Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
So the optimum Strangecoin strategy is to subdivide your personhood and create multiple poor identities instead of one rich one (I.E. using kids, spouses, dead relatives)?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

Thats literally why I'm practicing here with goons. Should I be able to do this without practice? Am I blameworthy if this ability doesn't come easy to me? I'm not sure how else to get better but to keep trying, but this thread consistently makes me feel like an rear end in a top hat for trying.

If you're flipping out with a little bit of light anonymous internet criticism I have bad news what academia is like.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

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.

So for example, let's say X wants to pay Y some quantity q of Strangecoin. Although X pays out q from their balance (so receives a net loss of q Strangecoin), Y could receive more than q depending on the other transactions X has. Say, for instance, X has 3 endorsers E1, E2, and E3, in proportions <e1, e2, e3> respectively. The Y as the result of the payment, Y will receive q coins from X, and e1*q from E1, e2*q from E2, and e1*q from E3. This is not a linear transaction.

We might also imagine that shortly after this payment, X wants to pay Y another quantity q of Strangecoin, but in the interim endorser E3 has withdrawn support. So the amount of this transaction will not be the same as the previous transaction, even though both agree to q Strangecoin. Again, this is not a linear relation.

No, economic multiplier effects are absurdly complicated and arcane.

Edit: Look at something like the credit default swap chain reaction which literally no one understood.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
I can probably fix your laser if you have a broken laser.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

Xelkelvos posted:

It can be. Nonlinear means not linear. That's it. It could be parabolic, sinusoidal, random, exponential. All of those are nonlinear. If you're modeling transactions, what pattern does it follow (nonlinear is a nonanswer btw).


Presumably a thought experiment, like so much other things in Philosophy. It does still need to bring something to the table as a measure of practicality however.

But really it's nicer to assume everything is locally linear and truncate the rest of your taylor series and call it a day.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

Babylon Astronaut posted:

How does the strangecoin differentiate between people who receive employment merely because of their relationship with someone in management, and people related to managers that received their position due to merit? Not that I believe employment would function under strangecoin.

Nonlinear, duhh.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
Strangecoin would be fun in something like Eve where it's basically used as a the currency in a Kafkaesque liber-dystopia

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
I'm a chemist but I don't pretend to understand sociology because all sociology has a biochemical grounding.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

No. The nature of organized systems in general are all studied under the same framework: the organization of physical, chemical and biological is explained by the same framework discusses social and sociotechical and purely technological organization, and also linguistic and psychological and memetic and cultural organization too.

This is not just sociology, though it has many important applications to sociological frameworks. Its an interesting fact of this paradigm shift that sociology was one of the earliest adopters of the networked paradigm, and that the problems explaining the activity of social networks are really driving the science and math at the cutting edge, whereas in the past that motivation was primarily derived from issues in fundamental physics.

To expand, this is dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
Has OP cited Roger Penrose for strangecoin yet?

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
Maybe you should tell your friends to post in this thread if they're not going to be chip-on-the-shoulder babies about it.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

ryde posted:

I googled and read the Digital Philosophy Wikipedia entry and am still unsure if this is a legitimate field of inquiry. The whole "networked cellular automata may describe literally everything" statement smells like bullshit, but I am neither smart nor informed enough to say for sure.

Stephen Wolfram has gotten absolutely pilloried for this.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

Strangecoin models a network of human social action.

Strangecoin models Strangecoin. End of statement.

You created a thing, it is what it is. I can create anything also. None of this makes it interesting.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

:siren: :siren: :siren:

Strangecoin: The Hangout

https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/c8riaukt0f2hnmp1lg78k47f8s8


This will be an HOA, so it will be up on Youtube afterwards for your endless criticism and deconstruction. Anyone can show up and ask questions.

Is this going to be the type of thing where you selectively quote responses to you acting really pissy and brand them your "reaction"?

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

None of the tools we have on the table right now are adequate for dealing with this situation. The tools we have are what created this situation. We desperately need new tools.

Going out of the way to make a worse tool isn't going to teach us how to make a good one.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
Jesus, who holds a conference in Scranton. That's just hosed up.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
So what are examples of cyborgs being discriminated against? We have that dude who had a meltdown in the Paris McDonalds. People have made disparaging comments towards Google Glass users at some point in the past. You can't text and drive. What else?

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

jre posted:

Or answer my question about what type of chemistry and what the relevance to chemistry was from that paper.

The paper he linked by Baez showed that there were similar mathematical structures used for cell growth modeling, chemical kinetics and particle theory where the greater system could be modeled mathematical tools developed for network theory.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
Why are you subscribing so much meaning to network theory? It looks like a nice formalism for creating a variety of physical models but it not the only way, or necessarily best way, to describe every system.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

I think that scientific explanation is constituted by models of abstract functional organization, so in some sense networks appear in every explanatory context.

From the rosetta stone document I've been posting, there's the suggestion that network theory (or really, category theory) forms the theoretical foundations for logic itself, meaning networks would appear in every domain covered by logic (including intuitionistic logic).

In other words, it actually is a contender for the best way to describe every system.

It's a formalism. As noted in the paper there are many alternative but mathematically equivalent formalisms to do the same thing. The "best way" to construct a model is a way that helps unveil the physical construction of the system you're trying to study in a straightforward manner. This might be true for some systems with network theory but network theory isn't somehow the underlying structure behind physics anymore than any other formalism.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

DoctorDilettante posted:

I think this really oversimplifies things. Models are constructed for a purpose to be sure, but that purpose is rarely (if ever) so sweeping as "to unveil the physical construction of the system" full-stop. A model's purpose is to highlight a particular aspect of the system's behavior. To put the point another way, a good model is good (among other things) in virtue of ignorning some feature of the system it applies to. When we're designing a model for something, our job is to decide what elements need to be included and which can be idealized (or ignored entirely). Robert Batterman in the Pittsburgh HPS department calls this approach "asymptotic reasoning," and has a very nice (and very mathematically rigorous) book about it called The Devil in the Details.

Here's why this point is relevant here. By noticing that some useful models in one field (e.g. biology) share mathematical structure with useful models in another field (e.g. economics), we open the door to the possibility of fruitful cross-pollination between disciplines. Noticing something like this doesn't necessarily mean that there's a deep, mysterious, or quasi-mystical explanation for the structural similarity--in fact it never means that--but it does mean that tools, theories, and models developed in one discipline might be applied to solve problems in another, very different discipline.

Right, I was arguing that the diversity of ways to describe systems is useful in of itself even if there are equivalent mathematical underpinnings. I think it's great to open up the tools developed to model computational networks are being applied to all sorts of systems. RealityApologist seems to be arguing that network theory somehow is a more pure or fundamental system and thus has more underlying basis than other systems, which I disagree with.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

Honestly, I'd be pretty deeply suspicious of any workable system that wasn't developed in this way: crowdsourced, voluntary, the result of intense critical scrutiny on all fronts, among people who are otherwise total strangers.

This is how we create the future, gentlemen.

edit: this thread, and JawnV6 and Slanderer in particular, deserve a huge amount of credit for anything that develops from it.

Usually if I have something interesting to share I'll give it some goddamn thought before I share it.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

No, I mean people have an economic disincentive to engage with you, not that people will do it of the kindness of their heart.

Assuming you could deplete TUA's balance, then you'd have also hosed the basic income for everyone else, including the person you are trading with. Continuing to trade with you just makes the situation worse for everyone. Giving any individual more stragecoin from TUA doesn't make that situation any better, so absolutely no one has an incentive to trade with you; your strangecoin would effectively be worthless because of your impact on the network.

People won't refuse to trade for the good of the market, they'll refuse to trade if it personally effects them. If a cabal of users are willing to ruin the market by gaming the system that's a big problem.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

But everyone is coupled to TUA, so they all share it's fate. If someone trashes TUA it effects everyone personally.

People are willing to drive their cars and pollute everyone. People aren't willing to drive cars where the tailpipe pumps into the car interior. Fill in the blanks with this analogy.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

Right, but the motivation in Strangecoinland isn't to acquire more strangecoin on it's own, so the person's ability to give me a payment of strangecoin in any amount doesn't really matter all that much. What matters more is my income over time, and that one-time dump of coin has relatively little impact on the overall flow of currency, especially of other aspects of my income are taking a hit because you're dumping TUA coin. So a completely selfish actor has an incentive to not take your TUA coin and engage with actors who have a more stable impact on the network.

Yes people are stupid and easy to fool. But again, we're just talking about a modifier, and the system is designed to that the modifiers are immediately salient. If someone is trading with no modifiers at all, it means they have absolutely no network of support backing that transaction, and that's shady as gently caress. It's not hard for even an idiot to understand why you'd want to avoid that transaction.

If Strangecoin users live in Strangecoinland where nothing at all goddamn applies isn't that a really loving important thing to say up front?

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
I have a new model that describes how birds fly by scooting around on their butts but it only applies in a world where all birds are dogs with a bad case of worms. It'll revolutionize everything!

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
I guess what I would want to see is two simulations with NormalCoin and StrangeCoin. The NormalCoin simulation would have to run at a level that it was actually a quasi-useful model. Then you could change the economic axioms to Strange and see what happens. I don't see StrangeCoin being better even under this mild circumstance even before you apply stresses.

Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Apr 3, 2014

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

Forums Barber posted:

I was going to say that you could have various algorithms and have different actors try them in some kind of genetic-style situation, but I have no idea how you would measure fitness so what should you aim for?

If I were to write some code I'd write monte-carlo code where actors make economic decisions to buy goods based on pricing and see how wealth accumulates and transfers.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
I don't get why you're allowed to choose both the monetary system and human nature? You choose the monetary system and then test it with human nature. Human nature is the crucible.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

I'm literally stunned every time I see someone online inferring from the phrase "tragedy of the commons" that all commons are tragic.

Wikipedia is an existence proof of the extraordinary constructive power of the commons. Reciting catchphrase folk economics is a security blanket.

Tragedy of the commons is criticism of a specific manner of mismanagement, FYI.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

Since I'm already viewed as a crank, I'll just say this: I've been imagining TUA like the Higgs field: always active and everywhere in the background, giving everything weight and relevance to (almost) everything. So the idea that you can basically ignore it for local calculations is very attractive from the way I'm thinking about it.

See, it's statements like this that made the Sokal criticism so valid. If you claim the speed of light is a representation of patriarchy or that Heisenberg uncertainty invalidates morality it's really just shines a light that you don't understand the concept your misusing in the least and should probably keep your mouth shut. .

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
Hey but remember Strangecoin will allow everyone to know exactly where they are in the social strata because no one has figured out to look at their loving bank account balance before now.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Jawn, even if you can manage to get a workable spec from Eripsa, do you think Strangecoin will ever be a useful model of anything at all besides Cargo Cultism?

I feel like you could run a real monetary simulation and see what using the new Strangecoin monitary axioms do to a simulated economy vs regular money. All edivence points to Strangecoin loving literally every part of an economy up, but it could be fun.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

GulMadred posted:

If you try to strip away the actual social framework then you're left with a bunch of HFT bots competing against each other under a bizarre and (thus far) poorly-defined set of rules, until the system crashes because of an overflow or infinite loop (or one agent manages to gather all of the simulated money as "king of poo poo hill" and the simulation is unable to proceed). The simulation isn't going to reveal any great insights about economics (as it relates to human concerns and the distribution of scarce goods), and - in my opinion - wouldn't be worth the effort of implementation. Especially because it would take weeks to program the thing and Eripsa would rewrite the spec dozens of times during that interval :)

Well that would be a more realistic model of Strangecoin in the wild than some hypothetical world where everyone checks their Facebook to see how many likes they have before they can know how expensive coffee will be at Starbucks.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

But traditional economics (supply, demand, etc, and all the theoretical infrastructure around it) isn't part of the basic theoretical framework being employed in the article I've cited; it's (again) an example of a multi-agent transactional network, grounded more in physics and computer science than in anything I'd find in an econ 101 book.

I'm not saying I should study economics. I should. But I'm not going to find a deeper understanding of multiagent systems in those economics textbooks, and continuing to suggest I would is just a misunderstanding of the dialectical situation in this thread.

I don't think you know poo poo about what the field of economics does.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
RealityApologist, I don't know how it works in Philosophy but do you have a research advisor?

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
Cool, I've always wanted lower rent Neal Stephenson.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

Yiggy posted:

What if I want to buy a new car? Do I couple myself with everyone on the assembly line? If the parts are ordered abroad and assembled in the US, must I now couple internationally, or is that something the factory employees have to worry about? Do they have time to worry about any of this, or does strangecoin usher in a sort of Utopia where they'll have both the time and interest in nurturing these sort of international, cross cultural networks? Does the government of China control the coupling of its citizens? To what extent?

Now, say, if corporations don't exist, what sort of of Coupling would be involved to, say, arrange a contract for a shipbuilding yard (unincorporated) and its myriad employees to build me a tanker, particularly since there is usually a queue involved for huge durable goods like these. Does everyone have to be tied up with each other for years at a time to make some...

...You know what, this is insane. Nevermind.

You forgot that the whole thing is prerequisite with a post-singularity world with out scarcity. If you want an ocean tanker you just pick one up from the endless supply of them chillin at the docks.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
Can someone write a speculative fiction where the universe gets split through a quantum anomaly and one parallel universe proceeds using StrangeCoin for all monetary transactions and the other universe only barters using severed hands ala the Belgian Congo. The story starts when the split collapses like in the Mario Brothers movie and there is a clash of societies between the thriving, handless peoples and the starving strangecoiners.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

RealityApologist posted:

A: do you think it is possible to balance the global economy?
B: do you think the global economy is currently balanced?

If your answer is no to either of these questions, then it can't be a criticism of strangecoin merely that it can be gamed. The issue has to be whether gaming strangecoin has worse consequences for the users than the gaming that takes place in our system; in other words, the question is which is more imba.

No, Because the answer is "no" to both of them it's bad to create a system that can be gamed easier and more disastrously, like you did.

  • Locked thread