To some extent the reasoning from future infinity to the present is the most effective projection if it can be achieved. At the moment I am wondering about certainty, possibility and chess. If a game is at checkmate then by definition the opponent has ho moves left which have a positive outcome. I approached this problem with the Einstein game and came to no conclusion about the nature of certainty in real situations.
The steps backward from checkmate could be considered and when or if does it become non-determinant? Games that are solved do not have this property as they can be predicted from start to finish in a constructed tree.
It does not have an obvious answer and so I will simulate the backward induction from mate and see if there are things that would at some point create a situation where there were two possible outcomes. Now that I have stated that, it makes me wonder if such a state could exist in a rule based structure.
An interesting thing that has been done a billion times is the idea of a promise. It seems to me that it is akin to wishing things so and only works because the other "player" is making a bad choice when dealing with an untrusted source. The foundation of the US government power was based on such a ruse. In fact they play this game of imaginaries all day long as did the Romans and everyone else. It is a promissory note and as such is akin to being paid by somebody after the company has made money. It is always a win for the person who can convince others to work for imaginary pay. If you give me labor that I can sell for $100, I will promise to pay you $10 after it is done. The problem with an untrusted government is they spend the money they promise to pay with on themselves and then try to figure some way out of the situation and in the end they must fail on trust or find some way to kill the beneficiaries of their promise.
Ownership is another of those circular arguments. It doesn't bother people that they are sold the deed to a property, and yet if you follow the logic back, who then gave them deed to that? The deed is in fact the statement that they will kill anybody for the property. At some point a person or group of people must have just said "I will kill somebody if they take this from me." It doesn't seem to be the best of deals since they started by having something at the point of a gun and a piece of paper is no defense against the barrel of a cannon, should they choose to "own" it again by force.
The ownership is only based on the perception or reality that whosoever denies their claim can be defeated.
It then seems a hollow statement of control to say that any nation on Earth could "own" the moon or Mars or the Milky Way galaxy or anything or anywhere that they could not defeat a person who simply occupied that space. The ownership of space is not rational. They could say they own space if the other person who claims ownership is under their control, but to tell somebody who has camped on Mars that they are under arrest for violating US treaty is a hollow threat. If someone else has the technology to move freely among the planets it would require some dominant force or method to assure that ownership by declaration of intent to use force was a fact.
0 comments:
Post a Comment