Topic: Economic Totalitarianism - page 102. (Read 345758 times)
You are entirely missing the point.
Value is not a homomorphism to spacetime. Value is a diverse (n-dimensional) fitness landscape (entropy) where the relationship to time and space is such that they are not just dilated but not even structurally preserved.
Sheesh this is above your paygrade apparently? Or maybe just a math fact you haven't contemplated.
...
Philosophy of morality (and just morality alone, or philosophy alone) are huge topics.
Re downloading music illegally, well, when I want to listen to music, I either turn the radio on, put on a CD or go to Youtube. I don't download music, but that's just me.
Would be listening to music on Youtube count as immoral? Not going there. Example: does illegal downloading "fight the man"?
Arguing philosophy is above my paygrade. A deep, deep set of rabbit holes. I have bigger fish I am trying to fry: protecting my worthwhile assets in the perilous times to come.
Philosophy of morality (and just morality alone, or philosophy alone) are huge topics.
Re downloading music illegally, well, when I want to listen to music, I either turn the radio on, put on a CD or go to Youtube. I don't download music, but that's just me.
Would be listening to music on Youtube count as immoral? Not going there. Example: does illegal downloading "fight the man"?
Arguing philosophy is above my paygrade. A deep, deep set of rabbit holes. I have bigger fish I am trying to fry: protecting my worthwhile assets in the perilous times to come.
All value is based on time.
Nonsense.
Value is based on relative fitness.
One of the generative essence of my theory of everything (see the last two articles in my blog unheresy.com and also my Understand Everything Fundamentally essay), is that fitness can not be characterized with any holistic (aggregate or macroscopic) metric. Fitness is inherently local and individualized.
Someday I will write some more carefully thought out essays to unify all the detailed arguments. But not now. I am busy being a programmer again....
Just because something does not fit into your myopic view does not make it nonsensical. I guess I gave you more credit than you deserve.
Philosophy is not logic:
http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1247/are-different-values-of-nothing-equivalent/25124#25124
Philosophy is argumentation. I'd prefer more precise, actionable discussion, which was the stated intent in opening post of this thread.
http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1247/are-different-values-of-nothing-equivalent/25124#25124
Philosophy is argumentation. I'd prefer more precise, actionable discussion, which was the stated intent in opening post of this thread.
Philosophy of morality is very relevant to this thread:
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1597/is-it-immoral-to-download-music-illegally/25125#25125
Philosophy is not logic:
http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1247/are-different-values-of-nothing-equivalent/25124#25124
Philosophy is argumentation. I'd prefer more precise, actionable discussion, which was the stated intent in opening post of this thread.
http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1247/are-different-values-of-nothing-equivalent/25124#25124
Philosophy is argumentation. I'd prefer more precise, actionable discussion, which was the stated intent in opening post of this thread.
Lets make this simple. I say: Time + Space = non-trivial investment. And further, I say: non-trivial investment = a value.
Code:
( Time + Space = Space-Time ) ∧ ( For all A, and for all B, in the universe of discourse, if A is an investment and A is non-trivial then it is not prudent to attempt an assault on PoW-coin B of investment A with A. )
I = space + time.
I = spacetime
I am non-trivial, why are you?
Lets make this simple. I say: Time + Space = non-trivial investment. And further, I say: non-trivial investment = a value.
Code:
( Time + Space = Space-Time ) ∧ ( For all A, and for all B, in the universe of discourse, if A is an investment and A is non-trivial then it is not prudent to attempt an assault on PoW-coin B of investment A with A. )
The investment is relevant only insofar as it renders an assault on a PoW-coin unprofitable, for the defense from an attack is what keeps the coin from being valued less for its having suffered some manner of compromise therefor.
I'm trying to determine what makes a non-trivial investment, non-trivial. You are arguing why a non-trivial investment holds value for a crypto currency. What it does versus what makes it do. I'm going to write some poems . I could have written a sestina with the time I've wasted on you.
Quote from: University of Victoria (The Department of English), Argument of the Beard, The UVic Writer's Guide, 1995
This is a paradoxical argument which derives from the impossibility of answering the question "How many hairs does a man have to grow before he has a beard?" Since there is no specific number at which an unsightly clump of hairs becomes a beard, the argument is that no useful distinction can be made between a clean-shaven man and Santa Claus.
A "non-trivial investment" in a PoW-coin mining operation is definitively such when it consistently renders unprofitable the execution of an assault on the coin therewith.
Lets make this simple. I say: Time + Space = non-trivial investment. And further, I say: non-trivial investment = a value. Do you have a problem with that?
I edited two poems in my time away. I'd say I'm using my time wisely by spending less of it on you.
Thanks for quoting someone I've ignored.
Chomsky is yet another useless (albeit tla.mit.gov funded) first world anarchist. I trust him about as far as I can throw him.
Chomsky is yet another useless (albeit tla.mit.gov funded) first world anarchist. I trust him about as far as I can throw him.
Some aspects of the brain, of thought etc are hierarchical, some are not.
Quote from: Carole L. Crumley. “Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies.” 2004. 3. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
Heterarchy may be defined as the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways.
My rugged descent has exceeded Chomsky’s World of Forms unto postmodern Epicureanism and the heterarchy hereof.
The investment is relevant only insofar as it renders an assault on a PoW-coin unprofitable, for the defense from an attack is what keeps the coin from being valued less for its having suffered some manner of compromise therefor.
I'm trying to determine what makes a non-trivial investment, non-trivial. You are arguing why a non-trivial investment holds value for a crypto currency. What it does versus what makes it do. I'm going to write some poems . I could have written a sestina with the time I've wasted on you.
Quote from: University of Victoria (The Department of English), Argument of the Beard, The UVic Writer's Guide, 1995
This is a paradoxical argument which derives from the impossibility of answering the question "How many hairs does a man have to grow before he has a beard?" Since there is no specific number at which an unsightly clump of hairs becomes a beard, the argument is that no useful distinction can be made between a clean-shaven man and Santa Claus.
A "non-trivial investment" in a PoW-coin mining operation is definitively such when it consistently renders unprofitable the execution of an assault on the coin therewith.
What you're missing is that if you are evaluating the non-trivial investment, you can't disengage it from what makes it a non-trivial investment if you want to do a an honest (thorough) evaluation.
The investment is relevant only insofar as it renders an assault on a PoW-coin unprofitable, for the defense from an attack is what keeps the coin from being valued less for its having suffered some manner of compromise therefor.
I'm trying to determine what makes a non-trivial investment, non-trivial. You are arguing why a non-trivial investment holds value for a crypto currency. What it does versus what makes it do. I'm going to write some poems . I could have written a sestina with the time I've wasted on you.
I have debated Chomsky for example on Hume. I aced the course in Philosophy at the university and even I have corrected an IQ test on a philosophical test question. I can go there, but please not here and not now. Because for one reason is I am a reductionist and will pour energy into sieving the generative essence which consumes much effort, especially when we are referring to the wide open abstractions of philosophy.
Thanks for quoting someone I've ignored.
Chomsky is yet another useless (albeit tla.mit.gov funded) first world anarchist. I trust him about as far as I can throw him.
No wonder TPTB is so highly impressed with himself for boring the class with his self-indulgent nattering.
Nonsense.
Value is based on relative fitness.
Value is based on relative fitness.
When symbols reference other symbols and nothing else, the above (i.e., "Nonsense" [TPTB_need_war]) results.
What you're missing is that if you are evaluating the non-trivial investment, you can't disengage it from what makes it a non-trivial investment if you want to do a an honest (thorough) evaluation.
The investment is relevant only insofar as it renders an assault on a PoW-coin unprofitable, for the defense from an attack is what keeps the coin from being valued less for its having suffered some manner of compromise therefor.
That's a labor theory of value and, thus, inaccurate. PoW merely ensures that one's (monetary) interests are best served through a coin and not against it (for the non-trivial investment that is the common PoW-coin mining operation).
Time + space = non-trivial investment
What's being gotten at, however, is that the investment itself does nothing to bolster the assorted (sensible) valuations of a PoW-coin: it prevents the coin from coming under attack by malevolent-thereto miners (or, in other words, "crypto- assassins").
What you're missing is that if you are evaluating the non-trivial investment, you can't disengage it from what makes it a non-trivial investment if you want to do a an honest (thorough) evaluation.
All value is based on time.
Nonsense.
Value is based on relative fitness.
One of the generative essence of my theory of everything (see the last two articles in my blog unheresy.com and also my Understand Everything Fundamentally essay), is that fitness can not be characterized with any holistic (aggregate or macroscopic) metric. Fitness is inherently local and individualized.
Someday I will write some more carefully thought out essays to unify all the detailed arguments. But not now. I am busy being a programmer again.
There is not one growth rate in an economy. Efficiency of production of some things grows faster than other things. Thus it is impossible to design a basket weighting for GDP or purchasing power which has the same relative impact on every member of society, since distinct demographics, personalities, and situations impact personal consumption priorities.
Who is to decide whose priorities are paramount?
There is no measurable equilibrium point because the economy has diversified personal metrics.
Rather the only metric I have been able to identify is the one I stated in my prior post:
Thus raising the debasement rate redistributes capital from lower efficiency investment (and thus production) to higher efficiency investment and production. Thus benefiting everyone in society.
Thus the debasement rate should be set as high as such that a super majority of society can receive an increase in their personal purchasing power (personal priorities) that exceeds the debasement rate. This will not stop members of society from competing for higher return-on-investment, because to be in that super majority you must compete.
Whereas, if it were true that everyone had the same priorities and we could set the debasement to one monolithic purchasing power metric, then no one would have an incentive to compete. This is yet another example of why uniform distribution is lifeless. I mentioned this abstract concept in my two blogs, The Universe and Information is Alive!.
Who is to decide whose priorities are paramount?
The only scenario that is not redistributive is one where the currency is debased at a rate equal to the aggregate economic growth in the economy. This is the point of equilibrium where idle savings maintain purchasing power but do not grow or decline.
There is no measurable equilibrium point because the economy has diversified personal metrics.
Rather the only metric I have been able to identify is the one I stated in my prior post:
3. Due to that squared law explained in #2 and coupled with the fact that small things and investments grow faster, the upcoming wealthy gain more from debasement than the egregiously wealthy. Thus debasement is a very natural, efficient allocator of wealth to the maximum production. The super wealthy can't focus their investments to the most productive because their wealth is too large to allocate efficiently. They are more concerned about safety, economies-of-scale, and return of capital, which retards production in the economy. [implication is that the more wealthy someone is, then the more reliant on usury for return-on-investment instead of non-guaranteed return (a.k.a. return versus risk)]
Thus raising the debasement rate redistributes capital from lower efficiency investment (and thus production) to higher efficiency investment and production. Thus benefiting everyone in society.
Thus the debasement rate should be set as high as such that a super majority of society can receive an increase in their personal purchasing power (personal priorities) that exceeds the debasement rate. This will not stop members of society from competing for higher return-on-investment, because to be in that super majority you must compete.
Whereas, if it were true that everyone had the same priorities and we could set the debasement to one monolithic purchasing power metric, then no one would have an incentive to compete. This is yet another example of why uniform distribution is lifeless. I mentioned this abstract concept in my two blogs, The Universe and Information is Alive!.
That's a labor theory of value and, thus, inaccurate. PoW merely ensures that one's (monetary) interests are best served through a coin and not against it (for the non-trivial investment that is the common PoW-coin mining operation).
Time + space = non-trivial investment
What's being gotten at, however, is that the investment itself does nothing to bolster the assorted (sensible) valuations of a PoW-coin: it prevents the coin from coming under attack by malevolent-thereto miners (or, in other words, "crypto- assassins").
Bringing it back OT: Isn't this what a POW system represents: Input of time + space (energy?) = symbolic output?
That's a labor theory of value and, thus, inaccurate. PoW merely ensures that one's (monetary) interests are best served through a coin and not against it (for the non-trivial investment that is the common PoW-coin mining operation).
Time + space = non-trivial investment
Jump to: