@‍CoinCube wrote:

Global cooperation can be maximized with decentralization technology. The main impediment to cooperation is risk of being trampled by centralized power.

The bolded sentence is false.

Handwaving. Lacks an argument. ^{_{Don’t you think that is mighty arrogant and condescending to send me a one sentence rebuttal. Are you my professor giving me a homework problem? (you know I am busy on technical work and don’t have time to waste on this, please be more direct)}}

EDIT: after writing the above and my explanation which is incorporated into my new response below, I was forwarded a further clarification from @‍CoinCube. I was very sleep deprived when I wrote the above due to overworking, so I’m not clear on whether the following clarification was sent by @‍CoinCube at the same time he wrote the above one sentence response. In any case, I adjust my response as follows.

The greatest obstacle to human progress is not a technological hurdle or being trampled by centralized power but something else entirely. I wrote about this in depth here I do not recall if he read it before or not.

Ah yes, I had read that before. The concepts in your linked post are derived from the understanding we gained from my original thesis about the stages of changes in the capital formation in various epochs and my theory about the coming Knowledge Age.

It’s correct that collectivized force was necessary to organize the aggregation of capital and security of fixed capital assets such as farms and factories. And to provide a way for labor to have a wealth redistribution social contract with the capitalists who otherwise will aggregate all of the capital, i.e. labor being fungible and in billions of abundance had otherwise no negotiating position. This predicament of labor and capital formation was precisely the dilemma that my Demise of Finance, Rise of Knowledge essay and original thesis had pointed out was being disrupted by technology and the maximum division-of-labor in the fledgling Knowledge Age. And it’s also important to note that the collective was to some extent driven by the selfish desires of labor to not only elevate their negotiating position, but steal as much as possibly via the collectivized power. The collective is a power vacuum, which is why the capitalists who could best game it and manipulate the electorate always rise to the top.

Note a new datum to add to our prior discussions is that Knowledge Age provides for virtual work and thus nuclear weapons become strategically impotent.

I’ll argue that the error of your morality and ethics argument is that morality and ethics are always driven by economics and game theory, not vice versa. Religion works because it encodes game theory and economics, not because of some cardinal virtue of (non-relativistic) absolute truth. There is no such thing as absolute truth or absolutely true ethics, because our Universe is necessarily and definitionally unbounded entropic relativistic (c.f. explanation near the bottom of this post). A particular orthodoxy works at a particular epoch because of the game theory and economics of that epoch. More directly, humans are maximizing their evolutionary strategy (both long-tail genetic and moreover the accelerated Freeman Dyson’s cultural and technological evolution).

More bluntly, humans defect or cooperate according to the Nash equilibrium of the system in play.

The economically relevant players have a risk due to unfair play. Think about in terms of a Nash equilibrium or Prisoner’s dilemma. When players know the possible outcomes and strategies, the equilibrium is more performant.

Here is an example of the risks with top-down cheating, but hey but getting raped by bankers and feminists is more pleasant than being the step-brother of Kim Jong-un.

Religion appears to be for you (now, unlike in your past) a hammer for every philosophical nail. Perhaps ditto for me decentralization (although as a counter point, I’m employing centralization to initially develop and launch my decentralization project).

Problem with the “don’t drink goats milk on Thursdays” and “universe loves you if you love the universe” sort of religious mind control, is it just doesn’t work well any more, because humans have access to information and so they can’t be fooled so easily (except of course for the billions of witless who fall into the woodchipper). Massive rise of Christianity in China is a normalization reactionary mania to the former extremist prohibition imposed by Communism, and not up to par with our philosophical state-of-art edge (China is philosophically retarded/followers and always trying to catch up with the Caucasian whites, because they lack our superior IQ distribution curve). And the group coercion of orthodoxy on morals, fulfills Max Weber’s canonical definition of a government: a monopoly on the use of force. What may work better now is genuine concepts about how to cooperate with others in a way that generates prosperity and maximizes the Nash equilibrium of individuals in the accelerated cultural and technological evolution.

(The major problem that remains is that females have a monopoly on reproduction, yet their hindbrain leads to societalcide if not curtailed by some force. So either we men need a way to reproduce without women or by paying women, so we can compete economically with women who fuck up the society, else we need to retain a top-down society-wide orthodoxy on control of women. I prefer the former decentralized approach and you seem to prefer some religious orthodoxy yet you let the women’s hindbrain defection camel’s nose under the tent as evident for the statistics of Judaism’s inexorable drift Left as explained upthread and your choice of a minority Jewish sect will not ameliorate this effect because you over-educate your daughters, lift the females up on pedestals, and give the women too much leeway to do “dog rescue” and other camel nose under the tent hindbrain divergence. It’s a very difficult problem. We K strategy men do love the females in our lives and want them to maximize their lives.)

Physics, economics and game theory is the scientific reality of the Universe. Meta physics is just someone hasn’t developed and tested a unified model and/or such a unified model will always have holes else it would be total and not relativistic.

For each meta physics problem resolved with a unified model, a new inexplicable phenomenon or concept will emerge. Meta physics will always exist because I’ve explained elsewhere that our existence must necessarily be composed on unbounded unknowns (i.e. uncertainty aka entropy) else we do not exist other than as some preordained static game where all the outcomes were known at the birth of the universe. The static universe is impossible because it would necessitate that something exists (mathematically) “outside” the bound, but then by definition that is unbounded.

Decentralization technology can possibly develop alongside the development of the world government. The world government is forming to deal with the remnants of the old world capital formation problems, which is the dying paradigm. Decentralization is the fledgling and rising paradigm. The cooperation that can be eventually attained from decentralization will eventually dwarf the increase in entropy due to the formation of the world government (as well is probably one of the driving forces for its formation). @‍CoinCube many times I have explained this bifurcation thesis to you and others at BCT. I’m tired of repeating myself. I hope my thesis is finally understood with this comment post.

Commensurately there’s no absolute truth of philosophical arguments such as this one, as they’re relativistic like everything else. There isn’t a winner. Contention in philosophy is part of our existence. It’s disingenuous however to not cite the opposing argument.

P.S. There is no metric to objectively conclude which philosophy is more correct. Each of us chooses a path and has an outcome. As I see it, you’re maximizing and riding on the coattails of the end stage of progressivism, while also making some token investments in Bitcoin as a slight hedge. Whereas, I’m full throttle overboard into the deep of decentralization. My strategy is much more risky, as has been my life pattern. I live for the risk and excitement of disruption. The outcomes of our differing philosophies will go on well beyond our lifespans. My major regret is the ideological disagreements can be so damaging to friendships.