Good morning Billy, > @Zman > > if two people are perfectly rational and start from the same information, > > they *will* agree > I take issue with this. I view the word "rational" to mean basically logical. > Someone is rational if they advocate for things that are best for them. Two > humans are not the same people. They have different circumstances and as a > result different goals. Two actors with different goals will inevitably have > things they rationally and logically disagree about. There is no universal > rationality. Even an AI from outside space and time is incredibly likely to > experience at least some value drift from its peers.
Note that "the goal of this thing" is part of the information where both "start from" here. Even if you and I have different goals, if we both think about "given this goal, and these facts, is X the best solution available?" we will both agree, though our goals might not be the same as each other, or the same as "this goal" is in the sentence. What is material is simply that the laws of logic are universal and if you include the goal itself as part of the question, you will reach the same conclusion --- but refuse to act on it (and even oppose it) because the goal is not your own goal. E.g. "What is the best way to kill a person without getting caught?" will probably have us both come to the same broad conclusion, but I doubt either of us has a goal or sub-goal to kill a person. That is: if you are perfectly rational, you can certainly imagine a "what if" where your goal is different from your current goal and figure out what you would do ***if*** that were your goal instead. Is that better now? > > 3. Can we actually have the goals of all humans discussing this topic all > > laid out, *accurately*? > I think this would be a very useful exercise to do on a regular basis. This > conversation is a good example, but conversations like this are rare. I tried > to discuss some goals we might want bitcoin to have in a paper I wrote about > throughput bottlenecks. Coming to a consensus around goals, or at very least > identifying various competing groupings of goals would be quite useful to > streamline conversations and to more effectively share ideas. Using a future market has the attractive property that, since money is often an instrumental sub-goal to achieve many of your REAL goals, you can get reasonably good information on the goals of people without them having to actually reveal their actual goals. Also, irrationality on the market tends to be punished over time, and a human who achieves better-than-human rationality can gain quite a lot of funds on the market, thus automatically re-weighing their thoughts higher. However, persistent irrationalities embedded in the design of the human mind will still be difficult to break (it is like a program attempting to escape a virtual machine). And an uninformed market is still going to behave pretty much randomly. Regards, ZmnSCPxj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
