|
This is somehow worse than Bitcoin---the original Bitcoin whitepaper actually explained in a technical sense what it was setting out to achieve, and how it would be done: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf By presenting it as such, people could actually debate the technical merits of Bitcoins as well as the economic merits. Technically, it was a surprisingly sound idea, but from an economic perspective it's real dumb. That part was clearly outside of the author's area, so it's not surprising. With Eripsa's ideas, there is neither a technical or economic structure presented---he can't express either "How is this implemented exactly?" or "Why is *this* something worth implementing?". The details of implementation have always been anathema to him, presumably because they are completely outside of his field / he's an "ideas guy". So, we end up with some useless metaphors, a couple of "equations" that below the level of intro econ. In fact, I can only come to the conclusion that he hasn't bothered to study any Economics, because I don't think he's heard of utility theory. Or maybe he has, and dismissed it because it actually uses math. The latter question, "Why should we do this?" is also never answered. At best, we are told, "Well, our system now is bad!" or "Lossy compression!!!". It's worth noting that the "compression" metaphor is particularly relevatory--it insinuates cause and effect in order to make things more seem "technical", instead of admitting that concepts such as "value" are emergent phenomena of a distributed system. So, we are presented with a dilemma--the same dilemma, in fact, that was present in the Attention Economy thread(s): We can't criticize the technical aspects, because they are not sufficiently well-defined to make informed critiques. If someone decides to make a bunch of wild suppositions and say "Well, I guess if we assume A, B, and C then maybe you could squint your eyes and assume that D is plausible", Eripsa will latch on and declare that someone finally "gets it". He will do this multiple times, with multiple sets of irreconcilable assumptions. The only conclusion is that he is a technical evangelist who is incapable of technical work, and is desperate for others to fill in the blanks of his idea. The same dilemma affects the "why?" side of this---the question is irrelevant to him, because his idea is Good and it is Smart. He is looking for us to tell him why is idea is good instead of calling it poo poo-stupid. TL;DR--Eripsa once again has a solution in need of a problem. Slanderer fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Mar 31, 2014 |
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Sep 10, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Edit: ignore
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
quote != edit
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Compared to the marble economy, the Strangecoin network is rather technically sophisticated. It was written in such a way as to be straightforwardly translatable into the math necessary to implement the model; I explicitly highlight all the parameters involved. Someone shitted on my definition of a user as a node in detail, but I was giving the technical description of the graph so that the details aren't just handwaving gestures. Have you done that math? Made the 1st order network diagrams and models? I can't think you have, otherwise basic problems would be apparent. For one, there is no *strangecoin protocol*--you've described some handwavey interactions that don't describe the technical aspects of any sort of protocol. It seems instead more like a centralized process, which is okay, but don't call it a protocol. Let's go with one example--balance limits. You can't just say that income/expenses disappear to avoid hitting a limit, without acknowledging what's happening to them. If I hit the upper limit, is my income being redirected to UniBank1? Or the ether? If it's 0, who is paying the people I owe? If the digital Fed is paying, then this means free currency creation! It's trivially obvious to see how this could be manipulated for directed inflation/deflation. Or maybe we can consider the technical details of a transaction. Let's say, for instance, that I have 4 users: A, B, C, and D. A couples with B, B couples with C, C couples with A. All coupling is 100%. D transfers to any one of them, and it is reflected in the other two...and then to the ones they are coupled to...and it keeps going. Now you have an infinitely expanding number of transactions created that create an infinite amount of money. If you say that the coupling is capped at a certain proportion, then it may or may not converge on a value (i don't want to do the math on that), but in any case, then A, B, C decouple, transfer some amount back to D, couple, and start again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've talked explicitly about restricting the parameters on coupling so that the must be less than 100%, and other ways of penalizing ring structures to avoid these sorts of issues. These are issues that are resolved by putting constraints on the various parameters I've laid out in the proposal. There's more analysis to do to decide where those constraints should be placed to generate the most interesting dynamics, which is the next obvious step. But the features of a nonlinear currency like strangecoin and their differences from standard currencies can be discussed before doing that analysis. If people would be interested in doing the network analysis with some differential equations, I can post the math, but if you can do the math I'm sure you can recover the equations from the write up. That's a lot of words to say, "You're right, it's broken, and I don't know how to fix it". Even without 100% coupling it's trivially broken. EDIT: Also you haven't addressed the fact that you're using "nonlinear" in a completely nonsensical way. Please don't. Slanderer fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The only criticisms that have been raised that actually stick are that I can't write, and that I'm out of my depth. I've admitted several times to both these facts. Neither of them make me a crank. Hey, remember that time I thought about this dumb thing for literally 5 minutes and broke your entire system? Slanderer posted:Let's say, for instance, that I have 4 users: A, B, C, and D. A couples with B, B couples with C, C couples with A. All coupling is 100%. D transfers to any one of them, and it is reflected in the other two...and then to the ones they are coupled to...and it keeps going. Now you have an infinitely expanding number of transactions created that create an infinite amount of money. If you say that the coupling is capped at a certain proportion, then it may or may not converge on a value (i don't want to do the math on that), but in any case, then A, B, C decouple, transfer some amount back to D, couple, and start again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Also, to ask yet again, why the gently caress is it nonlinear? That's not what nonlinear means. Stop using technical words you don't loving understand.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't know why you keep saying this because it's a totally legitimate use of the term. With dollars, if I give you 1 dollar then you get 1 dollar. In strangecoin, if I give you 1 strangecoin you might get a different number of strangecoin, depending on the overall network of transactions. That's a nonlinear relation. You're using nonlinear incorrectly. Please, don't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:You're not trying. You refuse to answer actual questions, picking only the ones you can cover in your word-salad and avoid the rest. You don't explain anything, you just repeat yourself endlessly while (mis)using technical terms to cover up the emptiness of your argument. Then you start bitching about how everyone's so mean and why won't you guys have a conversation I just want to talk why isn't anyone interested in this discussion when it's clear that the only one not interested in a discussion here is you. We've seen this time and time again on this forum and it's just pathetic. All of this is pretty part of the course, really--the thing that gets me is when he says, "I've yet to see any real objections to my grand beautiful vision", even when they are presented again and again and again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Right, but users don't just have a single tax amplifying their transactions; each transaction amplifies the others in a cumulative way. If the tax was only proportional to the transaction it would be linear. But the tax is proporational to the network of transactions, and that makes it nonlinear. Let me stop you right there---where is this in your writeup? Are you just making this up now?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Right, but users don't just have a single tax amplifying their transactions; each transaction amplifies the others in a cumulative way. If the tax was only proportional to the transaction it would be linear. But the tax is proporational to the network of transactions, and that makes it nonlinear. Yes that is linear If X pays q, then Y gains: q + q *e1 + q*e2 + q*e3 = q * (1 + e1 + e2 + e3). e1..3 are constants and not functions of q. F(q) = q *(1 + e1 + e2 +e3) F(2q) = 2q * (1 + e1 + e2 + e3) F(q) + F(q) = F(2q) That's linear. Jesus loving christ.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:Don't you be bringing your maths and your fancy formal definitions into my thread! The only valid criticisms you have are of my inability to construct linear arguments. My arguments don't need to be linear. Mods please rename thread to: Strangecoin: a linear noncurrency
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
grate deceiver posted:Thank you mods Truly, they are wise and generous.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:So wait, by endorsing someone, you're agreeing to pay an additional amount based on whatever they pay to whoever they pay? No, basically the Fed pays that additional amount! And if they lose money, you pay the Fed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:While i, S, and E are all constants set by the transaction network, q and Ci are independent variables. That means the change to the balances of X and Y aren't merely proportional to q, but they are also proportional to the income of all users X and Y are coupled to, which is a function independent of q. This is a nonlinearity. Nooooooope. For any given transaction, everything is still proportional to q. The fact that i, S, and E are independent of q is what preserves linearity, you loon. I mean, you could have at least pointed out that linearity fails at the limits of B, because that's really about it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Nooooooope. For any given transaction, everything is still proportional to q. The fact that i, S, and E are independent of q is what preserves linearity, you loon. gently caress, to expand further: You're describing discrete functions as continuous ones, which is wrong outside of a macro context. And each transaction is implicitly also a function of time, as coupling variables and account balances sorta change over time. Linearity is dependent on fixing time to a constant, so as to describe the effects of one transaction at a given time versus a different transaction that could have instead happened at the same time. If time isn't fixed, then no currency transaction in the real world right now is "linear", because tax loving changes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I was assuming Strangecoin is implemented with a variation of the blockchain, but that's really not important. The point isn't whether cryptocurrencies are relevantly different from traditional currencies. From the perspective of Strangecoin, both traditional currencies and cryptocurrencies work in the same way. If you want to implement it using "a variation of the blockchain", go read the goddamn bitcoin whitepaper, go look at the bitcoin reference code, and come back with a proposal so that I can tell you how dumb it is and how easy executing a time machine attack would be. How would rewards be distributed? How would transactions fees be distributed to the computers running the network? How would hashing difficulty be adjusted? Or are you just saying, "OH, WE'LL DO THE BITCOIN THING TOO OKAY?"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Hey man I'm more than happy to admit I need help with the math. You've already helped me a lot. I did 6 hours of math homework last night because of your drat question. So please keep it up, because I need it. If that's the case, maybe just trust me when I say it's linear. (It's super linear. Linear as gently caress). Similarly, when I say it's a noncurrency...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The coupling relation is not a function of q, it is a function of the income of other users. Could you explain why this isn't a nonlinearity? For one, if it's a function of their income, then that's something new you added. Even if you want to change the rules and make that so, it doesn't matter. Income can't change until a transaction is completed. Income depends on transaction volumes, but the system is discrete and causal--Income can't depend on transactions that haven't happened yet, so any parameters associated with Income can't be affected by transactions that haven't taken place. Like I said before, everything here is implicitly a function of time, but that's irrelevant for a single transaction because nothing is linear if time is a variable and makes everything completely useless.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The proposal document in the OP says quite clearly these are functions of income. You're right, I meant to say "Balance" instead of "Income". RealityApologist posted:The problem I'm having (well among others) is that the coupling relation is a coupling of income, and q represents just one portion of that income. So it's because the coupling relation is a function of income, which in turn is a function of q that it presents a nonlinearity. And of course you're right that there are nonlinearities at the balance cap and trough. You're having trouble reconciling this because you posed poo poo as continuous equations instead of discrete ones. There is no "continuous" transfer of money over time, only series of discrete transactions. Continuously compounded interest isn't added to bank accounts continuously. An accounting system would have to agree upon fixed timesteps for calculations taking place continuously, and operate discretely at those timesteps. This is, of course, why saying BITCOINS! is lol because of the time machine attack. You can't define income as "money/time" because it makes no loving sense as a continuous function. I've been trying to implicitly fill in the gaps in the insane logic you've presented, and this is a key one. You can say "hey, I'll give you 40 bucks today", which means your income might be 40 bucks/day today, and 0 bucks/day tomorrow. But not continuously, because you're still only receiving money in discrete transactions. Computing any dumb distributions of income also has to work discretely, so if I give you 20 bucks, your income immediately goes from 0 to 20 and then back to 0, which makes no sense. Instead, you would get 20 bucks, and dumb coupling taxes would be assigned based only on those 20 bucks. If you were getting residuals from another set of people based on other couplings, those would be separate transactions. Even if they happened that the same time,they would be separate (separable linear goddamn equations). Why do I feel like I've put more thought into this than you have? Slanderer fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
eXXon posted:I had trouble sleeping last night thinking about the possible infinite recursion in strangecoin transactions. I hope someone figured that out. Realtalk: The two issues with infinite recursion are convergence and decay times. If you have some totally interconnected set of nodes, each receives dividends from all the other nodes and awards dividends to them as well. If you separate out those two actions and go through it in a stepwise manner, then can come up with the relation for handing out dividends (and dividends based on those dividends and so on). I think (based on some hastily scrawled notes during a quick meeting) that the convergence criteria is: p * (N-1)^2 < 1 where "p" is the coupling proportion and N is the number of interconnected nodes. Don't hold me to this, because I definitely haven't checked (and probably won't). Of course, this assumes that each generation of transactions is processed as a batch at the same time. There may be race conditions present for some stuff. There are two possible solutions: The first affects converging and non-converging criteria--you assign metadata to interest generated by a "real" transaction that follows it and any child transactions it generates. You can use this to limit interest generation to a fixed number of generations (ie, coupling will only propagate a fixed number of generations in an interconnected network, or only to a certain depth in a standard tree). This also sort of destroys a key "feature" of this system by preventing propagation past X degrees of separation in the network. The second would only fix the situation with converging criteria--the discrete transactions will have a fixed, known minimum decimal point. Eventually, the transactions would fall below it and stop. This would, of course, take a hilariously long time, in all likelihood. This is the issue with "decay time"---dividends are only proportionally smaller each time. So yeah, it's pretty broken. EDIT: Added a few sentences Slanderer fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Tools can be thrown away, bought, replaced, added to, and subtracted from at a whim. Gender cannot. But that's not important, and if you're going to respond to me I'd rather you answer my more pertinent questions of A)How will people have access to this information in real time, B)How are they to be expected to decipher such a huge amount of information in mere seconds, and C) how is this at all more useful than current models of currency? In the cyber future, gender will be as arbitrary as your choice of shoes. Nanosurgery drones will be able to perform gender replacement surgery while you sleep (utilizing your home bank of replacement genitalia). Cybernetic implants, like google glass, are for life, however.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
I think we can all agree that Something Awful's former display of Hate and Bigotry towards the peaceful and tolerant cyborg citizens of Malatora was
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
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. http://www.amazon.com/Microeconomics-Paul-Krugman/dp/1429283424/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396392917&sr=1-3 http://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-Paul-Krugman/dp/1429283432/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1MZFN3YYPCW648FJHMVT
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I take this is an admission that a formalization of Diamond-age economics (or something similar) hasn't yet been done? Again, I've looked pretty hard, but I still find this hard to believe. Nope, it's in there. Once you have a basic grasp of economic theory it's p. clear.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Making these values and network modifiers explicit doesn't so much fix the problem as make it fixable. This is a hilariously unfounded assertion.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:What, that making something explicit is a good way of dealing with it? The assertion was: if this stuff is explicit then it can be fixed Trying to clarify some interaction does not imply that it will provide revelatory insight, and it does not imply that this changes a problem from intractable to tractable. Case in point: Most people know how much the rich cheat on their taxes, steal from people who do actual labor, and generally exploit people to some degree. This has been made explicit countless times. And yet as the solution seems to be "bloody revolution", most people don't care enough to advocate for it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The coupling relations are the nonlinear part of the transaction, because they depend on income. The account balance caps are also nonlinearities in the system, as would be any decay transaction near the caps as was proposed by someone else in the thread. As far as I know, I won the argument between Slanderer and me about whether or not this is a nonlinear system, and the description is appropriate. Ahaha jesus christ, I gotta step back into the thread for this. There was no reason for me to respond about linearity after pointing out that a set of transactions is a discrete casual system made no impression on you. All of that would have been clear from the get-go if you had spent the required 20 minutes writing out the equations for a series of transactions in a small network. That is the one simple, loving basic excercise that would have demonstrated that: (a) coupling is horribly broken (b) any dumb relation or property described as happening "over time" has to be discretized in order to be relevant in a goddamn digital system (c) the discretization of the transaction equations forces an order of operations in transactions and child transactions, which forces certain state variables to only be updated after a given transaction, ie no one gains income from a transaction until the transaction is processed, so that income cannot be reflected in any of the variables in the transaction equation as it doesnt exist yet (d) and all these words mean it's trivially linear. seriously, it takes only a few minutes to show this on paper. Slanderer fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
I pay attention to A Thing, therefore it is Important. A Thing is Important, therefore I must pay attention to it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:RA, is not having access to your iPhone/Glass/3D printer/whatever else tech stuff as bad as being born in the wrong body? Why or why not? If someone hacks your iCloud storage, is that digital rape?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Payments are simple. There's a Balance, and on each step they're evaluated for each User, placing the appropriate amount into the current_expenses or current_income field. But I can't figure out how to calculate, say, X Support Y. It's clearly dependent on Y's income. There's a naive approach where all Payments are summed, then Support values are calculated on that. But Support adds to Y's income. Does that income force a recalculation of Support? The complex solution seems to be something like modeling the Support transaction network separately from Payments, coming up with the converged values from simulated iteration. I'll admit I can't quickly do this. I sorta went the same route as you, except I started with Python in mind, then realized my current laptop doesn't have Python. The installer was taking for-loving-ever though, so I said gently caress it and went to model a set of transactions between 4 users on paper. I had to modify the definition of Income for it to make sense for me. It was originally defined in an impossible way: Income I in S/t, the sum of all incoming transactions. If we write that as: I = sum(incoming payments) Then do the dimensional analysis: [S] / [t] = [S] It's clear it doesn't make sense. If you want to define income like that, you need to provide an explicit interval. So, I made the decision to define the interval as the duration of the calculation timestep. This is, of course, entirely unreasonable, but it's the only way to deal with the potential for race conditions with support transactions (as you said, the order of transactions would affect the income, affecting support payments...) So, if income needed to be defined as the sum of incoming transactions for a timestep (t=0), and it requires waiting that entire timestep to prevent the race condition, then it isn't calculated until the following timestep (t=1). This is the "dumb" solution, but again, it's the only one that makes sense in light of the race conditions. In that following timestep, you have a single value for income and a single for expenses, which can then be used to calculate support payments/debts and generate new transactions to deal with those. Then the income and expense can be added to your balance, to be reflected one timestep later (t=2) Sequential transactions would make sense in other situations like this, where you might want a transaction to fail (for instance) if it would bring an account balance below 0. Here, however, your additional debts disappear into the economic ether if they would bring your balance below 0, just as any additional income gets funneled to the Fed if it would bring your account over the maximum balance. Slanderer fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:I was prepping to go full TDD on this, but realized I'd be itching for code long before I nailed down all the requirements. I saw a few instances where it was clear you'd done extensive modelling of the problem, and thought that a simulation of the users/transactions/ledger would help eliminate possible scenarios or make it clear the collusion you implied was possible. I really should have done things in software first, but getting a physics degree trained me to do things on paper first, if possible. Which is often really annoying, but it made finding the convergence conditions for a subset of the "circlejerk support network" problem pretty easy (it would've taken longer for me to remember python syntax and figure out the generalized solution from there). With regards to the TUA: I honestly hadn't put much thought into it, because it's economic role was tremendously ill-defined. I was (on faith) assuming it would have some regulatory function, but I haven't thought through the ramifications of it running out of money (it would probably take a much more sophisticated model to show what would happen if all interest rates suddenly dropped to 0%, or maybe only for some transactions). Perhaps it's balance could be manipulated externally, if running out of money was somehow desirable. I haven't read most of the last pages, but I saw your post above, and I like your simulated annealing idea. It would be a crazy (but interesting) way of controlling an entire economy, and is way more interesting than the original idea. Personally, I had originally pictured this "network" as an analog computer (still love those things), with balances represented as voltages, and any transactions or other operations performed as analog operations that moved charged between nodes over time. Of course, the next logical leap from having analog computers solve your differential equations is building digital computers and solving numerically.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Given the discussion with the Doctor, I thought about describing it as a nonlinear currency. The in the next conversation I had with him about it, the very first question I had for him was "Are you sure this is nonlinear". And he walked me through the discussion of the boundary case at the account cap as a nonlinearity, and I understood it when he explained it as an authority, so I went ahead with it. It was in the course of this discussion that he proposed calling it Strangecoin. So, I'm catching up on the past day, and this is funny. DoctorD is right, and I mentioned this off hand at least once---transactions are most certainly nonlinear at the boundary conditions (which is not particularly revelatory, as you could similarly describe getting short-changed by a cashier as a "nonlinear transaction"). I was only annoyed to begin with because Eripsa clearly didn't know what would make the system linear or nonlinear. And no, Eripsa, transactions are still linear if time is fixed, since coupling relationships have a finite duration (and in the real world, it would allow all transactions to be "nonlinear" because the tax rate changes over time!!!!) I might have pointed this out before, but w/e.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:There's a sense of "economics" that deals with the nature of human social transactions in the most general possible sense, of which this article and Strangecoin and traditional economics all belong. Please don't say this is grounded in physics. It is not, not even loving remotely. It's grounded in insanity. I mean, unless I missed the lecture on this in advanced solid state methods. Slanderer fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Eripsa, You've consistently described what the system does or how it will behave without even formulating the system. You constantly claimed to have "defined" a protocol, but instead you've made some generalized statements and jumped right to high-order effects, which is the dumbest loving thing. Apparently you are using a non-linear definition of the word "definition". Clearly your goal is to make a system that does whatever the gently caress Strangecoin is supposed to do. Great, fine, whatever. Explicitly define your goals and say, "I want to design a system that behaves sorta like this!" And then you could build countless models, run them through simulations, and see what works and what doesn't. Then you apply more complicated agent-based simulations, watch as everything burns, and start from scratch. You can't just blindly claim that your desired end-state is the inevitable outcome of the first dumb thing you thought up (without even bothering to explicitly define it!) because holy poo poo that stuff is hard! Even if you want to keep claiming your dumb thing is so special and fundamental that studying economics is a worthless subset of it, you would not have to look deep into economics to realize how hard it is to model (and predict) the net effect of billions of independent actors. There is no one MASTER EQUATION to describe all of human interaction, there never will be. So stop thinking you are some architectonic savant who is building A New Kind of Science that will invalidate existing thought. Economics is a field where countless people, each way more competent than you, have worked to try to figure out the ramifications of our well-understood economic system. You want to create something way more complicated---don't you think the ramifications of it would therefore be way less intuitive?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:It's not purely just meaningless word salad, he's trying to claim that normal economic theory doesn't apply to his model because of reasons. It's the exact same bullshit excuse that bitcoiners give when an actual economist calls them out on their idiocy. I interpreted this as him saying his stupid network models are more "fundamental" than economics, with the implication that once the field is more complete, actual economics should just drop out of it as a specific subset. Basically, graphs of things with lots of lines drawn between them is Eripsa's version of Grand Unification.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I agree with all of this. I wrote the strangecoin proposal so we have a more concrete model to work with instead of just idle speculation. I also spent time talking about what kind of things I wanted Strangecoin to do so we knew what the goals were and could prune the possible models to fit those goals. How do you so perfectly miss the point? This has nothing to do with people understanding complex poo poo intuitively. This is about complex behavior emerging some simple ones. Our entire economy is layers of emergent behaviors stacked on top of each other, and most of those behaviors are *not* predictable from first principles. Your dumb economy involves adding a lot more complexity to each individual transactions. It intuitively follows that the result would be even more complex and unpredictable when expanded to a scale of billions. Countless economists work to understand and predict our current system, but you claim that you can do better than all of them--reinvent the system AND predict exactly how it will function! The fact that you are trying to make claims about what your completely unformed idea will do is loving absurd. You start with your goal of "EVERYONE CONNECTED TWITTER UTOPIA!!!!" and poo poo out an idea that vaguely connects people. You then assume the latter will beget the former, because of course the world will gravitate towards your lovely ideal!. The fact that you couldn't even see such trivial poo poo as the ability to create gain unlimited income through your broken transactions reveals that you didn't even bother to think this poo poo out. It was just: 1. Connect people 2. //todo 3. Twittertopia
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:"Level of complexity" is not a fundamental barrier to understanding. Adding more complexity does not necessarily make something less understandable. Adding emergent layers upon emergent layers might actually make something more understandable if it fits into patterns I'm already disposed to detect. Little Blackfly posted:You have provided no evidence for the validity of the emergent patterns you predict you will see, and we have provided plenty of evidence that such patterns in fact do not occur. Lower level compelxity has nothing to do with it, the models you propose are too simplistic at the level of analysis. This. How do you not loving get this, Eripsa? You are not creating a system that does anything that you claim. You are barely-creating a system that does no more than the equations say. Anything else is emergent, because you lack the mathematical tools to prove that any conclusion is attainable. If you could not predict far enough to see that it could generate infinite income, how can you make claims about the rest of the emergent behaviors in the system?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How did that one go? (Besides spectacularly awful) I remember something about your Uncle algorithmically determining exactly what you want to eat, which is somehow the most efficient way to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Sep 10, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The study I cited was an example of detecting an extremely complex signal about genetic compatibility. The process of detection might be simple, but the signal it communicates is not: it's telling you a lot of important things about the creature you're detecting. These features are relevant to reproduction and a host of other sociological issues, and we are very sensitive to this signal. My point was that the complexity of the signal is not the barrier to intuitive comprehension or sensitive discrimination. My argument was that we can detect a complex signal if we have the right pattern detector. This is meaningless bullshit dude. Your words convey zero usable content.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 04:25
|
|