation to generation that learns History...it never seises to amaze me how come you just don't get basic common sense!

It is also well established that usually competing companies don't share their failures.

Yep.