Oh, I assure you I wrote it myself. With the incorrect use of bodies when I should have used the possessive "body's" and all.

It shows up as invalid for me in Snort.social. I don't know why.

no

Does my NIP-5 show up as invalid?

Believing that because internal contradictions can be shown to exist within a system, that presages the inevitable collapse or failure of that system is one of the biggest reasoning errors that really smart people make when trying to think about complex systems like large scale human societies.

The mere fact that hypocrisy can easily be demonstrated, does not mean the system cannot continue to function indefinitely.

Thus, if you're looking at say, a nation state like the United States, and you're observing contradictions in its government, in its systems, and in its collective behaviors, and this gives you confidence that collapse is assured, you're implicitly making the argument that only internally-consistent systems can be stable across time. Except, no complex systems in nature are necessarily internally-consistent -- assuming that what we mean by that, is that the constituent components of that system are at some optimal equilibrium with each other. Everything we know about complex systems is that they are, at best, metastable. Including the system that is the human body. It exists within a range of stability, with your bodies functions providing feedback mechanisms to compensate for internal and external thresholds. Within a certain phase space, your body's metabolism can function. But it's never at a stable equilibrium. Stability is actually a constant moving target, that innumerable amounts of feedback mechanisms, through metabolic processes are constantly acting to compensate for changes. Adaptive complex systems are what show stability across time. And part of the reason why they have to be adaptive in the first place, is they are constantly having to respond to contradictions, and balance them to keep chasing the moving equilibrium.

Complex systems like human societies and even nations operate in a phase space too. The apparent contradictions do not represent some kind of sign that the system is operating outside of the phase space of its ability to adapt to stresses on it. Thinking in this puritanical way is going to cause you to fool yourself into thinking certain things are inevitable in the future, which are not inevitable at all.

I am not one who really subscribes to the idea of a universal consciousness as useful idea that provides any explanatory power, or is helpful in understanding the universe or the natural of our own consciousness.

I would agree that trying to use fundamental physics to describe complex systems and emergent behavior within those systems is completely infeasible. However, when you're implicating metaphysics and making claims about moral truths around say, natural rights, the nature of property, the categorical distinction between social and economic, it's worth asking pretty deep questions around where people think the limits of those categories actually *are*. For instance, if you're going to say that an Individual's "economic decision" has a particular moral purchase, it's worth getting to the bottom of why one would insist that's true. I think people implicate metaphysics implicitly in a lot of these sorts of conversations without even realizing they're doing it. Therefore, my purchase in invoking fundamental physics, is not to suggest that F=ma or Schrödinger's equation is an appropriate level of description to talk about human social society or human economic affairs -- because they're really not, and you need to speak in the language of emergent systems to comprehend emergent systems -- my purpose is to argue that there is nothing metaphysically going on between the most fundamental description and the emergent description. There's no real metaphysical boundary. It's just beyond our capacity to measure, and beyond our capacity to comprehend the complexity within higher order systems. That doesn't make them any less completely consistent -- even in higher-order complexity -- with fundamental physics. To wit, if you're saying otherwise in the context of this discussion, you're arguing that human choices are of supernatural origin, ipso facto.

When a human makes a conscious decision to act on the outside world, do you believe this decision happens outside the laws of physics? That, consciousness has a supernatural influence on the world, as libertarian free will more or less assumes?

This is where my affinity for David Hume's epistemology becomes very important. 😉

This is going to sound like a cop-out, but I promise you it isn't. But what I'd say to this is "it depends". Specifically, it depends on what level of description of reality and emergence that you're operating within axiomatically.

To give you an example of what I mean when I say this, that should be easy for anyone to understand. Both of the following descriptions are completely accurate descriptions of a human being:

1. A human is a self-replicating organism comprised of approximately 6.5 octillion atoms, on average.

and 2. A human a intelligent, social animal, capable of understanding its own nature, the nature of the world around it, and capable of reasoning about past, present and future.

Both of these are valid descriptions on their own, but they describe a human at different levels of emergent description within physical systems.

Okay. Maybe I misunderstood the intentions of you saying that. So let me ask a question: do you think there is anything different going on?

What makes you so sure that economic decisions you make are substantively different? I'm not trying to argue that a peacock is a moral agent, equivalent to you -- I certainly don't think that. However, I think you're taking a lot for granted here, when you make a hard categorical distinction like this.

What specifically is an "economic decision" and what is a non-economic decision?

There's some pretty bad bugs with threading in Snort. When I click on replies to recenter the threat, Snort says it can't load the parent note and says it's "missing". But when it click on that note, it loads, and the reply in question is not visible as a child of the thread. I'm literally dealing with that right now in this very thread.

Astral.ninja has been even worse for me, in terms of it just struggling to see the data from all the same relays. Way worse than Damus was. Snort seems the best alternative in this respect, but it has other weird bugs.

Yeah. Snort.social seems to be buggy and is sporadically blowing away my profile. I've had to fix it several times now.

Yeah, I mean, I think "price" is just as good of a gauge of "value", as almost anything that I can think of -- even if they're not literally the *same* thing.

Yet, behavioral choices are still completely part of the physical systems. Preferences are not detached from incentives and path dependency from the physical world around you. They are, in fact, intrinsically-linked, even if our egos would prefer to believe otherwise.

Snort and Iris still need a lot of work. Been using them since being kicked off Damus. Despite my attempts to connect both Iris and Snort to identical relays, I see persistent differences in what notes are visible in each client, such as the thread about "economic value". I have to switch back and forth between both clients to see everyone in the thread. I miss Damus :(

I think the physics concept of "useful energy" is actually critically important to "economic activity" in a foundational way. I mean, how can it not? Unless you believe human affairs exist outside of nature.