Distribution of Wealth for Sustainable Happiness

The richest one percent of the entire population of the world now owns more than half of the global wealth which shows global wealth is unequally distributed. Moreover, this is assumed that sustainable growth is impossible based on impossibility theorem. Considering the above, the study has been conducted and critically overviewed the wealth distribution of an ancient period based on Islamic rules and practice. Upon study, it has been found that people are very much self-centered and unaware of the broader perspective like searching happiness instead of immediate wealth maximization. The finding has also shown that right of inheritances, relatives, neighbors, society, and state should be defined clearly and need distribution of wealth based on definition. If we become more self-centered, we will find ourselves helpless. Here, wealth means knowledge and physical assets.

Definition of conceptual basics of nanoeconomics as inclusive society environment

The definition of nanoeconomics can relate to different levels and areas of economic life. First of all, this is the nanolevel of the economic system. As a human economy, nanoeconomics provides for the allocation of an individual factor within the framework of a socio-economic phenomenon. The nanoeconomic aspect is central to the definition of inclusion. So, the inclusion of a person, as the main subject of nanoeconomics, to the formation and stabilization of economic systems is the initial one in the integration of an individual in relation to production processes and economic development. A person is involved in academic and social life by making decisions about their own business and integrating it into the sectoral and national economic space. It is proved that its indicators are the conditions for clustering the economic system. The study carried out a cluster analysis of the innovation system in a country with an economy in transition. In addition, the study outlined that inclusive phenomena in the economy are close to integration and are the opposite of segregation and isolation. It is noted that different institutions of integration can be used to form objective conditions for the development of babyeconomics. Public decisions of inclusion involve the use of Arrow's impossibility theorem. The research results can be used: – the individualistic functions of inclusion should be used in the formation of the babyeconomics, the human economy and the economy of nanotechnology; – states of inclusion must be created at all levels of the economic system; – a person and wealth are an individualistic aspect of an inclusive economy, because national wealth consists of individual wealth. Nanoeconomics is just beginning to be included in the systemic processes of inclusive economic phenomena, especially in countries with economies in transition

Axioms for defeat in democratic elections

We propose six axioms concerning when one candidate should defeat another in a democratic election involving two or more candidates. Five of the axioms are widely satisfied by known voting procedures. The sixth axiom is a weakening of Kenneth Arrow’s famous condition of the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA). We call this weakening Coherent IIA. We prove that the five axioms plus Coherent IIA single out a method of determining defeats studied in our recent work: Split Cycle. In particular, Split Cycle provides the most resolute definition of defeat among any satisfying the six axioms for democratic defeat. In addition, we analyze how Split Cycle escapes Arrow’s impossibility theorem and related impossibility results.

In Search of Refutation of Rodrik’s Impossibility Theorem

The article is devoted to the analysis of the so called impossibility theorem, according to which democracy, state sovereignty and globalization are mutually exclusive and cannot function to the full extent when present simultaneously. This theorem, elaborated in 2011 by Dani Rodrik, a famous economist from Harvard University, poses a fundamental problem about the prospects of the global scalability of political institutions of the nation-state. Is it in principle possible to globalize executive, legislative and judicial branches of power, civil society, and democracy, or is it necessary to limit globalization in order to preserve democracy and nation-state? Rodrik’s conclusions, in essence, make one give up hopes to create global democratic order against the background of global capitalism. On the basis of the Stanford School of Sociological Institutionalism and the reconstruction of the historical materialism by Jürgen Habermas, the author refutes Rodrik’s theorem. The author’s analysis shows that not only is it possible to build democratic order at the global level, but also that it already exists in the form of the world culture that includes such norms as electoral democracy, nation-state, civil society and other institutions of Modernity. The world culture reproduces fundamental social values, playing the role of social integration for the humanity, while global capitalism provides for its material reproduction, playing the role of system integration. However, since globalization is a more dynamic process than the development of the world culture, between material and ideational universalism arises a gap, which in its turn is fraught with various kinds of political and economic crises.

So how to make group decisions? Arrow's impossibility theorem 70 years after

PurposeIn 1951, Kenneth Arrow proved that it is not possible to have a group decision-making procedure that satisfies reasonable requirements like fairness. From the theoretical viewpoint, this is a great result – well-deserving the Nobel Prize that was awarded to Professor Arrow. However, from the practical viewpoint, the question remains – so how should we make group decisions? A usual way to solve this problem is to provide some reasonable heuristic ideas, but the problem is that different seemingly reasonable idea often lead to different group decision – this is known, e.g. for different voting schemes.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper we analyze this problem from the viewpoint of decision theory, the basic theory underlying all our activities – including economic ones.FindingsWe show how from the first-principles decision theory, we can extract explicit recommendations for group decision making.Originality/valueMost of the resulting recommendations have been proposed earlier. The main novelty of this paper is that it provides a unified coherent narrative that leads from the fundamental first principles to practical recommendations.

Schrödinger’s Ballot: Quantum Information and the Violation of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem

We study Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem in the quantum setting. Our work is based on the work of Bao and Halpern, in which it is proved that the quantum analogue of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem is not valid. However, we feel unsatisfied about the proof presented in Bao and Halpern’s work. Moreover, the definition of Quantum Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (QIIA) in Bao and Halpern’s work seems not appropriate to us. We give a better definition of QIIA, which properly captures the idea of the independence of irrelevant alternatives, and a detailed proof of the violation of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem in the quantum setting with the modified definition.

Can a Skywalker Localize the Midpoint of a Rope?

This article poses a question about a simple localization problem. The question is if an oblivious walker on a line segment can localize the midpoint of the line segment in a finite number of steps observing the direction (i.e., Left or Right) and the distance to the nearest end point. This problem arises from self-stabilizing location problems by autonomous mobile robots with limited visibility , which is an abstract model attracting a wide interest in distributed computing. Contrary to appearances, it is far from trivial whether this simple problem is solvable, and it is not settled yet. This article is concerned with three variants of the problem with a minimal relaxation and presents self-stabilizing algorithms for them. We also show an easy impossibility theorem for bilaterally symmetric algorithms.

Interpersonal Comparison of Utility by Measuring Neural Activity

Aggregating welfare across individuals to reach collective decisions is one of the most fundamental problems in our society. Interpersonal comparison of utility is pivotal and inevitable for welfare aggregation, because if each person's utility is not interpersonally comparable, there is no rational aggregation procedure that simultaneously satisfies even some very mild conditions for validity (Arrow's impossibility theorem). However, scientific methods for interpersonal comparison of utility have thus far not been available. Here, we have developed a method for interpersonal comparison of utility based on brain signals, by measuring the neural activity of participants performing gambling tasks. We found that activity in the medial frontal region was correlated with changes in expected utility, and that, for the same amount of money, the activity evoked was larger for participants with lower household incomes than for those with higher household incomes. Furthermore, we found that the ratio of neural signals from lower-income participants to those of higher-income participants coincided with estimates of their psychological pleasure by "impartial spectators", i.e. disinterested third-party participants satisfying specific conditions. Finally, we derived a decision rule based on aggregated welfare from our experimental data, and confirmed that it was applicable to a distribution problem. These findings suggest that our proposed method for interpersonal comparison of utility enables scientifically reasonable welfare aggregation by escaping from Arrow's impossibility and has implications for the fair distribution of economic goods. Our method can be further applied for evidence-based policy making in nations that use cost-benefit analyses or optimal taxation theory for policy evaluation.

The Fuzzy Completeness Theory

The Two Incompleteness Theorems of Kurt Friedrich Gödel and the Impossibility Theorem of Kenneth Arrow claim that logic, the most reliable of human knowledge, is incomplete or can be inconsistent. The Fuzzy Completeness Theory states that the Fuzzy Logic of Lotfi A. Zadeh has resolved the incompleteness and impossibility in logic and made logic complete and knowledge reliable with the new concept of Range of Tolerance, within which logic is still complete and knowledge, valid. In the Age of Reason about 300 years ago just prior to the Age of Science, reasoning is free for all, without the constraint of the laws of nature, which would be discovered in the Age of Science. However, the Scientific Method of reasoning by empirical verification depends so much on faith that it is logically and empirically dismissed by mathematicians and logicians, especially, after the exposure by Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend that a scientific advancement is akin to a religious conversion. On the other hand, mathematicians and logicians have been working steadily to find the limit of reliable knowledge. In the current state of knowledge, Kurt Gödel has the last word with his Two Incompleteness Theorems, which conclude that the most reliable of human knowledge, logic, is incomplete, casting doubt whether knowledge is completely reliable. Gödel’s view is further supported by the Impossibility Theorem of Kenneth Arrow. However, Zadeh and the author of this paper extend Zadeh’s concept of Range of Value in Fuzzy Logic to that of Range of Tolerance. Accordingly, Fuzzy Logic deals with the sacrifice of precision in the process of expanding the Range of Tolerance of a creation in order for the creation to survive and flourish for all the possibility of an uncertain future. In knowledge, incompleteness in logic can be resolved by the Range of Tolerance covering the incomplete part or ignoring the infrequent impossibilities, and, thus, making logic valid, again. Knowledge is derived generally from reason. Technically, the Fuzzy Completeness Theory classifies 16 Methods of Reason. The 16 Methods are the combination of the 4 basic Methods of Reason: 1) Logic, 2) Mathematics, 3) Empirical Verification, and 4) Others, each of which has 2 forms: 1) Fuzzy and 2) Exact and two types: 1) Complete and 2) Incomplete. Gödel, Arrow, and the Author agree that no matter how rigorous is the Method of Reason the reason cannot be complete, when the reason is Exact. When a solution is newly defined as an answer within the Range of Tolerance of the solution, Fuzzy Logic resolves the incompleteness in logic and becomes the new foundation of knowledge, replacing Exact Logic. With this definition of a solution, Fuzzy Logic covers the incomplete or the impossible parts of the solution by expanding sufficiently the Range of Tolerance to make reason complete and knowledge reliable, but only within the Range of Tolerance. To summarize, even though the world’s leading intellectuals have proven, directly, that logic is incomplete and, indirectly, that knowledge is invalid, reality is still operating smoothly, and science has even demonstrated the power of knowledge. The conflict between the most reliable knowledge, namely, logic and the real world is resolved by Fuzzy Logic, which introduces the new concept of Range of Tolerance, within which reality can still operate in accordance with the laws discovered by knowledge. In sum, reality is fuzzy, not exact. The breakthrough impact of this paper centers around completeness theory and Fuzzy Logic. In the early 21st century, the mainstream knowledge is still not aware that the supply and demand model is incomplete, and that the DNA-protein system resembles computer science based on logic more than science based on experimentation. The current computer is based on exact logic and is designed for temporary existence, while the living system is design for permanent existence and must depend on the Range of Tolerance based on Fuzzy Logic to survive permanently in an uncertain future. Financial crises will be caused by the unstable investment return, which is the incomplete part in the supply demand model. Complexity crises will be caused by the lack of the requirement of permanence or complete automation, which is the ultimate solution to unlimited complexity. The 16 Methods of Reason correspond roughly to Culture Level Quotient (CLQ), which is a non-technical measure of a person, a people or a nation.

What Is Formal Philosophy?

The paper focuses on the review of current literature on formal philosophy. Special attention is paid to the review of the book «Introduction to Formal Philosophy» [Hansson, Hendricks, 2018]. The book is a consistent introduction to the problems of formal philosophy, a research tradition that relies on the precise mathematical tools in order to study traditional philosophical problems. The methods of formal philosophy are successfully applied not only to the problems of ontology, epistemology and philosophy of language but also relevant for the problems of ethics, axiology and social philosophy. The book demonstrates that it is not correct to identify formal philosophy with another area of study – philosophical logic, since formal philosophy uses not only logical methods of analysis, but also uses the tools of game theory, decision theory, probability theory, Bayesian statistics, and other theories. Although the book has a propaedeutic character, it also contains some open problems. These problems include the aggregation of the opinions of the group under the condition of a conflicting base of premises in the theory of public choice, there are still open problems in the interpretation of Arrow’s impossibility theorem and others. Certainly, formalization in itself is not a general solution to the particular philosophical problem, but only a tool that allows to formulate a problem in a more rigorous and precise way, which sometimes allows to reveal some unexpected consequences, some implicit contradictions and new solutions. Despite the importance of the concept of coherence in ethics, decision theory, philosophy of law, Bayesian epistemology, philosophy of science, the existing formalizations of the concept of coherence are highly specialized for epistemology, researchers recognize the lack of the relevant explanatory models. Overall, the book is an excellent introduction in to the field of formal philosophy, which provides a general overview of different aspects of formal philosophy and the opportunity to study particular research topics by means of an extensive bibliography accompanying each of the chapters.