I'd argue that, as long as there's common structure between the agents building and using the control layer models, then there will be shared concepts in and of those models. And it's not *only* the Libertarian who claims there's shared structure between the builders/users. As I've tried to *ask* w.r.t. to inter-species mind-reading, don't most complex animals "assume" some shared structure, not only between them and their kin, but between them and their predators/prey and symbiotic species? And if your dog does it, then it's likely Capitalists and Socialists also do it.
Of course, the extent to, and rate at, which such shared structures change through time is the gist of this conversation. On 9/14/20 8:16 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Using statistical mechanics to inspire a stable and universal functional form > that evolves in time is one way to make a model of social systems. But even > with that for model of the physical world, there are many possible models for > control systems that could layer on top of it. If there are no shared > concept types in these different models, there's nothing to do but go back to > simulating the physics to determine what could happen next. Simulating > these physics takes energy that is of no discernable value to users of any > one model so at some point there will be conflict over that energy. The > Libertarian claims that there is something in common between the users of > these models, but it is nothing more than story that serves her purposes. > There is no reason not to violate her sovereignty if the reward/risk is > acceptable. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
