|
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)?
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jan 13, 2026 05:51 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
I can probably fix your laser if you have a broken laser.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
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). But really it's nicer to assume everything is locally linear and truncate the rest of your taylor series and call it a day.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
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 03:56
|
|
|
I'm a chemist but I don't pretend to understand sociology because all sociology has a biochemical grounding.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
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. To expand, this is dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Has OP cited Roger Penrose for strangecoin yet?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
Is this going to be the type of thing where you selectively quote responses to you acting really pissy and brand them your "reaction"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Jesus, who holds a conference in Scranton. That's just hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
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. Usually if I have something interesting to share I'll give it some goddamn thought before I share it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
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. If Strangecoin users live in Strangecoinland where nothing at all goddamn applies isn't that a really loving important thing to say up front?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
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!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
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 22:45 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
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. Tragedy of the commons is criticism of a specific manner of mismanagement, FYI.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
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. .
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
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 don't think you know poo poo about what the field of economics does.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
RealityApologist, I don't know how it works in Philosophy but do you have a research advisor?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Cool, I've always wanted lower rent Neal Stephenson.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
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? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jan 13, 2026 05:51 |
|
|
RealityApologist posted:A: do you think it is possible to balance the global economy? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 08:42
|
|