Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Post your reality fanfiction here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:47 pm UTC

https://dancefighterredux.wordpress.com ... an-future/

I've made use of all the current hot alt-right theory: Deleuze, Land, Moldbug, Evola. Some references to Cioran and Nietzsche and Kierkegaard to make sure there's a bit of class. Lot's of jokes. People like jokes, right? Some self-deprecation... it's good. Read it.

I need intelligent eyes on this otherwise it's just going to dissolve into useless poor quality fantasy due to lack of pressure. Any criticism you can offer is helpful.

Executive Summary:

The concept of Malatora is very poorly defined, and in practice would lead to a collapse, preferably bloodless but conceivably very violent. This is a result of an incoherent mixture of positive and negative rights, combined with a "duty to revolution" and a general non-monopoly on the use of force to preserve the incoherent mixture of positive and negative rights. Additionally, Malatoran values are poorly selected for and we find some of them, notably democracy and equality, very disagreeable.

In contrast, I lay out some properties of my own ideal draconic society in a very top-down, structurally oriented sense. This hypothetical society is envisioned in a post-scarcity, virtualized environment, where all consciousness exists in computer simulations, and ancestor simulations are extant. The first principle is the minimization of superfluous consent. By this is meant, whenever it is possible to engage in positive mutual action that would verifiably be agreeable to both parties, explicit agreement should be unnecessary, and therefore minimized. While I do not recognize equality as an inherent value, neither do I value inequality for its own sake: therefore, I outline some possible risks to an equal field of competition, which I view as necessary for the maintenance of a strong and meritocratic society. These risks are, principally, the emergence of permanent and intractable ressentiment among a certain class of persons in ancestor simulations, occurring due to their permanent past-tense deprivation of an ability to participate in history (rendered permanent precisely by their entry into post-scarcity virtual environments), and due to the deprivation of possibility of character-establishing action that accompanies insertion into an environment where no actions have tangible cost.

The second major risk I outline is the possibility that the iterative growth of computing speed, combined with inequality, will lead to different growth rates of capital, leading to intractable inequality on a scale never before known to man, and consequent social problems. I propose tentative solutions to both issues. The first solution, which I suggest should be universally implemented in all virtual environments, is a kind of inverse growth rate layering, in which those in lower classes should exist in the fastest running simulations, those in intermediate classes in slower running simulations, and those in upper classes in the slowest running simulations. The fact that iterative improvement in computer technology should lead to progressively increasing access to time for everyone is argued as an offsetting factor in this arrangement, as is the general social value of the arrangement. The second solution I propose, which I suggest implementing only at the level of my own preferred virtual environment, is a form of semi-random reincarnation for those who would provably be unhappy, in a Millesian sense, living immortal lives as their present selves.

Hypothetical required technologies and their implications are explicated. Executable level encryption is argued for, for defensive purposes, as is some sort of blockchain-derived accounting method to help ensure outsiders can audit the system to ensure compliance with normative values (like the non-use of torture, and especially infinite torture), but without allowing outsiders to potentially access or alter the system. Various failsafes are discussed which are based on the effective distribution of cryptographic secrets, and possibilities stemming from retrocausal-compatible models of quantum physics are discussed.

An brief argument is presented, the conclusion of which is that all major applications of force should be the result of automated decisions that are inalterable by any sentient actor and intrinsic to a given virtual environment. To account for the possibility of such a system leading to suboptimal results, freedom of movement between virtual environments is emphasized, as well as freedom to create new virtual environments. Use of force considerations are briefly mulled over before I realize I don't actually know enough presently to make the case for any particular implementation.

Lastly, I expound upon my own value system and what kind of virtual environment I would like to see. This is where I propose reincarnation, both as a method of addressing ressentiment and a way of fairly distributing access to social capital, despite the fact that social rank is generally zero-sum (exceptions to this are briefly discussed but rejected as too limited to rebuke the need for reincarnation). Since some citizens would be immortal, this introduces certain potential problems, which are solved by a system of ranked segregation into different, separate simulations within the virtual environment. Conditions and means of transfer between layers of the simulation are briefly described. The overall government structure is given, with the majority of governance taking place at the highest, Tier 3 of society, but with local albeit largely ceremonial governments existing at Tier 2 and Tier 1, which double as training and education centers for those on the path to upward transfer.

Addendum:
https://dancefighterredux.wordpress.com ... editation/

Supplementary material:
https://dancefighterredux.wordpress.com ... de-part-1/
https://dancefighterredux.wordpress.com ... de-part-2/
https://dancefighterredux.wordpress.com ... de-part-3/
https://dancefighterredux.wordpress.com ... -part-4-4/

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby ucim » Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:56 am UTC

Perhaps this would gain more traction in fictional science? Although you envision this as a virtual reality for regular folk, the SF community has probably thought more about the issues involved.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Katsuray
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:45 am UTC

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Katsuray » Sat Aug 04, 2018 1:58 am UTC

Regarding: "Rules and the use of force";
How would an algorithmic application of force avoid being autocratic or bureaucratic?

Is it assumed that the architects of such a system are sufficiently skilled to make an ideal system?
If not, the leadership positions are just being kicked back a level in the process.

Some of the social views seemed (to me) relatively reprehensible, but the Alt-right was invoked in the first sentence of OP so perhaps that's expected.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:14 pm UTC

Katsuray wrote:Regarding: "Rules and the use of force";
How would an algorithmic application of force avoid being autocratic or bureaucratic?

Is it assumed that the architects of such a system are sufficiently skilled to make an ideal system?
If not, the leadership positions are just being kicked back a level in the process.

Some of the social views seemed (to me) relatively reprehensible, but the Alt-right was invoked in the first sentence of OP so perhaps that's expected.


That's true, it's assumed there's sufficient skill to make an ideal system, or at least one where the worst failure outcome is simply everyone leaving for a better environment. Algorithmic force would automatically avoid being bureaucratic, pretty much by definition. It might be considered autocratic, but that's only as good or as bad of a thing as the quality of the system itself. This might be thought of as "rule of the designers" but the difference is that once they've finished their designs, everything is hands off and applied uniformly equally, even to them: they maintain no particular capacity to exercise power in and of themselves by way of designing the system.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5336
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Xanthir » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:38 pm UTC

The concept of a "far-future dragon society" apparently being a *thing* that a lot of people make variants of is clearly some norm from a community I've never touched on, so I'll leave that weirdness at arms-length. ^_^

Just some random bits, which are mostly me disagreeing with your moral premises:

* The idea that one should reject "equality" as a norm because a hyperfuture time-travel-computing civilization that blindly resurrects every human that ever lived in a naive attempt at equality-across-time would have some bad consequences is so far into non-sequitur territory I don't think I could draw a map large enough to show your current position. Stop reading Moldbug, start looking at the world around you and the mass human suffering deliberately imposed on large classes in the richest nation to have ever existed on Earth.

* If it's possible to set up autarkic communities, what is enforcing this inverted "the rich are slower" mechanic?

* Your upper/underclass ideas are pretty typical for a neo-reactionary; they're also entirely disconnected from any logic. Upperclass-ness isn't genetic; exceptionalness is a combination of biology, luck, and resources. The "newly rich" are sometimes exceptional, but humans regress to the mean *quickly*, so the "inherited rich" (which is nearly all of the rich) are just as likely to be dumbasses as the next rando you pull off the street. At best, they do better because their inherited money purchased them a high-nutrient, low-stress environment with ample, high-quality learning opportunites, where making themselves better was fairly easy; there's no reason to assume that they would do any better than the average poor person if they grew up poor. (And quite often the newly-rich were just *lucky*, with plenty of other people executing just as well around them but not in the exact right place to super-benefit from it.) Given the observed intelligence curves, humanity produces tons of Einsteins a year, but nearly all of them are born into situations where they can't develop anywhere near their full potential.

* Your "smart get smarter" curves, and the general idea of Moore's Law continuing forever, are based on faulty premises. Actual exponential growth happens very rarely; most growth is roughly sigmoidal, with a slow ramp-up to a fast growth period, then a quick decay back to slow eking out of marginal gains. Moore's Law is an example of this, just with an amazing set of coincidences - every single processor/memory/etc technology clearly shows a sigmoidal growth pattern, but we've happened to be able to chain together many many sigmoids in succession so that in broad strokes, the next sigmoid is always entering its growth period just as the previous is leaving it. We're also edging closer to qm limitations on computation; you literally *cannot* make computers above a certain speed without them collapsing into black holes.

* Blockchains don't work like that. Blockchains aren't magic, they're just append-only linked lists. The only thing special about them is that the "append-only" constraint is enforced by making it *really really expensive* to append to the list, but easy to parallelize the cost, so that a large population can work on paying that cost and, when everything works out as intended, makes it too expensive for a small malicious actor to append to the list at a comparable rate. What blockchains do *not* do is magically make things true or verifiable; you can't just put information "on the blockchain" to ensure that it's an accurate accounting of reality.


I'm not particularly interested in "debating" any of the social issues; Nx is fundamentally abhorent and wrong-headed, and its shining lights are all terrible people.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:15 pm UTC

I have no idea how to handle this post holistically so I'm going to break it way way down.

Xanthir wrote:Just some random bits, which are mostly me disagreeing with your moral premises:

I'm not particularly interested in "debating" any of the social issues


Then by definition your post is mostly superfluous and will be treated accordingly.

Xanthir wrote:The idea that one should reject "equality" as a norm because a hyperfuture time-travel-computing civilization that blindly resurrects every human that ever lived in a naive attempt at equality-across-time would have some bad consequences is so far into non-sequitur territory I don't think I could draw a map large enough to show your current position.


Straw man. Also, what's the fairer alternative to universalism? Only resurrecting rich or successful people? Hmm.

Xanthir wrote:Stop reading Moldbug, start looking at the world around you and the mass human suffering deliberately imposed on large classes in the richest nation to have ever existed on Earth.


I'm homeless, schizophrenic, and transsexual. I don't need to look around, I live this every day, and it's fully incorporated into my perspective. If you failed to discern this it's a sign of deep incompetence on your part.

Xanthir wrote:If it's possible to set up autarkic communities, what is enforcing this inverted "the rich are slower" mechanic?


Force, and broad agreements about the application of force.

Xanthir wrote:Upperclass-ness isn't genetic


Didn't say it was. However, genetic factors play a role in it.

Xanthir wrote:exceptionalness is a combination of biology, luck, and resources.


Didn't say it wasn't, and paying even the slightest attention to what I wrote would have found my writing in perfect agreement with this.

Xanthir wrote:The "newly rich" are sometimes exceptional, but humans regress to the mean *quickly*, so the "inherited rich" (which is nearly all of the rich) are just as likely to be dumbasses as the next rando you pull off the street. At best, they do better because their inherited money purchased them a high-nutrient, low-stress environment with ample, high-quality learning opportunites, where making themselves better was fairly easy; there's no reason to assume that they would do any better than the average poor person if they grew up poor. (And quite often the newly-rich were just *lucky*, with plenty of other people executing just as well around them but not in the exact right place to super-benefit from it.) Given the observed intelligence curves, humanity produces tons of Einsteins a year, but nearly all of them are born into situations where they can't develop anywhere near their full potential.


Why the fuck do you think I talk about making society meritocratic? Do you think I do it because I think society is already meritocratic? I don't disagree with any of this, and paying even the slightest attention to what I wrote would have found my writing in perfect agreement with this.


Xanthir wrote:Your "smart get smarter" curves, and the general idea of Moore's Law continuing forever, are based on faulty premises.


It's not that the smart get smarter, it's that accumulated capital advantages become insurmountable past a certain point, and capital will be measured in different terms in the future, with social capital (including that derived from intelligence) playing a much bigger and more nearly total role.

Xanthir wrote:Actual exponential growth happens very rarely; most growth is roughly sigmoidal, with a slow ramp-up to a fast growth period, then a quick decay back to slow eking out of marginal gains. Moore's Law is an example of this, just with an amazing set of coincidences - every single processor/memory/etc technology clearly shows a sigmoidal growth pattern, but we've happened to be able to chain together many many sigmoids in succession so that in broad strokes, the next sigmoid is always entering its growth period just as the previous is leaving it. We're also edging closer to qm limitations on computation; you literally *cannot* make computers above a certain speed without them collapsing into black holes.


Fine, noted. However, wealth, especially most wealth in the context of a post-scarcity virtual environment, probably isn't subject to these limitations, or at least not nearly to the same extent.

Xanthir wrote:Blockchains don't work like that. Blockchains aren't magic, they're just append-only linked lists. The only thing special about them is that the "append-only" constraint is enforced by making it *really really expensive* to append to the list, but easy to parallelize the cost, so that a large population can work on paying that cost and, when everything works out as intended, makes it too expensive for a small malicious actor to append to the list at a comparable rate. What blockchains do *not* do is magically make things true or verifiable; you can't just put information "on the blockchain" to ensure that it's an accurate accounting of reality.


Fine, noted. This was the most speculative part of the whole treatment.

Xanthir wrote:Nx is fundamentally abhorent and wrong-headed, and its shining lights are all terrible people.


If you've read them with the same lack of dilligence and responsibility that you read me, then this is an utterly meaningless criticism.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:14 pm UTC

Good news! I arrived at a name for my empire: The Central Tricameral Corporate Republic. Someone suggested it should be called Dracorp for short, and other possible informal names include Tir y Ddraig and Imperium Draconia.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3138
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:00 am UTC

Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:
Xanthir wrote:The idea that one should reject "equality" as a norm because a hyperfuture time-travel-computing civilization that blindly resurrects every human that ever lived in a naive attempt at equality-across-time would have some bad consequences is so far into non-sequitur territory I don't think I could draw a map large enough to show your current position.


Straw man. Also, what's the fairer alternative to universalism? Only resurrecting rich or successful people? Hmm.

I'm willing to bet you can come up with, like, fifteen better alternatives if you think about it.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:21 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:
Xanthir wrote:The idea that one should reject "equality" as a norm because a hyperfuture time-travel-computing civilization that blindly resurrects every human that ever lived in a naive attempt at equality-across-time would have some bad consequences is so far into non-sequitur territory I don't think I could draw a map large enough to show your current position.


Straw man. Also, what's the fairer alternative to universalism? Only resurrecting rich or successful people? Hmm.

I'm willing to bet you can come up with, like, fifteen better alternatives if you think about it.


I can think of:

1. My original solution, reincarnation
2. Lying to people in one way or another

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3138
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:23 am UTC

Resurrecting nobody is completely fair.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:25 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Resurrecting nobody is completely fair.


No. It leaves the status quo intact, and the status quo is far from completely fair.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3138
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:24 am UTC

You mean, like, restructuring the universe so that it was fair all along? Bringing people back to life isn't fair either. You can't make up for past suffering by future reward like that.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:18 pm UTC

Alright, as I understand it, the "dragons" thing is a hypothetical bit of silliness in the proposal? There seems to be some implicit assumptions here with which I am unfamiliar, but then, I guess I'm not up on this particular branch of philosophy or what have you. Let me know if I'm missing something obvious to the ideology.

Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:That's true, it's assumed there's sufficient skill to make an ideal system, or at least one where the worst failure outcome is simply everyone leaving for a better environment.


This seems to be a large assumption. Humans have attempted to design a lot of governments and societies, and the outcomes have been mixed. None of them appear close to ideal, so the assumption that this attempt will be ideal, or close to it, seems a strange expectation.

At most, I would expect incremental improvement to be the best reasonable outcome. Even that is not guaranteed, though. Figuring out how to get continual improvements without having society repeat mistakes of the past is a non-trivial problem in politics.

The first principle is the minimization of superfluous consent. By this is meant, whenever it is possible to engage in positive mutual action that would verifiably be agreeable to both parties, explicit agreement should be unnecessary, and therefore minimized.


This principle seems like one that could go awry. Sure, sure, we don't need to document pointless things, but neither should we assume that two parties will agree to something merely because it seems positive to both to a third party. Consent is pretty important, and we ought to preserve it wherever at least one party believes it to be necessary.

Without doing so, it seems likely that non-consensual actions will eventually occur.

Also, as an aside, while the in-simulator world might be post scarcity, how is the simulator kept running? Unless you've solved entropy, there's a non-zero cost associated with upkeeping the system, and of course, whoever upkeeps the system will derive power thereby.

The first solution, which I suggest should be universally implemented in all virtual environments, is a kind of inverse growth rate layering, in which those in lower classes should exist in the fastest running simulations, those in intermediate classes in slower running simulations, and those in upper classes in the slowest running simulations.


You want cross sim mobility, right? In short, you want people to be able to move from a lower class to an upper class or the like. How would this work for say, a loan? It's going to be calculated in some sort of finite period anyways, and it's going to almost certainly be a loan from the upper class...having the upper class experience time more slowly does not seem to actually affect capital accretion. The rich will simply experience subjectively less time between loaning the money out and receiving it back. If anything, this lowers the apparent cost of lending for the rich.

So, I don't think this sort of technical solution will make for an equal society. You might consider a longer amount of experience being poor as equal to a short experience of being rich, but economically, they're not really the same. Probably not practically either.

The second solution I propose, which I suggest implementing only at the level of my own preferred virtual environment, is a form of semi-random reincarnation for those who would provably be unhappy, in a Millesian sense, living immortal lives as their present selves.


Immortality seems grand, if you can pull it off. Why you'd want it to be semi-random, I'm not sure, but sure, this is fair. It is unlikely to alter any other unfairness, though. It's just a cool thing bolted on. I don't see any reason why one would expect a society of immortal, or even randomly immortal people to be more equal.

If anything, I would expect differences accrued over a lifetime to grow more dramatically different as lifetime grows longer.

Executable level encryption is argued for, for defensive purposes, as is some sort of blockchain-derived accounting method to help ensure outsiders can audit the system to ensure compliance with normative values (like the non-use of torture, and especially infinite torture), but without allowing outsiders to potentially access or alter the system.


I can code blockchain apps from scratch, and have coded encryption systems, and I have no idea what you're talking about here. These uses seem buzzwordy. Leaving aside the technical aspect, there remain problems. I get that you don't want anyone to change your system, but I'm not sure why that's the case, or what your system provides.

If you have a person auditing the system, but without being able to access the system, I'm not sure what the point is. Say he's got some read only file that says "yup, these people are getting all of the torture, and this guy's doing it". If the observer can't access or alter the system, what's the point?

Also, your freedom of movement ideas seem at odds with your ideas regarding forcible separation by class. If I want to hang out with my pals, but I'm a different social class than they are, can we? How does that work? If we can't, I don't think you really have freedom of movement.

I don't see what we get out of having highly rigid class structures enforced by simulation level anyways, so I'm not sure why you want that, or mostly ceremonial layers of government specifically for that. What is this supposedly accomplishing?

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:33 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This seems to be a large assumption. Humans have attempted to design a lot of governments and societies, and the outcomes have been mixed. None of them appear close to ideal, so the assumption that this attempt will be ideal, or close to it, seems a strange expectation.

At most, I would expect incremental improvement to be the best reasonable outcome. Even that is not guaranteed, though. Figuring out how to get continual improvements without having society repeat mistakes of the past is a non-trivial problem in politics.


This response neglects
or at least one where the worst failure outcome is simply everyone leaving for a better environment.


This principle seems like one that could go awry. Sure, sure, we don't need to document pointless things, but neither should we assume that two parties will agree to something merely because it seems positive to both to a third party. Consent is pretty important, and we ought to preserve it wherever at least one party believes it to be necessary.

Without doing so, it seems likely that non-consensual actions will eventually occur.

Also, as an aside, while the in-simulator world might be post scarcity, how is the simulator kept running? Unless you've solved entropy, there's a non-zero cost associated with upkeeping the system, and of course, whoever upkeeps the system will derive power thereby.


Did you read the linked blog post? All of this is acknowledged and part of the context of my writing.

You want cross sim mobility, right? In short, you want people to be able to move from a lower class to an upper class or the like. How would this work for say, a loan? It's going to be calculated in some sort of finite period anyways, and it's going to almost certainly be a loan from the upper class...having the upper class experience time more slowly does not seem to actually affect capital accretion. The rich will simply experience subjectively less time between loaning the money out and receiving it back. If anything, this lowers the apparent cost of lending for the rich.

So, I don't think this sort of technical solution will make for an equal society. You might consider a longer amount of experience being poor as equal to a short experience of being rich, but economically, they're not really the same. Probably not practically either.


Interesting. I was just sort of assuming what was more or less a state of quarantine between the different layers, with any information needed to be transmitted being transmitted by intermediaries.

Immortality seems grand, if you can pull it off. Why you'd want it to be semi-random, I'm not sure, but sure, this is fair. It is unlikely to alter any other unfairness, though. It's just a cool thing bolted on. I don't see any reason why one would expect a society of immortal, or even randomly immortal people to be more equal.

If anything, I would expect differences accrued over a lifetime to grow more dramatically different as lifetime grows longer.


I don't think you understand the problem I was attempting to solve.

If you have a person auditing the system, but without being able to access the system, I'm not sure what the point is. Say he's got some read only file that says "yup, these people are getting all of the torture, and this guy's doing it". If the observer can't access or alter the system, what's the point?


They can nuke it. Physically. I thought this was pretty clear both in the summary and in the blog post.

Also, your freedom of movement ideas seem at odds with your ideas regarding forcible separation by class. If I want to hang out with my pals, but I'm a different social class than they are, can we? How does that work? If we can't, I don't think you really have freedom of movement.


Not completely, but then by this logic, freedom of movement is violated by the existence of gated communities and private property in general. Everyone is free to leave the virtual environment. I think that's sufficient, both pragmatically and morally.

I don't see what we get out of having highly rigid class structures enforced by simulation level anyways, so I'm not sure why you want that, or mostly ceremonial layers of government specifically for that. What is this supposedly accomplishing?


Fundamental difference in outlook not remediable by any trivial amount of discussion.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby commodorejohn » Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:29 am UTC

Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:
I don't see what we get out of having highly rigid class structures enforced by simulation level anyways, so I'm not sure why you want that, or mostly ceremonial layers of government specifically for that. What is this supposedly accomplishing?

Fundamental difference in outlook not remediable by any trivial amount of discussion.

Which isn't really an answer to the question.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:35 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:
Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:
I don't see what we get out of having highly rigid class structures enforced by simulation level anyways, so I'm not sure why you want that, or mostly ceremonial layers of government specifically for that. What is this supposedly accomplishing?

Fundamental difference in outlook not remediable by any trivial amount of discussion.

Which isn't really an answer to the question.


My system is designed to support and derive benefit from naturally occurring ethological hierarchies while simultaneously adjusting those hierarchies to reflect traditional values of my own liking.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:10 pm UTC

Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:This response neglects
or at least one where the worst failure outcome is simply everyone leaving for a better environment.


This does not seem guaranteed. If a simulation with the built in restrictions to limit people from accessing other simulations goes awry, people could be trapped in an undesirable simulation. It's also not clear how someone could escape the simulation if the system as a whole were unworkable.

A user with physical access to the hardware seems like an existential threat to beings in the simulation.

Did you read the linked blog post? All of this is acknowledged and part of the context of my writing.


Unfortunately, no. The linked url doesn't load for me, so I'm limited to what's discussed here.

Interesting. I was just sort of assuming what was more or less a state of quarantine between the different layers, with any information needed to be transmitted being transmitted by intermediaries.


In that case, you've got kind of a fixed class system, and it's not clear how one ever moves between classes.

If you have a person auditing the system, but without being able to access the system, I'm not sure what the point is. Say he's got some read only file that says "yup, these people are getting all of the torture, and this guy's doing it". If the observer can't access or alter the system, what's the point?


They can nuke it. Physically. I thought this was pretty clear both in the summary and in the blog post.


If the only way they can remedy one bad actors abuse of others is to kill literally everyone, that is...a poor form of justice.

Also, your freedom of movement ideas seem at odds with your ideas regarding forcible separation by class. If I want to hang out with my pals, but I'm a different social class than they are, can we? How does that work? If we can't, I don't think you really have freedom of movement.


Not completely, but then by this logic, freedom of movement is violated by the existence of gated communities and private property in general. Everyone is free to leave the virtual environment. I think that's sufficient, both pragmatically and morally.


No, a gated community and private property do not prevent mutual assent. They merely prevent scenarios in which one party wishes something the other party does not.

Preventing scenarios of mutual benefit is something else.

Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:My system is designed to support and derive benefit from naturally occurring ethological hierarchies while simultaneously adjusting those hierarchies to reflect traditional values of my own liking.


So, the rigid reinforcement of hierarchy is the goal in itself, then?

I'm a little unclear on the "derive benefit from" part.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:49 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This does not seem guaranteed. If a simulation with the built in restrictions to limit people from accessing other simulations goes awry, people could be trapped in an undesirable simulation. It's also not clear how someone could escape the simulation if the system as a whole were unworkable.


These seem like general problems not specific to my implementation suggestions. The restrictions regarding accessing specific simulations doesn't seem to have any bearing on the matter: the existence of a blacklist with one to two entries could become a point of failure under some obscure condition or another. So could literally anything. It doesn't seem terribly likely, and again, seems very general.

Tyndmyr wrote:A user with physical access to the hardware seems like an existential threat to beings in the simulation.


Yes, very true. I was assuming that the highest level residents of the simulation would have control over armament designed to protect the simulation, or else that there would be automated defensive systems in place.

Unfortunately, no. The linked url doesn't load for me, so I'm limited to what's discussed here.


That's going to mostly mean in practice that I just end up rehashing things I've already said elsewhere, but if you want to do that I suppose it's fine.

In that case, you've got kind of a fixed class system, and it's not clear how one ever moves between classes.


This aspect of things is automated and hard-coded into the system from its inception.

If the only way they can remedy one bad actors abuse of others is to kill literally everyone, that is...a poor form of justice.


Yes. I was unable to think of others that preserve the same level of information security/defense for those in the simulation, unfortunately. But one of the things I was hopeful about was the thought of transtemporal quantum mechanics being used to affect an evacuation from the system by some far future actor long after the system has been destroyed.

No, a gated community and private property do not prevent mutual assent. They merely prevent scenarios in which one party wishes something the other party does not.

Preventing scenarios of mutual benefit is something else.


It seems like they must prevent mutual assent in some non-zero number of cases due to the decreased range of interactions and information that are necessarily entailed.

I was assuming that scenarios of mutual benefit were vastly outweighed by negative externalities and other unwanted things.

So, the rigid reinforcement of hierarchy is the goal in itself, then?

I'm a little unclear on the "derive benefit from" part.


There are already lots of disadvantages to the mingling of people of wildly different intelligence levels. Communication gets muddled, decisions get slowed down, certain subjects spontaneously become taboo or sacrosanct, poorly reasoned value systems weigh down the discourse and pollute the political process, etc.

Additionally, in terms of reincarnation, things just get really weird really fast if there's no segregation of any kind. I can elaborate on this somewhat if pressed but it is mostly intuition and aesthetics, and I wouldn't force it onto anyone: I am only describing what I believe my own ideal system might be like, not what I think every system should be like (unless all my arguments turn out to be sound, perhaps, and even then I still wouldn't promote the use of coercion or force to require people to enter such an arrangement).

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Trying to construct an ideal future virtual society of dragons

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:39 am UTC

I wrote a draconic declaration of speciation. If anyone wants to be a founder of this society and help construct it, all you have to do is sign and it will be taken care of (in this case, retweets expressing consent count as signatures):

https://twitter.com/Alephwyr/status/1029605390089052160


Return to “Fictional Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests