Clusivity by Tauchain

karov (56)in #tauchain • 6 years ago (edited)

This topic is loaded in the barrel since - as I see in my draft records - April 2018. It is my free assotiations on the major topic of the aka ''tragedy of the commons'' [1] refracted through the prism of things which I had to pass through with Tau [2] in mind. In the months it replicated itself into numerous subtopics and threatens to grow in several general theories [3] so I decided to better unleash it in the wild and to handle it with your help and if necessary to tame and domesticate it and its progeny by the coming power of Tau.

The problem of the 'tragedy of the commons' as a symptom of the more general theme of ownership [4].

I think I kinda nailed it. It seems this approach brings serious inference power, i.e. via it most of what we know can be derived. Of course it lacks mathematical / logical rigor, but still even on such haiku expression level seems to work.

Yes, there is such a word. In linguistics [5].

Per se, ''clusivity'' is modulus [6] of inclusion [7] and/or exclusion [8].

Absolute value in maths denotes 'distance' from zero, regardless of direction, which seems to translate well for depicting the spectrum between 'included' and 'excluded', if we imagine that excluded=-1 as the opposite of included=1, and zero measures state of equal clusion. The other, more intuitive and easier to grasp, way would be of the fuzzy logic [9] of zero to one fractional values, where zero is no clusivity, and one is full clusivity. Lets say we take one of the possible 'directions' and 0= complete exclusion, 1=complete inclusion ... multi-values in between.

Of course due to purely physical reasons 0 and 1 are asymptotic values - ever to approach, never to reach. And of course due to purely physical, finitist [10] reasons the clusivity fuzzy spectrum is quantized [11], not smoothly continuous [12].

Attending etymology usually pays off, because of two reasons:

words history maps onto the (collectively perceived/shared) world-line [13] :)

it seems that the natural human languages convey not meaning but ... indexes. (another separate vast topic!). Labels or addresses to ... files in a more or less commonalized ledgers of records or memory states [14]. Understanding achieved where words used converge onto shared meaning items. Fit clicks. Because it is not necessary, nor is possible, indexed items to coincide perfectly, they are in relation of resemblance or morphism [15].

Thus, we can visualize all languages as a single language, a continuum with mascons [16] of commonality of indexing-meaning pairs. Like a strange form of semantic entanglement [17] - to be inevitably hacked someday open and to give birth to endless valuable technologies...

What does this up to now have in common with Commons, Ownership and Tau?

Interestingly, the etymology of 'include' [18] automatically leads to its privatization-publicization functionality.

It is cognate with both.:

'Lock' (resp. keys)

'Close' , as being near (resp. to access, control)

Thus:

private = everybody else but the key-holder being locked-out, only key-holder accessing, or in control.

public = everybody locked-in, or not locked-out or key-less go.

The private/public ''divide'' as key/access driven relation.

Do we ''have the keys''? Or ''are we'' the keys (given non-computerized 'face-control' type of access cases)?

NO. For any entity and for every access, the keys are not the entity or are not property of it.

Key is OUTPUT by us. Fed as INPUT into other systems, so they to perform.

Society can be imaged as a network of partially-black boxes [19] , where free will is function of the box certainty of autoreflection and trust is function of the uncertanty of other boxes behavior prediction ...

We do not know and in most cases can not know what's going on inside other peoples or organizations or other artifacts inner workings, but we know that by inserting Key we can make them to perform certain expected predicted action.

The boxes are said to be partially-black for the non-black part denoting the zone of predictability - i.e. ''if I input this into that black-box I know it will return to me this and that specifically''...

Key, be it biometrics, piece of shaped metal, digital string of bits ... a reason which causes, a input which brings the outcome of access to...

Important side note is that in the case of key-pair philosophy it is NOT two keys - public & private, but rather a (public) padlock [20] and THE (private) key [21], so everybody can lock it but only the key-owner can unlock it / access it.

You maybe have noticed one of my many times repeated slogans [22]:

LAW IS BETWEEN, CODE IS WITHIN

, coming to delineate the map of Trust - i.e. where force is needed ( ''I trust you only as much as I can make you to'') and the self-enforcing systems of blockchain and god knows what else possible systems.

The whole picture is pretty insightful in both the blockchain and the trust (e.g. force) [23] context, when we realize that it is not so much about de jure, but purely de facto situation. Even when minding the Law. For, private-public being function of the performance and efficiency of the protocol. Incl. the key-making ones. Incl. the key-breaking ones.

On The Law and the related trust=enforcement relations to code and protocols, I'll go some other time in detail (actually lots of times because it seems the bunch of concepts here have lots of fruitful logical consequences), but the inevitable conclusion seems to be that it is in general a Clusivity thing even in the Legal case. For it is matter of accessing the output of compulsory legal action by inputting a ... key.

The recent EU intellectual law directive [24] is alphabetical example of the Fiat [25] approach of the external enforcement (as opposed to the cryptographic 'trustless' one). The Fiat way of enforcing ownership rights is also a Clusivity system. The subjects victims of property rights breach ACCESSES the authorities with their ID information, evidence, procedural codes and as output they have to receive enforcement actions vs the delinquents [26]. The cost of trust [27] this way might be staggering and it is apparent that such a system may easily get clogged and to implosively unscale [28], [29].

Tau is mostly about knowledge economy. Economy without ownership ... is very hard, if not impossible to imagine. Like [30], where there ain't between anymore but everything is within, but even all white boxes system is prone to failures [31]. Especially when we go past the veil of the ideological cliche definitions and take ''to own'' = ''to access'' in the purely factual, physical sense of the word.

In this sense each and every economy is a Clusivity management system.

Tau promises the ultimate Clusivity management.

Homework:

the notorious over thousand years old case with the Little Red Hood and the Big Bad Wolf and Grandma.: who and how accesses what? (Incl. also the Tough Hunter actions). [32]
explain to yourself procedurally how you access your or rented car.
how you pass ID and other checks on an airport.
how (procedurally) you go to the public park or beach.
although belonging to the government is a military base private or public?
how you access a family dinner?
...

REFERENCES:

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[2] - http://www.idni.org/

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

[4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership

[5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity

[6] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value

[7] - https://www.etymonline.com/word/inclusion

[8] - https://www.etymonline.com/word/exclusion

[9] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

[10] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism

[11] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete