The passage is fascinating because the conclusion looks so self-evidently wrong from our perspective. Agents with the same goals are in contention with each other? Agents with different goals get along? What!?
Is this actually wrong? It seems to be a more math flavored restatement of Girardian mimesis, and how mimesis minimizes distinction which causes rivalry and conflict.
Is this actually wrong? It seems to be a more math flavored restatement of Girardian mimesis, and how mimesis minimizes distinction which causes rivalry and conflict.