Tauchain: The Internet of Languages, The Smart Constitution, and Universal Darwinism.

Machine Learning and Computational Evolution

Will the best rules evolve over time? Will the best constitution emerge as the community grows in size? What will happen?

I don't know the answer to these questions but let's explore first the concept of what a smart constitution is? Traditionally a constitution is a written set of fundamental principles which act as a foundation or basis for how a state or community is to govern itself. If we look at networks and think of the even more advanced yet foreign concept of a "network state" or a cyberspace governance platform then we would have very different options for how these concepts could evolve compared to the traditional geographically defined communities or states.

Geography is still going to matter but with the birth of something like 5G there is going to reach a point in the very near future (next 10 years) where communication is ubiquitous. Not only would communication be ubiquitous but computation also would be ubiquitous once 5G hits stride. Governance of a network whether it be community defined, or defined by geographical limits such as national firewalls, it's still going to be the case that there will be some form of governance.

Computational evolution appeals to the fact that hardware, software, but also principles, values, and thought patterns on governance, can and should evolve over time. What makes Tau unique in specific is that the platform is future proof in this way by allowing the Internet of Languages, the Smart Constitution, to be built due to the decidability features inherent to partial fixed point logic over finite space. According to my current understanding Tau will allow for the Internet of languages by TML (Tau Meta Language) which is to allow for the construction of automated translations between formal languages. If we assume the quality of these translations can improve over time, we may get closer and closer to the day where people can speak in plain English and have that be translated from voice to text, from text to formal language equivalent, and then finally to code via code synthesis.

So, the will the best rise to the top? Universal Darwinism conceptually provides a philosophical and technical framework for this understanding. What we would have is a "fitness landscape" and we could think of the different languages, or different constitutions, as "species". They exist to solve some problem but in order to do that they must adapt to a changing environment which means a constitution is never finished, and it means that the Internet of languages with it's ability to improve upon translation is also never finished. As the quality of our ability to express our values, our principles, our worldviews, improves over time then so too would the quality of whichever constitutions can be generated from this.

From a smart constitution, technically and theoretically it should be possible to generate rules, norms, or "laws". These laws would for example have to be generated in such a way so that it can never violate the principles which are at the base level or foundation. So for example human rights, or civil rights, or whichever agreed upon foundation principles which get added to the smart constitution from shared agreement (consensus) then all rules, all laws, all code, which gets generated, must always be generated in a way where it does not violate this. Of course this is not going to be as simple as code generation because who is to say really if certain nuanced rights are being violated? But what could be known is that the code itself cannot violate rights by design even if the users of the platform can still violate rights, break international laws, etc.

So while the code, the principles, the languages (including TML itself) can improve over time it does not mean the people, the users, the participants, will necessarily improve along with it. That being said it might be possible to apply Tau in such a way so that lawmakers around the world can more effectively make laws which do not violate rights. It might be possible to generate laws, to generate regulations, to generate principles, based on known worldviews, values, and opinions, in ways which only a machine learning algorithm could come up with. Do we take these recommendations or machine generated laws and apply them or do we consider lawmaking more of an art which only human beings should do? The point is that technology like Tauchain or even more centralized technology such as a super computer with machine learning algos, are offering new pathways for law and lawmaking to evolve.

Machine generated laws would assume that human beings want laws which actually make logical sense, and which are goal driven. Many laws that exist do not have a logical basis, or make logical sense, and some are put in place merely to satisfy the popular opinion of that moment in time. So while Tau may give new options it does not mean people, society, and lawmakers will necessary want these options. The point is that these options to some extent can exist, and you can at least in theory do computational lawmaking, or computational rulemaking.

More likely is that something like Tau could provide decision support. A user could be a lawmaker and this lawmaker could for example be trying to determine which law is likely to produce the best outcome from a list of laws and this could be determined from the data by applying machine learning (to some extent). So you could apply also Tau as decision support for real world decisions if there is enough data available.

In the context of voluntary agreements between nodes on the network then it would be relatively easy for a smart constitution to provide a basis for generating code which assumes certain worldviews or certain principles by the user and which enables voluntary agreements in adherence to those principles, views, laws or norms. Whether this would hold up in court is another matter entirely but it does mean participants on the network could participate with the network in a manner which they agreed to participate.