On Concordance Among Otherwise Discordant or Fragmented Realities - jalToorey/IdealMoney GitHub Wiki

Your basic question is, isn't it, how are you to live in this world? Before you find out let us first see what this world is. The world is not only all that surrounds us, it is also our relationship to all these things and people, to ourselves, to ideas. That is, our relationship to property, to people, to concepts - in fact our relationship to the stream of events which we call life. This is the world. We see division into nationalities, into religious, economic, political, social and ethnical groups; the whole world is broken up and is as fragmented outwardly as its human beings are inwardly. In fact, this outer fragmentation is the manifestation of the human being's inner division.

~ J. Krishnamurti, The Urgency of Change

Re-visiting Hayek and the Problem of Culminating Real-Time Information Over Space

Re-call our observations from Understanding Hayek Via Our Szabonian Deconstruction of Cantillon ...

In The Use of Knowledge in Society Hayek Asks:

What is the problem we wish to solve when we try to construct a rational economic order?

According to him the problem of economics is one of the optimal distribution of scarce resources which deconstructs down to problem of utilizing knowledge:

It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality.

He explains the complexity of the problem (in a sense comparable to wave particle/duality) is that the knowledge we are concerned about, is knowledge held by each individual in their own space at a certain time:

There is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge which cannot possibly be called scientific in the sense of knowledge of general rules: the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place.

Prices As A Solution to the Lack of Simultaneous Information

Hayek shows prices are a technology that solves the problem of space/time separated information:

Fundamentally, in a system in which the knowledge of the relevant facts is dispersed among many people, prices can act to coördinate the separate actions of different people in the same way as subjective values help the individual to coördinate the parts of his plan. It is worth contemplating for a moment a very simple and commonplace instance of the action of the price system to see what precisely it accomplishes

Re-Visiting Generalizations and Possible Transformations of the Byzantine Generals Problem

In our writing On the Generalization and Possible Transformations of the Byzantine Generals Problem we noted:

In a network where messages can be broadcasted near simultaneously and reliably to everyone the byzantine considerations are unnecessary. Its only when there is the introduction of corruption of a sorts that there is the need to study the fault tolerance of the communication network.

This was a derivation from the An Optimal Probabilistic Protocol to Synchronous Byzantine agreement:

Broadcasting guarantees the recipient of a message that everyone else has received the same message. This guarantee no longer exists in a setting in which all communication is person-to-person and some of the people involved are untrustworthy: though he may claim to send the same message to everyone. an untrustworthy sender may send different messages to different people. In such a setting, Byzantine agreement offers the "best alternative" to broadcasting.

The assumption of an untrustworthy network is a premise for the relevance of the probabilistic Byzantine consensus to implementing a security payment system which Szabo terms as the "Nakamoto Consensus"

A block-chain computer, in sharp contrast to a web server, is shared across many such traditional computers controlled by dozens to thousands of people. By its very design each computer checks each other's work, and thus a block chain computer reliably and securely executes our instructions up to the security limits of block chain technology, which is known formally as anonymous and probabilistic Byzantine consensus (sometimes also called Nakamoto consensus). ~ probabilistic Byzantine consensus

Unagreeable Reality As Untrustworthy Information Or Messengers

In this sense we can consider the communication network as a field and consider corruption of the communication lines, the messengers, the messengers, and the players or nodes (as well as the nodes being made up of a multiple of voting lieutenants etc.) ~ On the Generalization and Possible Transformations of the Byzantine Generals Problem

Here we are thinking of the concept of 'untrustworthiness" in a special fashion where nodes could simply find the information "bad" because its disagreeable with other perceived consensus etc.:

Bitcoin As a Coordinator For a Single Pricing System

Our work synthesizes Nash's, Hayek, Szabo, Satoshi etc. to show that Bitcoin is a catalyst towards a single global pricing system.

Re-visiting Social Fragmentation

In our esoteric writing Encrypted Social Fragmentation and Decryptive Awareness we begin to develop a rheomode to express awareness of the concept of social fragmentation (and how awareness can re-solve the fragmentation to restore wholeness/completeness).

Here we mean to bring awareness to the type of complexity or proof-of-work (ie unforgeable costliness) involved in re-solving otherwise fragmented views.

Humans as 1 CPU 1 Vote Nodes On A Consensus Field For Determining Reality

Re-consider the concept of a Sybil attack:

A Sybil attack is a type of attack on a computer network service in which an attacker subverts the service's reputation system by creating a large number of pseudonymous identities and uses them to gain a disproportionately large influence. It is named after the subject of the book Sybil, a case study of a woman diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder.1(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack#cite_note-1)

Satoshi created a system that utilized proof-of-work as a solution to the problem of spoofing multiple identities:

Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. ~ Satoshi Bitcoin Whitepaper

Prices as an Intersubjective Truth

Hayek's canonical example of a transient intersubjective truth is a market price. ~ Szabo, Objective Versus Intersubjective Truth

Intersubjective Reality as an Intersubjective Truth

How are hermeneutic, or intersubjective "truth" and objective truth different? ~ Szabo, Objective Versus Intersubjective Truth

Here we are thinking of the concept of 'intersubjective' reality as a culmination of individual subjective perspectives of reality.

Subjective Reality, Intersubjective Reality, and Objective Reality

A good rule of thumb for rational interpretation of theological justification: map the objective fact of cultural evolution to the intersubjective truth of God. ~ Szabo Objective Versus Intersubjective Truth

Then we can work towards the concept that the consensus among subjective realities implies intersubjective reality which approaches objective reality (what most people refer to as 'what only god could know' or in short 'god').

Re-Visiting The Nash Program

In our Re‐Mapation of the Nash Program In Synthesis With The Bitcoin Experiment we point out Nash noted the relevance of the study of experimental (pro-cooperative aka consensus games) to the concept of “the ultimate truth”:

'I feel, personally, that the study of experimental games is the proper route of travel for finding “the ultimate truth” in relation to games as played by human players.

Our observations here map what was thus quite formalized experimental study to the Szabonian concept of intersubjective truth with specific respect to reality (aka nature):

In terms of the design of the experiments, the players of a game, as experimental subjects, were not told how they must or should react to the observed behavior of the other players with whom they were interacting repeatedly in the plays of the experimental repeated games. Of course the design idea was that, analogously to a repeated game derived from a stage game of “Prisoners’ Dilemma” form, it would be possible for the experimental player-subjects to interact among themselves, in the repeated play, so that each player would tend to encourage cooperativeness by rewarding behavior (of a reactive sort) that would have comparably cooperative values.

Nodes and Agency

...the famous classical "Gresham’s Law" also reveals the intrinsic difficulty. Thus "good money" will not naturally supplant and replace "bad money" by a simple Darwinian superiority of competitive species. Rather than that, it must be that the good things are established by the voluntary choice of human agencies. And these resp-onsible agencies, being naturally of the domain of polit-ically derived authorities, would need to make appropriate efforts to achieve such a goal and to pay the costs that are entailed before their societies can benefit. And the benefits would come from the improvement in the quality of this public utility (money) which serves to facilitate the game-theoretic function of "the transfer of utility". ~ John Nash Ideal Money

The concept in Bitcoin of deferring to a 'trusted node' (ie storing one's coins at an exchange) versus running one's own node maps well to the concept of agency (ie to give agency) in game theoretical studies of pro-cooperative games aka games of coalitional formation aka consensus games.

Future Dialogue

How could/should humanity converge on intersubjective reality?