To: Jeffrey Epstein[jeevacationagmail.comj From: Nowak, Martin Sent Mon 8/5/2013 11:38:57 AM Subject Re: this is an exciting new idea. ultimately i always assume the payoff for the alliance is distributed over its members. we have to discuss this on the level of genes there might be a way to make progress there two genes, A and B, can form one string of DNA then (maybe) AB is the new "unit of selection" On Aug 4, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Jeffrey Epstein <jcevacationagmail.com> wrote: i think the payoff matrix needs to be rethought. if we are in a game , and i cooperate, it is not me that gets the benefit. it is the combination of me and my cooperator. / a new group. not necessarily reducable into me and you. A cooperates with B. it is _"AB" that is now the beneficiary. . a new entity, it might not be a receiprocal group. it could be parasitic, it could be toxic in the future , I think we need to do more on what cooperation entails. time . cost to each, message it sends to environment. . change in surface area of combined, etc. On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Nowak, Martin wrote: i agree. i think this goes toward the cooperative game theory i am trying to construct. i am very much looking forward to seeing you at the ranch!! On Aug 3, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> wrote: when two entities communicate, do they automaticallly make a third. the combination. I think now that we are not what we eat but we are what we consume, including all types of inputs. sensory, etc. I think that the environment contains communications , and that interaction effects everythingk more when i see you *********************************************************** The information comained in this communication is EFTA_R1 _O 044 0504 EFTA01963991