Computable Rationality, NUTS, and the Nuclear Leviathan

This paper explores how the Leviathan that projects power through nuclear arms exercises a unique nuclearized sovereignty. In the case of nuclear superpowers, this sovereignty extends to wielding the power to destroy human civilization as we know it across the globe. Nuclearized sovereignty depends on a hybrid form of power encompassing human decision-makers in a hierarchical chain of command, and all of the technical and computerized functions necessary to maintain command and control at every moment of the sovereign's existence: this sovereign power cannot sleep. This article analyzes how the form of rationality that informs this hybrid exercise of power historically developed to be computable. By definition, computable rationality must be able to function without any intelligible grasp of the context or the comprehensive significance of decision-making outcomes. Thus, maintaining nuclearized sovereignty necessarily must be able to execute momentous life and death decisions without the type of sentience we usually associate with ethical individual and collective decisions

Some Remarks about the Complexity of Epidemics Management

Recent outbreaks of Ebola, H1N1 and other infectious diseases have shown that the assumptions underlying the established theory of epidemics management are too idealistic. For an improvement of procedures and organizations involved in fighting epidemics, extended models of epidemics management are required. The necessary extensions consist in a representation of the management loop and the potential frictions influencing the loop. The effects of the non-deterministic frictions can be taken into account by including the measures of robustness and risk in the assessment of management options. Thus, besides of the increased structural complexity resulting from the model extensions, the computational complexity of the task of epidemics management - interpreted as an optimization problem - is increased as well. This is a serious obstacle for analyzing the model and may require an additional pre-processing enabling a simplification of the analysis process. The paper closes with an outlook discussing some forthcoming problems

Rationality and the Foundations of Positive Political Theory

In this paper, we discuss and debunk the four most common critiques of the rational choice research program (which we prefer to call Positive Political Theory) by explaining and advocating its foundations: the rationality assumption, component analysis (abstraction), strategic behavior, and theory building, in turn. We argue that the rationality assumption and component analysis, properly understood, can be seen to underlie all social science, despite the protestations of critics. We then discuss the two ways that PPT most clearly contributes to political science (i.e., what distinguishes it from other research programs), namely the introduction of strategic behavior (people do not just act; they interact) and PPT’s more careful attention to the theory-building step within the scientific method. We explain the roles of theory- building and of empirical “testing,” respectively, in scientific inquiry, and the criteria by which theories should and should not be judged

A model of adaptive decision making from representation of information environment by quantum fields

We present the mathematical model of decision making (DM) of agents acting in a complex and uncertain environment (combining huge variety of economical, financial, behavioral, and geo-political factors). To describe interaction of agents with it, we apply the formalism of quantum field theory (QTF). Quantum fields are of the purely informational nature. The QFT-model can be treated as a far relative of the expected utility theory, where the role of utility is played by adaptivity to an environment (bath). However, this sort of utility-adaptivity cannot be represented simply as a numerical function. The operator representation in Hilbert space is used and adaptivity is described as in quantum dynamics. We are especially interested in stabilization of solutions for sufficiently large time. The outputs of this stabilization process, probabilities for possible choices, are treated in the framework of classical DM. To connect classical and quantum DM, we appeal to Quantum Bayesianism (QBism). We demonstrate the quantum-like interference effect in DM which is exhibited as a violation of the formula of total probability and hence the classical Bayesian inference scheme.Comment: in press in Philosophical Transactions

Socio-hydrological modelling: a review asking “why, what and how?”

Interactions between humans and the environment are occurring on a scale that has never previously been seen; the scale of human interaction with the water cycle, along with the coupling present between social and hydrological systems, means that decisions that impact water also impact people. Models are often used to assist in decision-making regarding hydrological systems, and so in order for effective decisions to be made regarding water resource management, these interactions and feedbacks should be accounted for in models used to analyse systems in which water and humans interact. This paper reviews literature surrounding aspects of socio-hydrological modelling. It begins with background information regarding the current state of socio-hydrology as a discipline, before covering reasons for modelling and potential applications. Some important concepts that underlie socio-hydrological modelling efforts are then discussed, including ways of viewing socio-hydrological systems, space and time in modelling, complexity, data and model conceptualisation. Several modelling approaches are described, the stages in their development detailed and their applicability to socio-hydrological cases discussed. Gaps in research are then highlighted to guide directions for future research. The review of literature suggests that the nature of socio-hydrological study, being interdisciplinary, focusing on complex interactions between human and natural systems, and dealing with long horizons, is such that modelling will always present a challenge; it is, however, the task of the modeller to use the wide range of tools afforded to them to overcome these challenges as much as possible. The focus in socio-hydrology is on understanding the human–water system in a holistic sense, which differs from the problem solving focus of other water management fields, and as such models in socio-hydrology should be developed with a view to gaining new insight into these dynamics. There is an essential choice that socio-hydrological modellers face in deciding between representing individual system processes or viewing the system from a more abstracted level and modelling it as such; using these different approaches has implications for model development, applicability and the insight that they are capable of giving, and so the decision regarding how to model the system requires thorough consideration of, among other things, the nature of understanding that is sought