Anselm's Proof of the Existence of God comes to mind. The power set or set of comprehension a of the submodules is a model. To say it's superior to the best model is self-contradictory. FWIW.
Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, 3:52 AM ⛧ glen <[email protected]> wrote: > Excellent point, assuming I'm grokking it. The Proof of Stake v PoW > conversation touched on it. But my broken mind keeps hearkening back to > Wolpert's limit that there can be only one most accurate model of the > universe that's within the universe. I don't know if he's (or anyone else > has) derived the comprehensions or power set of the lesser accurate models > of the universe. > > It seems to me the question you pose is the extent to which such > comprehension can be flattened/democratized. Improvements like PoS over > PoW help, but are still limited in their power to express the whole polity, > way better than "price". But, banally, they're still only available to the > Morlocks, opaque to the Eloi, in the same sense as the Blackrock funds > pushing big pharma to develop vaccines without concern for profits. > > Can we come up with a comprehension of ALL available sub-models of the > world that maximizes the availability of that meta-model to as many > stakeholders as possible? I'm optimistic we can, given a closed universe. > But what if the universe is open? > > What if Wolpert's result implies that, from minute to minute, the most > accurate model changes because the universe changes ... and the possible > comprehensions of sub-models also changes? > > And yes, I see the 3 Constitutions (liberal, conservative, libertarian) as > attempts to wiggle around our current one, all of which are sub-models of > the world based on some form of social justice. But, as with our > conversation about Originalism, to what extent will they remain accurate as > the world changes? > > To round out this post, my targeting of myopic cartoons like > anarch-capitalism isn't an attempt to discourage work on such problems. > It's an attempt to police ourselves, those of us who do think it can be > done (at least in a piecewise stable universe). Anarcho-capitalists and > many libertarians seem, to me, to be arguing in bad faith (in Sartre's > sense). But anarcho-syndicalists don't seem that way to me. I'm surely > biased, of course. > > Thanks for bringing so many contexts together into a theme! I don't feel > like I've addressed the 1-way algorithm question directly. But if I could > answer some questions about comprehensions of sub-models, then I could talk > more coherently about how to fix one comprehension over another. > > I'm also worried that everything I think at 2am is nonsense anyway. Sorry > if that's true. > > On April 1, 2021 1:38:16 PM PDT, David Eric Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > >Glen, > > > >I like the fact that you word the following so as to suggest it’s > >impossible by tautology: > > > >> How can there *ever* be any form of capitalism that's NOT "crony"? If > >there's a state, the state will be ... [cough] ... leveraged to gain > >asymmetric power. > > > >I like it because the implication that something looks impossible makes > >us take seriously that it is at least hard. > > > > > >Can I propose that this is a good starting point for defining some > >aspects of democracy in aspirational terms, as a performance criterion > >for which one then seeks solutions. > > > >There are many things that look intuitively like they should be > >impossible by tautology, and which turn out to have useful solutions > >that took work to find or build. > > > >1. How can there be securities markets with large scope for autonomous > >action but that are strongly effective in blunting the exercise of > >power by wealthy actors to manipulate prices, extract information about > >counterparties, or otherwise go outside the domain of contract? But > >the whole Fama-French efficiency assertion (which is wrong, but for > >more subtle reasons) gives a good quantification of how many such > >actions the design of securities markets does blunt. > > > >2. How can there be a cognitive discipline built around the moral of > >the Emperors New Clothes (the aspiration of science). Anyone should be > >able to overturn a position no matter how firmly held, by providing > >evidence of its error, and ballot-stuffing should not be strong enough > >to overcome that lever. To the extent that scientific claims are taken > >to have a reliability that is different from just whoever’s opinion > >about whatever, they measure whether this has been achieved. > > > >3. How can there be an encryption algorithm that provides easy > >encryption in public but effectively unaffordable decryption by the > >same agents? How can there be proofs of identity that are cheaply > >verifiable but effectively unspoofable? Etc. The world that was > >opened by 1-way algorithms. > > > > > >I am comfortable taking as a starting framing that the problem with the > >traditional formalization of economics is as the study of problems of > >allocation in the arena where power is excluded from operating. > >Mathematically one can put some constructions behind that, but then to > >what areas of life do we think the absence of power is at all an > >adequate approximation? (Your question above, but I think there are > >some for which the cartoon is quite helpful; auction design is a nice > >example of a problem with many good solutions, arrived at technically.) > > > >That leaves to Political Science (or whatever mash of disciplines) the > >study of power, its uses, consequences, nature, or whatever. > > > >The two are then bound, in a formalism Shubik used to use enough times > >that it is tattooed in my traces — the Economy exists within the Polity > >and the Society. > > > >So we can ask: to what extent can rules of governance be designed to > >have a 1-way character in blunting certain forms of the exercise of > >power, enough to make the polity a safe holder of power that can > >constrain its use by other actors? Are there 1-way aspirations that > >are provably unreachable? By trying to prove nonexistence theorems > >that aren’t true, do we gain insights that might lead to the discovery > >of 1-way algorithms we aren’t currently using? People seem to think > >the Magna Carta and the US Constitution were significant contributions > >(to several aims, but I think that was one). I take your posts on the > >communities looking at constitutional reform and redesign as efforts to > >find more. > > > >This all seems a good framing to me. > > > >Eric > > -- > glen ⛧ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
