RE: DECENTRALIZATION MEETS UNCERTAINTY
Hey my friend,
thank you for giving your thoughts.
Maybe I should make recordings more often. I like how the English feels to my tongue and the difference in pronouncing. Spanish also is a beautiful language (is it your mother tongue or is it Portuguese?). In fact, I like all languages which are not mine - it's my mathematics in trying to understand the world:)
You give some valuable food to the topic. I like that you provide first the simple definition: Power from one to many.
Yes, the thing is you always find both elements in the systems. I cannot think of a system right now which is either the one or the other. There is always an ongoing shift and it's hard to tell whether the influences are for the good or the bad. ... especially when you consider long time and delayed effects.
Which is one reason why people aim at a central intelligence to get rid of the uncertainty of whether a decision has predominantly positive or predominantly negative consequences.
... At such mental experiments I get a knot in my head, because in principle I need real events. And then, to be exemplary, they would have to be drastic. In the physical world there are events that cannot be predicted, such as natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, storms, droughts. In the online world, these are price collapses on the financial market, hacker attacks on central systems, and so on.
At the interfaces where both systems meet, the biggest unrest and unpredictable events occur. For example, companies that are discredited by any act and trigger a shit storm can rapidly affect the sales of their products, at least that's what economic analysts say (or popularity of a political party). It is easy to boycott products that are not needed for pure existence. However, it becomes difficult to boycott a company that penetrates almost all areas of people, as is assumed (or is a fact) by large corporations. Companies, for example, which are simultaneously active in the energy sector and in food production, and at the same time act as banks. They seem to be out of range by the single human. ...
The impersonal consensus is something which I find fascinating, thanks for bringing this term up. It doesn't come so much straightforward through the front door.
It is true that the field of contradiction you speak of, when you say that digital decentralization in a sense can lead to the creation of exactly one central unit, because such a central unit is not a construct and exists when two persons are connected, either in its materialized form (as laws) or in its ideal form (as moral, unwritten rules), such a central unit will never be eliminated, and decentralization will only reduce the power of such a unit so that the persons involved in it can have more power.
How aptly you express that.
My concern in this context is speed. If we increase the speed of the instruments by which we make decisions, we inevitably also increase the requirement on us humans to be responsive to act in the physical world.
However, I can also imagine that when an artificial intelligence is questioned, for example whether all nuclear power stations should be shut down, it will tillt. The computing power of such a machine would have to include the indirect consensus and I ask myself: How can it do this without becoming entangled in contradictions? But of course this is my individual human perspective from which I ask myself this question. On another level, one could become philosophical or metaphysical and ask: can a machine be breathed on by the human mind?
Haha, my mother tongue is Spanish, and although I must definitely learn Portuguese, I don't speak it.
I think that the problem you are referring to is not typical of decentralization, although it is related to a group of people who ask for decentralization (but not all).
The desire to give power to machines, rather than decentralization, has to do with misanthropy, that is, the hatred and distrust that a sector of the population presents towards humans in general, and therefore, seek to take away the power of the hands to the people, and give it to the machines.
The scenario you propose is not the one desired by many people who seek decentralization per se, but the one desired by people who specifically hate the current central entity.
But as you say, it is common for you to put a knot in your head with such an atypical scenario, you would have to make many assumptions, therefore, we would only be discussing an imaginary scenario, which may or may not even be possible to become.
Yes, you are right. I was looking at the term from the perspective of the buzz and the meaning attached to it.
One could think a little deeper what the people do with the power once its in their hands and how they get used to handle responsibility in a way that is consensus driven.
Hate and anxiety are actually supporting centralization without a human much being aware that that is so. It's the desire to shift power from one central agent to another one, perceived as "better" or "advanced".
I find it a good learning process to step into the imaginary scenario in order to find a point where I indeed come to the thought that it may or may be not possible to come. The very realization is a form of reflection I like to practice. That sometimes opens searching results which I haven't known of so far. It leaves me with the notion that I myself at least should know about my responsibilities and ethics.
I prefer to trust myself and others:) - though it's not always easy.