Nostr Web Client

Anarchism describes my view set, and I’m around that age cohort.

My Bitcoin maximalism isn’t about me though, it’s not about my finances - I’m doing quite well in fiat and whilst yes property is ridiculous now and an impossibility for many of my friends, it’s not for me.

My maximalism comes from a desire to separate money and state. I see that as the only means to end the excesses of big government (authoritarianism), severely restrict war, and force economic behaviour to return to productive ends rather than rampant speculation and leeching. For me, this is the epoch defining goal of this time (on par with separating church and state) where multiple cycles are colliding and new order is being born.

I also don’t expect I’m going to find myself in some anarchist state. Quite the contrary, I expect we’re going to see more authoritarianism generally so I’m seeking to geoarbitrage not just my money, but the legal systems and policing that I’m going to be subjected to under no illusion that I’m going to change these things. Ironically the supposed “free” western liberal democracies are likely to be the worst locations, I see more freedom in communist Vietnam or Bukele’s totalitarian El Salvador than I do in my home country of Australia where they’ve become so nanny statist and so fascistic that they’re using the countries wealth specifically to restrict personal liberties now.

Nor do I see this as inevitable in Mike’s frame. What is inevitable is this current unipolar system will die and a multipolar order will replace it, todays fiat currencies will consolidate and I see Bitcoin emerging as a supranational economic pole in this new order.

Your country mix is maybe 25% of how this is likely to go, game theory dictates those who *need* bitcoin will adopt it differently than those who opportunistically adopt it for diversification / economic growth. Throw in nostr as the bitcoin economy and it could go in a ton of different directions but if you work off the idea of polarities and also understand the current order of nation states is highly unlikely to be the status quo in 20 years much less 50 or 100, this view point will make more sense than Mike’s projected “Anarchists Anonymous” nonsense.

⚡️🌱🌙 2y ago

Anarchism is zero government, no rule of law.

Plenty of Westerners take their libertarianism to this extreme, but I saw the Iraq war and I never, ever want to experience anything like civil collapse. Ever.

As the Iraqi’s used to say to news crews… When you lose security you have lost everything, all of your freedoms are worth nil. They actually wanted to bring back Saddam and his murderous police squads because anarchy was worse.

In reality anarchism means fighting off gangs of armed rapists and child traffickers every time the sun goes down. I’m too old for that, and I’m not that old.

So long as there are parents, there will be government. Social orders weren’t created by megalomaniacs seeking to enslave people, they were set up by parents wanting to protect their kids. Villages, elders, kings, federations, governments. It’s just the necessary math to protect kids from bad people. Once you have that apparatus in place it can get Co-opted by politics, but if any government ever waivers in keeping kids safe parents storm the palace.

Law and order is a huge improvement over uncontrolled malevolence.

Ideologically this is much messier and fuzzy than the simplicity of anarchocapitalism, but it’s probably right that we have some kind of incompetent muddling class v’s 2003 Iraq.

Bitcoin is just better money. It can’t be compromised, nobody can pressure their own bailout. It’s beyond corruption. It forces proper behaviour, because there is no second chance, no extra life. That means no screwing over working families every 15 years to keep some sleazy banking class afloat. Eventually parents will want Bitcoin and that will be that.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Mike Brock 2y ago

Not to be pendant, but I think it's important to acknowledge the distinction between philosophical anarchism (which would probably accurately characterize a lot of my views) and political anarchism, which is six-ways from Sunday batshit crazy in almost all of its forms.

StackSats.IO 2y ago

I know you’re well versed in ancap literature so I don’t need to rehash the nuance of private systems but know I’m not opposed to rules or order, my issue is with their imposition under statism with a monopoly on violence.

In any case, we’re so far at the other end of the spectrum to make this nothing more than theoretical today. In my lifetime I hope to see incremental pulls towards individual liberty. Maybe in 100 years there will be 1,000 Lichtensteins in Europe and 10,000 around the world - again it’s the directionality that interests me rather than the utopia Mike always insists is the goal of anarchism.

And I take your point about Iraq however a power vacuum is not a state of affairs to use as a measuring stick - particularly one entirely caused by the fiat world order.

3D printed guns are going to be easy to source in future and an armed society is a polite society - good luck to the roaming bands of rapists when every granny is packing and there’s no monopolists on violence to come put her away for responding to NAP violators.

These things are going to change the status quo of nation states, particularly with Bitcoin and your last para. There is no reason we cannot see this fragmentation underneath current systems; we see it with carveouts for the Amish in Pennsylvania or even the Aborigines here in Australia even under these big government systems - throw in sovereign money, arms proliferation, uncontrolled digital communications and now you’ve got a stew going.

But even that’s a medium term horizon and it’s going to take disorder for such things to emerge. Right now my focus is riding out the volatility of the unipolar collapse into the new multipolar status quo.

My priorities will likely shift over that time as well, I’m not too egotistic to admit that, but minarchism is a step towards anarchism and if eventually the overton window is between those two viewpoints then Bitcoin will have won.

d4760b16... 2y ago

Anarcho-Capitalism has no future because Bitcoin's zero entropy invalidates all heterodox economics from the 20th century.

Why do you bother trying to impose an analog technology like von mises or rothbard on Bitcoin. It's over for you guys

Mike Brock 2y ago

No system in the universe has zero entropy. Including bitcoin.

d4760b16... 2y ago

No physical system has zero entropy, agreed.

But Bitcoin's monetary policy is non physical information and that is where it's zero entropy is embedded

Mike Brock 2y ago

So um, I think I understand what you’re trying to say. While I would agree that abstract mathematical entities are not subject to the laws of thermodynamics, and indeed, many people would argue that these structures exist independent of the physical world (also referred to as mathematical platonism), I would also caution you that, computation is very much a physical process, on which bitcoin is based.

It relies purely on a physical substrate, and its value and utility is derived from social trust and interaction within domains that are fully constrained by these physical laws. In fact, these systems would not and could not exist if not for entropic processes, which give rise to the concept of useful energy to begin with.

The mere fact that bitcoin can be described in terms of of pure mathematics, does not overcome the problems that such abstractions cannot account for the problems of coordination, and the massive amount of normative dynamics that govern the relationship of these things with a society.

⚡️🌱🌙 2y ago

Claude Shannon demonstrated that information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are the same thing, the event horizon of a black hole also proves this… isn’t that effectively what Hawking radiation is? The radiation emitted by the loss of information.

Mike Brock 2y ago

💯

Mike Brock 2y ago

Yeah. There is quite a bit of confusion in people’s understanding about how mathematics relates to the real world. Without getting into Wigner, I think the thing I would say is that, the best we can ever do, given what we actually know about the limits of our knowledge and our capacity to even come to know things through measurement, consistently demonstrates that objectivity in the way the average person thinks about it, simply does not exist. Which is a discomforting thought for most people. But it is also overwhelming a conclusion that the empirical evidence, and the models that we use to interpret that evidence, and successfully make predictions with, point to.

Mike Brock 2y ago

I’m also under no illusions that getting people to believe or care about this fact is a realistic goal. People want things to be cut and dry. Black and white. True or false.

⚡️🌱🌙 2y ago

It will be interesting to see if Machine Learning is able to brute force any deeper / fuller model of physics than the Standard Model.

Some of the exascale machines coming online will be looking at hypothesising new models of physics over the coming decade.

If that did bear fruit, it would be quite a thing.

Not sure how I would feel about that.

Mike Brock 2y ago

In the short-to-medium term I think it’s unlikely. In fact, I would say that this is exactly the kind of thing that I expect that large language models are probably going to be consistently incapable of being useful for — in any parameter space. Large because nothing we’ve done in the world of deep learning, reinforcement based learning systems, currently is able to manifest any emergent understanding of model-dependent reasoning. They are essentially linear prediction models, that probably do not lead to any insights in that direction.

That said, I expect that we will eventually figure out how to build AI that can function in that way. But it might actually be further into the future than most people expect. Even given the dramatic advances we’re seeing in generative AI right now. It’s possible we’re quickly approaching a local maximum in that sense.

⚡️🌱🌙 2y ago

Mike,

I personally built an AI system that used laser interferometry data from bouncing an IR laser of the external wall of a pipe… that was able to accurately predict multiphase flow conditions inside the pipe.

It had zero parallels with LLM.

It just brute forced models for a lot of very complex fluid mechanics from an enormous amount of data.

The stuff in the press this week is just consumer AI. The stuff we did in industry is a very different beast. It doesn’t talk. It just understands things.

Mike Brock 2y ago

I want to know more!

⚡️🌱🌙 2y ago

Sure, we started installing laser interferometers into the UK’s National Flow Measurement Facility in 2017.

We collected an enormous amount of very price data with an extremely fast sample rate, basically on the excitation of pipe walls as they transport complex multiphase fluids (water, gas, oil, solids), we could determine all kinds of flow regimes (stratified, mist, slugging, etc) and the flow rates of all the phases.

It was extremely difficult and we were well ahead of our time.

I did a deal with the Flow Measurement lab, to get access for collecting a huge amount of data, and also did deals with supermajors to get access to Industrial sites to collect field data. I then did a deal with UK supercomputer centre to do the training.

We ran interferometers in many global locations concurrently, with each one connected to a network of fibre optic cables.

⚡️🌱🌙 2y ago

*precise data

Mike Brock 2y ago

Would you agree that LLMs and deep learning more generally, has taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of a lot research in symbolic AI, that I think is actually on the right path towards AI helping us unlock scientific understanding.

⚡️🌱🌙 2y ago

Weird, I wrote a long reply here and it’s gone?

Maybe I didn’t submit properly?

The answer is yes!

I also think LLM’s might actually slow human innovation for reasons I will explain again maybe later. Yes I know this sounds stupid and crazy.

Mike Brock 2y ago

Cool. Then I think we’re very much on the same page, because that’s kind of the point I was getting at above. I’ve kind of gotten into this knee-jerk reaction that when people talk about AI doing physics and helping to advance scientific understanding, that what they’re really saying is that LLMs are going to do this. Which I think they’re absolutely not capable of driving advances in those arenas.

⚡️🌱🌙 2y ago

100%

LLM’s are weak at the frontiers of human knowledge because there is no training data there. For LLM’s the abyss is abyssal. Entirely void of anything, it doesn’t exist in the training data and so it doesn’t exist.

For LLM’s hypothesising from the realm of training data beyond the frontier of knowledge is usually fatal. LLM’s are limited to human conceptual space, which is a relatively very small space.

I do think LLM’s will allow extremely high competence within the domain of human knowledge at scale.

But I doubt they will be hypothesising new concepts or doing any real innovation sans prior patterns.

The system we built with the interferometry got to the point of requesting specific data (flow conditions) for conditions that it had stubbornly high error rates. Sometimes it would request adjacent data or data where results were seemingly good, but this was to achieve less error across the solution space.

This is a kind of self awareness that has escaped the media and the public. Our AI couldn’t talk but it knew it’s strengths and weaknesses and was curious about areas where it had shortfalls. It demanded specific data to achieve specific further learning objectives.

Chat-GPT doesn’t demand information to self improve, it merely responds to prompts.

There are lots of nuances across all these products and technologies that are totally missed by the public.

Having been through the loop, the main thing to get right is the design of the data schema, and the design of the sensory surface that generates that schema. Any dataset that was not specifically designed for the task of training a specific model is usually a major headwind.

Any future projects I do, I would almost always want to generate thoughtfully designed data, rather than do a project because some legacy dataset merely exists.

Maximising signal is always worth it.

Mike Brock 2y ago

We shouldn't underplay how disruptive LLMs are going to be for a LOT of industries. They do bring a lot of utility to the table, and engineers are going to find lots of insane and innovative ways to apply them.

That said, they are not on track towards being general intelligence in any respect. Which isn't even an indictment of them. Narrow AI applications will on their own, reinvent the human-computer interface. But the nuances of what is involved in replicating something like even comes close to emulating human cognition, interfaces with complexities that we have barely even scratched the surface of understanding in. In neuroscience, philosophy of mind, or in artificial intelligence research.

⚡️🌱🌙 2y ago

Yeah LLM’s will change everything because the percentage of people doing innovation or anything beyond prior knowledge is probably <0.1% of people.

99.9% of people are going to be disrupted which in reality means everyone will be disrupted.

I just think LLM’s overall might slow down how fast the frontier advances in science and technology and will instead usher in an age of knitting together much more tightly all the stuff humans collectively know already.

There’s probably a big one time economic boost from knitting together collective knowledge.

d4760b16... 2y ago

Shannon did indeed prove the interlacing of information and thermodynamic but that requires a shit load of time to play out.

The 0 entropy I'm referring to is within human time scales and that a bitcoin will equal a bitcoin today, a year, a hundred years or many many thousands of years into the future without any degradation.

Now, I always objected to how hasty the Austrians were to capture Satoshi as one of their own (we all know Satoshi never once mentioned his/her politics or economic leanings). The Austrian version of hard money is gold which has a definable stock to flow while Bitcoin's S2F goes to infinity.

At first it seems reasonable for the Austrians to assume bitcoin is a harder version of gold, afterall infinity is a bigger number than 62.

But infinite S2F gives birth to a new behaviour that cannot be found in the gold markets.

When a sole owner of bitcoin pursues his selfish desires and adds value to his Bitcoin. Instantaneously, each and every other Bitcoin in existence is also enhanced in value to the same measure. And the spooky thing is this information transmission is faster than the speed of light.

Just as the Austrians assumed Bitcoin's time impervious nature and absolute security of ownership is - in the words of the Austrians - the ultimate validation of Von Mises.

Can we also assume this instant transmission of value from individual to collective is the ultimate validation of Communism?

And that separation of money and state actually leads to the perfect alignment of individual and state

Then if this marriage of Von Mises and Marx is indeed valid, no western individualism can describe this new gestalt, nor can collectivists.

IMO I think the only thought system in the world ready for this new unity is the little know African philosophy of Ubuntu

"I am therefore we are...."

Let me credit the wonderful Mischa Consela for these thoughts. She is a superb mathematician and philosopher from Madeira Portugal. Sadly she was thrown out of Bitcoin meetups and excluded from discussions by the self appointed Bitcoin OG governors that are proselytizing their rigid idea that Bitcoin is exclusively anarcho-capitalist (It appears to be that ancaps are very uncomfortable being told they Pristinated Communists)