Paradoxical Survival: Examining the Parrondo Effect across Biology

Abstract

Parrondo's paradox, in which losing strategies can be combined to produce winning outcomes, has received much attention in mathematics and the physical sciences; a plethora of exciting applications has also been found in biology at an astounding pace. In this review paper, the authors examine a large range of recent developments of Parrondo's paradox in biology, across ecology and evolution, genetics, social and behavioral systems, cellular processes, and disease. Intriguing connections between numerous works are identified and analyzed, culminating in an emergent pattern of nested recurrent mechanics that appear to span the entire biological gamut, from the smallest of spatial and temporal scales to the largest—from the subcellular to the complete biosphere. In analyzing the macro perspective, the pivotal role that the paradox plays in the shaping of biological life becomes apparent, and its identity as a potential universal principle underlying biological diversity and persistence is uncovered. Directions for future research are also discussed in light of this new perspective.

Brownian Ratchets of Life: Stochasticity Combined with Disequilibrium Produces Order

“…But there is a small problem with that perception: the ratchet cannot work. By combining Richard Feynman’s insights in this area with research from a corner of game theory called the Parrondo Effect (or Parrondo’s Paradox), as discussed by Cheong et al in this issue, I hope to show how Brownian ratchets can, in fact, work in biology, and how the Parrondo Effect explains the very nature of life.…”

“…I hope that I’ll be forgiven for crudely expressing the Parrondo Effect as “the combination of two losing strategies producing a winning strategy,” but that, at least in game theory (e.g., a game in which one applies two behaviors for winning money in a system with a randomness generator), is what it is. As Cheong et al explain, the paradox disappears via the finding that the strategies are not independent of each other: they actually influence each other’s outcome probabilities. Combining one particular losing game embodying randomness with another losing game based on a condition (if X > Y , then do Z ) produces a long‐term winning behavior.…”

“…Combining one particular losing game embodying randomness with another losing game based on a condition (if X > Y , then do Z ) produces a long‐term winning behavior. As Cheong et al write: “At the core of the phenomenon is an agitation‐ratcheting mechanism,” i.e., the second game “ratchets in” the gains of the first game. In principle, this is like saying: we have a random system combined with a ratchet that traps beneficial states of the system, hence accumulating, over time, more beneficial states.…”

Introducing the 21st Century's New Four Horsemen of the Coronapocalypse

“…Replacing BFET with a suitably high-dimensional understanding of the living state would change humanity and could save it from the unthinkable agonies that are fast approaching. Progress in this direction [4][5][6] has been mostly in the margins of academic research but the COVID-19 crisis may be just what the doctor ordered to bring it to the fore.…”

Passive network evolution promotes group welfare in complex networks

“…The agitation from Game A can lead to increased likelihood of landing in favourable branches when Game B is subsequently invoked, thus manifesting a ratcheting mechanism and enabling the characteristic paradoxical winning outcomes. There have been many examples of such counter-intuitive dynamics studied to date, for instance, in ecological populations [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], population genetics [11][12][13], physical quantum systems [14][15][16][17][18][19], reliability theory [20], system design optimization [21,22], and the Allison mixture in information thermodynamics [23].…”