|
RealityApologist posted:I would be overjoyed if someone else stripped off all the poo poo and did something useful with it. Why should they? Why should anyone give two shits about what you have written?
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 4, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I was thinking about this post in particular: I was referring to that post too. He said that your proposal wasn't actually a currency because it couldn't function as a currency in the traditional sense. He also said that it was a radical form of social organization which would entirely break our existing economic structures, not that it had nothing to do with economics at all. In fact his critique was more that you had just assumed that economics would continue to work basically the same way they do now despite the radical social restructuring. Case in point - you literally said that corporations would form spontaneously from networks of individuals despite the myriad of obvious reasons why that is insane. You, of course, chose to interpret this not as a criticism, but as an acknowledgement of the grand scope of your social organization. Did I mention that you called this thing a currency and you're not concerned that someone thinks that it couldn't possibly function as one? RealityApologist posted:Now I'd like to work on developing the nepotism example, because I thinks its the most interesting outstanding question of the many dozen that are still left open. Ok, let us know when you're done! But don't forget to include some evidence that the problem couldn't possibly be solved with another, simpler system, like by a purely electronic and easily traceable currency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The consensus of the forum seems to be that if you aren't an expert then you shouldn't say anything. People are coming out to proudly admit how little they know about anything but their specific technical field, and admit to being clueless about how it fits in with the rest of science as if it is something to be proud of. I don't understand this sentiment at all. Everyone knows a little bit about a few things, and much less about everything else. What you are criticizing here is basically self-knowledge that people are honestly disclosing to you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I was thinking about this post in particular: That poster didn't say this wasn't economics, they said it wasn't a currency and that you hadn't considered a whole bunch of basic economic concepts like supply and demand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Got through about 12 pages of this before skipping to the end. Please correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can tell, Eripsa hasn't provided a falsifiable hypothesis that can be used to test this theoretical model. Its all well and good if you just say you're trying to model a problem and not trying to provide concrete solutions, but you still have to have a way of determining if your model is accurate. Usually this is done by determining if it has predictive power, which is in turn done by making falsifiable statements or some sort of claim that can be tested. I haven't seen anything yet. Saying that the intention is to reify social and economic dynamics isn't a falsifiable statement. Take a look at the Bitcoin whitepaper for example. The abstract lays out a bunch of falsifiable claims of what the system will be capable of. The first paragraph after the abstract is a summary of problems that the Bitcoin protocol attempts to fix. If we take Bitcoin as an experiment, these are claims that can be falsified, and so the Bitcoin "experiment" can provide knowledge, despite being utterly worthless as a currency. Likewise, if I am trying to come up with a stock trading strategy, then I'm likely going to be modeling certain economic relationships. To tell if it works, I have to state a falsifiable hypothesis: that I can obtain market-beating returns based on predictions from my model. If I don't bother to do that, then its just pseudo-intellectual masterbation. Its not even worthwhile for me to attempt to address the actual system, because there's not any groundwork to proceed with building a model. There's no goal. There's no metric of success. Its just pissing into the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:If anyone can point me to serious attempts to formalize a system like this, I promise to stop posting until I've learned the relevant literature. Proposal for an additional strangecoin transaction type: Rationale: Due to Strangecoin's cap on a user balance, it is possible that one-way “support” transactions may unwittingly cause a user balance to be capped and for the excess to be transferred into the TUA. This may be undesirable if the transaction represents payment for a good or service that requires future support transactions from the recipient in order to fulfil obligations related to the initial transaction. A real-life analogy might be: a building contractor receiving payment for a project and then running out of money and being unable to procure additional funding to complete the project (maxing their overdraft). This problem (known as the “Grandma Problem”) is described by the following post. DeepQantas posted:Grandma, why did you send me $1000?! I told you my balance was capped! Now the money is gone and I can't eat next month. No, I owe that money to Joe, I can't pay him yet cos his balance is capped, too. Why did you send me $1000 bucks, grandma? What? No... don't send it again, my balance is capped! No! If a person (grandma) wants to ensure the recipient will receive 100% of the coins, and prevent any coins from being rolled into the TUA; she needs to know all of the active and future transactions, and their evolutions in parallel to her own. She can split up he payments into smaller chucks delivered over a single time-step. However this subverts the system in making it functionally similar to traditional fiat currency, with a unique, balance-capped account (that users can avoid by making small, single time-step payments at the recipients request). I propose a solution in the form of an elastic, one-way transaction; as the recipient account approaches the balance cap, the rate at which the support transaction proceeds is reduced. I will refer to this type of transaction as a billiard transaction. By analogy, if the recipient billiard ball is close to the cap, any billiard collisions will cause the incoming billiards to bounce of the recipient billiard and impart negligible coin momentum to the recipient billiard. I will represent this model with the following modified relativistic momentum equation. Definition: Using terms defined in the Original Post, I make the following additions:  , and where  , and is the number of transactions occurring for a balance, at time t.Discussion: This equation makes a pessimistic assumption about how much support will be provided at the next time-step when B_Y is very close to C. This is would only be an issue if it is necessary for the recipient to maintain an account balance as close to the cap as possible while maintaining a large number of active transfers. I assumed the number of active transactions remains constant for the duration of the billiard transaction, however this is unlikely to hold for accounts conducting highly complex transactions. With my desire to not waste more then 10 minutes formulating my transaction model and technical brevity, I decided against introducing additional scaling coefficients and non-linear functions. I could also make some pretty graphs and make some predictions as to its effect of the strangecoin economy but I can't be bothered due to brevity. This type of transaction could be simulated as a series of single time-step support transactions, with each additional term being calculated on the fly, but this may introduce de-synchronisation and implementation issues across clients. These sort of issues would be alleviated via standardisation. Conclusion: In all seriousness Eripsa, how is your idea anything more then some sort of flow problem applied to economic activity between users? Assuming that this is an interesting and useful way for modelling and predicting economic activity (it is to some extent), it is unrealistic to expect each user to manage their own transactional flows and how they might impact the recipient's ability to maintain transactions and perform future ones. There are generalisations to your model that exist, you can apply those models to your theory of social economic interactions, but you will find that the computational accounting required to maintain such as system to be unsustainable for all but the most trivial sample sizes. I could provide the same treatment to your original proposal but that would be retreading existing theories, that quite frankly are better thought by people with far more expertise then I could muster. In my experience as someone who has HPS as one of their science majors, this poo poo wouldn't fly outside a junior undergraduate course. Your proposal is closer in resemblance to Alan Sokals Hoax paper, then his thesis on peer-review failing to prevent the publication of Hoax papers.  Edit: apologies for the equation formatting; I've spent too much time on this poo poo already. Edit2: If you like my work you can tip me at my StrangeCoin Address: 1xLOLxFUKxUxvrGE4Qc9bUFf9PX3xaYDp Also you don't understand the difference between a Recurrence Relation and a Differential Equation. That would be a good start. Tokamak fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
ryde posted:Take a look at the Bitcoin whitepaper for example. The abstract lays out a bunch of falsifiable claims of what the system will be capable of. The first paragraph after the abstract is a summary of problems that the Bitcoin protocol attempts to fix. If we take Bitcoin as an experiment, these are claims that can be falsified, and so the Bitcoin "experiment" can provide knowledge, despite being utterly worthless as a currency. Can you please clarify how btc is "utterly worthless" as a currency if you can trade it for goods and services?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I would be overjoyed if someone else stripped off all the poo poo and did something useful with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Can you please clarify how btc is "utterly worthless" as a currency if you can trade it for goods and services? Hyperbole. My point is even if you don't think it's a socially valuable system, you can still view it as an experiment in virtual currencies because it had testable claims.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Strangecoin would be fun in something like Eve where it's basically used as a the currency in a Kafkaesque liber-dystopia
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
I don't thinkthat he's saying it should replace our system. I think what Eripsa is trying to say is, "If kami-sama came to Earth and decreed that all transactions would reflect the true nature of people's interconnectedness, wouldn't that be interesting? All sorts of different stuff might happen, like you getting a burger and also your own dollar back, or two dollars! Maybe corporations wouldn't exist any more." Can somebody tell me what else he's posting about that this statement doesn't basically cover?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Can somebody tell me what else he's posting about that this statement doesn't basically cover? Google Glass users are cyborgs who are an oppressed class on par with GBLT people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Can you please clarify how btc is "utterly worthless" as a currency if you can trade it for goods and services?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't thinkthat he's saying it should replace our system. I think what Eripsa is trying to say is, That's basically it. The transactions are meant to represent some form of relationship. The rules are essentially the same as financial transactions, but you are only allowed to have a single bank account with an account limit. Any excess deposits are placed into a global account that will be redistributed equally across all accounts. There are a million technical holes in it, and the computational overhead involved is expensive and non-trivial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't thinkthat he's saying it should replace our system. I think what Eripsa is trying to say is, "I'm so loving high right now"
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
I vaguely recall someone saying something about the StrangeCoin transactions already existing in some form or another but I don't really get Inhibition, what is that supposed to represent? You and a friend deciding to burn your money to avoid hitting the first bracket of a wealth tax? Can you just return money to a central bank? I guess you can overpay income taxes or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:"If kami-sama came to Earth and decreed that all transactions would reflect the true nature of people's interconnectedness, wouldn't that be interesting? All sorts of different stuff might happen, like you getting a burger and also your own dollar back, or two dollars! Maybe corporations wouldn't exist any more." The only thing worth correcting here is the "true nature" thing. I'm not saying that these relationships are somehow more real than models of relationships, but only that they are different, and that having access to different economic signals in a transaction will generate different economic behavior.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
eXXon posted:I don't really get Inhibition, what is that supposed to represent? I think it means you can reduce someone's purchasing power, by sacrificing your own. You can think of it as cancelling out your capital with someone else's, so if I had more influence then Eripsa I can effectively shut him up, and still have some strangecoins to play with.... Again, I think that's what he is saying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The only thing worth correcting here is the "true nature" thing. I'm not saying that these relationships are somehow more real than models of relationships, but only that they are different, and that having access to different economic signals in a transaction will generate different economic behavior. Okay. So why do I care?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Okay. So why do I care? makes u think... To be serious, he thinks that through iteration some mathematical model will emerge that describes the behaviour of the network. He will then take that model and teach it to AI who will then govern the world at peak efficiency and the world will enter a new age of technological utopia under the umbrage of Eripsa's genius. I like to theorise on dumb things like eripsa, but I have the sensibility to realise it probably is not much more insightful then the ramblings of a stoned, scientist-philosopher. VVV Tokamak fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Crazy or not these threads are shitloads more interesting than the infinite parade of stupid bullshit political-maneuvering analysis that tends to flood D&D.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The only thing worth correcting here is the "true nature" thing. I'm not saying that these relationships are somehow more real than models of relationships, but only that they are different, and that having access to different economic signals in a transaction will generate different economic behavior. I'm confused, I thought it wasn't about economics?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
RA, how do you afford being a perpetual student? I'm curious about what sort of background you come from that makes it possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:I think it means you can reduce someone's purchasing power, by sacrificing your own. You can think of it as cancelling out your capital with someone else's, so if I had more influence then Eripsa I can effectively shut him up, and still have some strangecoins to play with.... It's a two-sided transaction so both parties have to agree to it. It's not just negging someone's wallet. The gently caress is it supposed to be then? e: I read it again and apparently X can inhibit Y's expenses. Uhhh what? Does this cost X anything? Can you inhibit 100% of someone's expenses? Does that mean they buy things and it costs them nothing? Is this where the unlimited wealth comes from? Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:awesomeness That was awesome. For what it's worth I thought about this issue a little bit and mention it in the OP proposal in regards to decay as balances approach their limit. But I obviously didn't think through it as much as you. I'm really not embarrassed that I don't know the math required to describe economic transactions in terms of flow, because nothing in my training would have taught me how to do something like that. This thread has been incredibly helpful in this regard. quote:Conclusion: So this is basically the correct way to describe what I'm trying to do, and once you put it in terms of flow I remember where I have seen work somewhat like this: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk.ezproxy.gc.cuny.edu/4/4/reviews/bak.html quote:He rejects this traditional view, considering it simplistic, and presents his idea that the dynamics of economic flows is more like the dynamics observed in (and in his models of) sand piles, as changes are not linear and continuous but rather non-linear and discrete. The forces which each individual agent (grain) exercises over the others plays and important role in the dynamics of the system. He considers that there is friction in the economic flow and that agents are not perfectly rational. He believes that friction prevents (long-term) equilibrium from being reached and that fluctuations in economics are of a different nature than those notions the traditional economists propose. He refers to empirical data to support his suggestion that economic systems would be better modelled as critically self-organised systems. For example, he discusses results obtained by Benoit Mandelbrot, in which the percentage of monthly variation in the price of cotton versus the number of occurrences of such percentages over several months follows a power law distribution. quote:it is unrealistic to expect each user to manage their own transactional flows and how they might impact the recipient's ability to maintain transactions and perform future ones. I'm certain there are computational constraints that need to be taken into account, but I'm not convinced that optimization within reasonable bounds is out of the question, especially since the complete model hasn't yet been articulated. So I'd like to complete the model first, hopefully turn it into something I might run on NetLogo. If you have references, I'd appreciate them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:I'm confused, I thought it wasn't about economics? Its not; he is basing his underlying assumptions of the nature of human relations as being roughly analogous to the rules used to describe financial relations. Please read his posts before you begin to critique his work 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:Crazy or not these threads are shitloads more interesting than the infinite parade of stupid bullshit political-maneuvering analysis that tends to flood D&D. No poo poo, my first draft name for Strangecoin was Lyapunovcoin. I think I made the right decision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:Serious question: which parts (if any) are we allowed to remove?
Do you mean digital social networks like facebook? That's not my interest, at least not here. Cut it. If you mean social networks as a fact of human economic organization (whether on or offline), that's a pretty central focus of my discussion.
Quantification is pretty essential, with the qualification that I'm not defending only one scheme for quantification, or one "true value" to the relationship or anything like that. I can imagine a possible future where I have immediate access to many different economic filters that resolve the value of particular relationships in different ways, and selecting among them as required. In other words, I don't take the quantified collective (or the quantified self) to be a reductionist proposal.
I don't give a poo poo about Strangecoin at all except insofar as it helps me talk about the organizing relations I'm interested in. If there are better ways of talking about this then you'll never here me say the word Strangecoin again; the term is already replacing marbles from the original discussion, and nothing in the current discussion relies on any discussion of marbles.
Both these ideas would be totally awesome.
I don't think anything about the proposal requires talking about this. But the strangecoin network does encourage the collection of stable bands of people with coupled economic fates that replicates at least some of the functions of a corporation and contracts, and similarly for other economic institutions. So I think it naturally invites a discussion of these issues. I'm attracted to these architectonic projects precisely because they have implications for politics and ethics; I think the digital age is a paradigm shift that reorients discussions across the entire epistemological network. So I don't want to discourage these discussions. But the interest of the Strangecoin proposal doesn't turn on its ability to supersede contracts or corporations.
Already said, ditch it.
That's a technical question for which there are probably technical answers. I'm happy and interested to have that discussion. But the Strangecoin model can be discussed independent of cryptocurrencies, so that's not necessary.
Sure; I thought I mentioned that somewhere else in the thread.
I'm sorry, I've lost the point of this exercise. Are we asking about what should be on the table for discussion? Or what's essential for the discussion? My strangecoin proposal only requires that certain parameters (like Ex) be made available, but not that they identify the parties responsible for endorsement or support or whatever. In other words, I'm not proposing any serious privacy concerns (as far as I can tell) with Strangecoin: you don't have to know the identity of the person you are trading with in any other respect than the parameters of the trade, which are just numbers. [list] I never said anything like this about Strangecoin, and see no need to. Scrap it.
Seems to me these all need to be on the table, although the universal basic income is only feature of coupling with TUA, and not meant to raise everyone out of poverty or anything. There's lots more to say about TUA than has been discussed in this thread.
That ship sailed a long time ago.
I'm not really talking about implementation at that level, so no. But fwiw we're about 6/7ths of the way there. More people have access to cell phones than toilets.
If the system is not spontaneously organizing then there's something wrong with the model. I'm very much in favor or looking at as many variations as possible of this model, to find the ones where human organization naturally supports itself into a persistent and stable configuration. That said, organized systems operate at the edge of chaos, and complete stability is not something that really exists, especially in human social situations. I think the criteria for success of the model is if it performs better from a perspective of stability and human well-being to other comparable models in the same configuration. In other words, if this model or some variation predicted economic cycles of boom and bust that were less extreme and frequent than the cycles in a traditional economy, then this would speak in favor of adopting that model.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:In other words, if this model or some variation predicted economic cycles of boom and bust that were less extreme and frequent than the cycles in a traditional economy, then this would speak in favor of adopting that model. So must StrangeCoin exist only in post-capitalism, or is it merely assumed that StrangeCoin is a vehicle for capitalist theory?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Seems to me that the closest real-world system to what you want to be talking about is electric power distribution in a grid with distributed generation. All demand must be met, hard caps on input and usage, all usage treated as flow even given discrete needs, etc. Might be easier to examine relations in that context than to try to reinvent monetary exchange itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't thinkthat he's saying it should replace our system. I think what Eripsa is trying to say is, Yep, I completely checked out when it became clear that he wasn't really willing to advocate for this system. The whole thread is just 'if we did this crazy thing then interesting stuff might happen I guess?' Clearly this is just his daydream activity on par with a kid daydreaming about superheroes or anime but somehow even lamer and I feel dumb for taking part in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:That was awesome. For what it's worth I thought about this issue a little bit and mention it in the OP proposal in regards to decay as balances approach their limit. But I obviously didn't think through it as much as you. In other words, you didn't think it through at all. All good theories need to stand up to criticism, and the best way to ensure that is to be critical of your own work. If you are unable to come up with much in the way of criticism, it is generally a sign that you are not saying anything novel. And if you are not saying anything novel, you either have a deep misunderstanding of the knowledge your theory is built upon, or that your theory is pseudo-scientific. You probably should be embarrassed you don't understand basic applications of recurrence relations and dynamical systems. The HPS course at my university requires you to pass junior math and (I think) some intermediate math to be awarded a degree. You are introduced to the concept of recurrence relations and differential equations in junior math, so you should at least be able to recognise the form a discrete system should take. Again if you actually understood your Norvig, you would know why the complexity of your system is very costly and that optimising that system to be "reasonable" is just as costly. You are optimising your optimiser by using either: another optimiser or coming up with another more optimal solution out of thin air. It doesn't matter that you haven't formulated anything yet; this problem is real for anything but the most trivial computational systems. If the idea was so obvious as to be trivially reduced into polynomial complexity, it would already be thoroughly described in literature. I don't know poo poo about quantitative descriptions of economic systems, so I can't really give you any references. What I do know is what I essentially done is in the spirit of Econophysics. I'm a bored physics grad, who can apply a hammer to a peanut without understanding why smashing a peanut into a gritty paste of shell and nut is an undesirable solution to de-shelling in the foodstuffs economy. I suggest you read the following article that explains why your approach to quantify abstract relations is fundamentally flawed. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/heres-why-econophysics-will-never-work-though-traders-may-dream-2010-8 (it could do with a little copy-editing, but is clear enough)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Seems to me that the closest real-world system to what you want to be talking about is electric power distribution in a grid with distributed generation. All demand must be met, hard caps on input and usage, all usage treated as flow even given discrete needs, etc. Might be easier to examine relations in that context than to try to reinvent monetary exchange itself. I think that's probably right and a good suggestion. Baez's latest lecture series at Oxford uses category theory to model electrical circuit diagrams, and my impulse was to start reading about category theory (which is easier and more like networks) than to go into electronics. But the latter is probably more important, especially for teaching me the math.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Only browsed the thread but it seems to me OP's first problem is that he is a terrible writer. His writing style is robotic, wordy, and incoherent. On top of that he probably thinks he is a clear, articulate writer. Advice: go take some writing courses from people who have experience beyond publishing stuffy academic papers on philosophy. I used to write like this when I was in the middle of being brainwashed by the literature department and it took some unfucking by a technical writing course to get me back to the point where I could write and have other humans understand what I was saying. (I still suck of course but at least I realize it) edit: Here, I just pulled a random sentence or two from the previous page: "So my impression is that the very idea that I would attempt to articulate an ambitious proposal, despite my incompetence, that is generating all this ire. The suggestion is that no one is actually capable of such a thing, so I'm a fool to even try, especially given my apparently obvious and severe cognitive disabilities. " could be rewritten in a non-douche manner as: "I get it, you guys think that unless I am an expert or a genius I can't produce new ideas in a field I'm unfamiliar with. I disagree." (I am making no judgements on how ridiculous this statement is, but look, I just said the exact same thing you did with about 75% less word vomit.) edit 2: here, read this. i try to re-read it once a year. clear writing leads to clear thinking and vice versa. https://www.box.net/shared/static/72sdtr5q8x.pdf nebby fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Yep, I completely checked out when it became clear that he wasn't really willing to advocate for this system. The whole thread is just 'if we did this crazy thing then interesting stuff might happen I guess?' This was essentially the result of the attention economy threads for any who didn't dig in back in those days. Nothing has changed since then in the approach to problems or the demeanor towards people who engage. As such, while I agree these threads are more interesting than most of the D&D megathreads which have p much handicapped a lot of the discussion, I still can't bring myself to engage with or take Eripsa seriously. The problems don't get solved, the crazy keeps coming in huge sprawling posts, and despite how funny/wacky it can all be, the thread is still mostly an unreadable mess. Vitriol becomes the shortest, simplest and truest response possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Is this the marble economy guy, then? What if we had UnstrangeCoin, and it was a nonlinear concurrency instead? Would that be more or less interesting?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:In other words, you didn't think it through at all. All good theories need to stand up to criticism, and the best way to ensure that is to be critical of your own work. If you are unable to come up with much in the way of criticism, it is generally a sign that you are not saying anything novel. And if you are not saying anything novel, you either have a deep misunderstanding of the knowledge your theory is built upon, or that your theory is pseudo-scientific. Why do you think I haven't come up with or entertained criticism? I thought through a lot of it, and I admitted up front that the process was incomplete and that this is a work in progress. I'm putting it up on this forum precisely so that it gets the criticism it needs, because I'm obviously not capable of doing that on my own. I'm not avoiding criticism, I keep walking back into the lions den. quote:You probably should be embarrassed you don't understand basic applications of recurrence relations and dynamical systems. The HPS course at my university requires you to pass junior math and (I think) some intermediate math to be awarded a degree. You are introduced to the concept of recurrence relations and differential equations in junior math, so you should at least be able to recognise the form a discrete system should take. There's no shame in not knowing things. I understand these things to some degree, and I can tell you precisely the difference between a recurrence relation and a differential equation, but it's been over a decade since I studied this as an undergrad or did anything practical with these tools so I don't know how to build a system of equations from scratch to do exactly what I want them to do. It is motivating me to seek assistance from others. There is no shame in this. quote:Again if you actually understood your Norvig, you would know why the complexity of your system is very costly and that optimising that system to be "reasonable" is just as costly. You are optimising your optimiser by using either: another optimiser or coming up with another more optimal solution out of thin air. It doesn't matter that you haven't formulated anything yet; this problem is real for anything but the most trivial computational systems. If the idea was so obvious as to be trivially reduced into polynomial complexity, it would already be thoroughly described in literature. For instance, Slanderer suggested a restriction on the generations affected by the coupling relations. That seems a straightforward way to bring a system like this into reasonable computational time. I also suspect TUA as a central hub can be used to reduce the complexity in some ways. I don't think we're even begun to explore issues of optimization, even in the purely theoretical case. I have some understanding the equations required to model the interactions in a particle accelerator or the turbulent flow from a jet engine (for instance), and those equations seem to be orders of magnitude more complex than what we're working with here. I recognize this these are major challenges, and maybe I'm wrong to hold on to some optimism but I'm not yet convinced they are insurmountable. Since we've yet to produce any literature (apart from the link I gave above) that discusses economic relations in flow or network theoretic terms (and as I said, there's reasons to believe the mathematics in this domain are substantially underdeveloped), I think it's unreasonable to assume that it's already been done and shown to be impossible quote:I don't know poo poo about quantitative descriptions of economic systems, so I can't really give you any references. What I do know is what I essentially done is in the spirit of Econophysics. I'm a bored physics grad, who can apply a hammer to a peanut without understanding why smashing a peanut into a gritty paste of shell and nut is an undesirable solution to de-shelling in the foodstuffs economy. This is interesting, and I'll take a closer look, but of course you know that there's plenty of legitimate research groups arguing the other side of this. For instance: http://necsi.edu/research/economics/
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
EN Bullshit posted:Is this the marble economy guy, then? Yes. The Eripsa Canon (Or should I say... Cannon? Its gonna blow your mind!) (Archives necessary for some of these) Alternative Economies: Marble Production (MP) is a function of Marble Absorption (MA) Attention Economy II: Coding a Better Government You are a Complex System A World Run by Software Yiggy fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
^^ Thanks. I don't have archive/search (can't afford it) or I would have done it myself. nebby posted:edit: Here, I just pulled a random sentence or two from the previous page: "So my impression is that the very idea that I would attempt to articulate an ambitious proposal, despite my incompetence, that is generating all this ire. The suggestion is that no one is actually capable of such a thing, so I'm a fool to even try, especially given my apparently obvious and severe cognitive disabilities. " But that's not the claim. I fully admit my sentence is wordy, mostly because of my being snarky at people calling me cognitively deficient. If I take that snarkiness out (which, yes, I should), then you get this: "The very idea that I would attempt an ambitious proposal is what I perceive to be generating all this ire. You think I'm an idiot, and that idiots shouldn't have ambitions, or at least shouldn't talk about them with others." My point is to call out the cynicism of thinking that ambitious projects are by their very nature foolish projects, especially when they are attempted by foolish people. That's a very different claim than your paraphrase. I use too many words. I will try to use fewer words. But the words I use are not arbitrary; I try to be careful about my choice of words and to use them consistently. That doesn't mean I'm always clear, but the thread sometimes acts like I'm a glossolalist. RealityApologist fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 4, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:^^ Thanks. I don't have archive/search (can't afford it) or I would have done it myself. Anyone can be ambitious. The difference between being a fool being ambitious and a wise person being ambitious is that a fool sees no limits and no faults in their ambitions and will pursue them with reckless disregard. A wise person sees and acknowledges the limits and faults in their ambitions and will pursue it with prudence and caution. You've admitted to overstepping your own scope of knowledge, but your ideas and how you present them don't show that self-awareness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 08:36
|
|
