Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Fath, Gabor; Sarvary, Miklos (2003)
Languages: English
Types: Preprint
Subjects: Quantitative Biology - Populations and Evolution, Nonlinear Sciences - Adaptation and Self-Organizing Systems, Physics - Physics and Society, Condensed Matter - Statistical Mechanics
We present a theory of cultural evolution based upon a renormalization group scheme. We consider rational but cognitively limited agents who optimize their decision making process by iteratively updating and refining the mental representation of their natural and social environment. These representations are built around the most important degrees of freedom of their world. Cultural coherence among agents is defined as the overlap of mental representations and is characterized using an adequate order parameter. As the importance of social interactions increases or agents become more intelligent, we observe and quantify a series of dynamic phase transitions by which cultural coherence advances in the society. A similar phase transition may explain the so-called "cultural explosion" in human evolution some 50,000 years ago.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • (John Wiley and Sons, 2002). [3] H. A. Simon, Models of bounded rationality, Vol. 3: Em-
    • pirically grounded economic reason (MIT Press, 1997). [4] A. K. Romney, J. P. Boyd, C. C. Moore, W. H.
    • 93, 4699 (1996). [5] R. Aunger, ed., Darwinizing culture: The status of
    • memetics as a science (Oxford University Press, 2001). [6] R. Axelrod, J. Conflict Res. 41, 203 (1997). [7] R. Axelrod, The complexity of cooperation (Princeton
    • University Press, 1997). [8] G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard, and G. Weisbuch,
    • Advances in Complex Systems 3, 87 (2000). [9] C. Castellano, M. Marsili, and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev.
    • Lett. 85, 3536 (2000). [10] K. Klemm, V. M. Eguiluz, R. Toral, and M. San Miguel,
    • Phys. Rev. E 67, 045101(R) (2003). [11] G. Weisbuch, Eur. Phys. J. B 38, 339 (2004). [12] J. Conlisk, Journal of Economic Literature 34, 669
    • (1996). [13] D. Fudenberg and J. Tirole, Game Theory (MIT Press,
    • Cambridge, 1991). [14] L. M´er˝o, Ways of Thinking: The Limits of Ratio-
    • 1990). [15] H. A. Simon, and W. G. Chase, Cognitive Psycology 4,
    • 55 (1973). [16] S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992). [17] P. G. de Gennes, The Physics of Liquid Crystals (Oxford
    • University Press, 1974). [18] J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund, Evolutionary Games
    • 1998). [19] J. Wishart, Biometrica A 20, 32 (1928). [20] A. Edelman, Ph.D. thesis, MIT (1989), downloadable
    • from http://www-math.mit.edu/˜edelman. [21] P. F. Baldi and K. Hornik, IEEE T. Neural Networ. 6,
    • 873 (1995). [22] M. L. Mehta, Random matrices (Academic Press, New
    • York, 1991). [23] J. Shen, Linear Algebra Appl. 326, 1 (2001). [24] V. A. Marcenko and L. A. Pastur, Math. USSR-Sb 1,
    • 457 (1967). [25] Y.-C. Ding, H.-C. Chi, D. L. Grady, A. Morishima, and
    • R. K. Moyzis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 309 (2002). [26] J. B. Carroll, ed., Language, Thought and Reality: Se-
    • Cambridge, 1956). [27] P. E. Ross, Sci. Am. 290, 24 (2004). [28] The idea that concepts one uses influence her thinking
    • (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) [26]. See also Ref. [27] for a
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from