Yup thx! There are a few lectures by him that have varying points. There are also MANY versions of “Ideal Money”, some slight different, others that are wholly different.
Flinter
Karma: 10
How is it going to calculate such things with out a metric for valuation?
If that’s what we would have available, then I think FAI would be mostly solved.
Yes so you are seeing the significance of Nash’s proposal, but you don’t believe he is that smart, who is that on?
Well, since it’s an automated process, it filters anything, be it spam, Nash’ argument or the words of Omega itself. As I said, it’s a compromise. The best we could come up, so far. If you have a better solution, spell it out.
You are defending irrationality. It filters out the one thing it needs to not filter out. A better solution would be to eliminate it.
No, mine was just a suggestion for a way that would allow you to lubricate the social friction I think you’re experiencing here. On the other side, I am reading your posts carefully and reply when done thinking about.
Sigh, I guess we never will address Ideal Money will we. I’ve already spent all day with like 10 posters, that refuse to do anything but attack my character. Not surprising since the subject was insta-mod’d anyways.
Well, as a last hail mary, I just want to say I think you are dumb for purposefully trolling me like this and refusing to address Nash’s proposal. Its John Nash, and he spent his life on this proposal, ya’ll won’t even read it.
There is no intelligence here, just pompous robots avoiding real truth.
Do you know who Nash is? It took 40 years the first time to acknowledge what he did with his equilibrium work. Its been 20 in regard to Ideal Money...
The context is “Ideal Money”. When I am asking if we have a shared meaning, I am asking if we agree on what the standard definition for the word is. For someone to say “Ideal Money doesn’t exist” is to not use the standard definition of the word Ideal.
I have already discussed Ideal Money with people on this forum that have made this error.
That is the context of this thread. But this thread was a sub point to the main thread, the main thread was moderated away, so no one saw it and so this thread doesn’t make sense, because the context was taken from me.
Thank you. No see. Ideal means “conceptual”. But you are probably unaware of the importance of pointing this out because the mod took away my ability to put it all together.
Ideal, example, model refer to something considered as a standard to strive toward or something considered worthy of imitation. An ideal is a concept or standard of perfection, existing merely as an image in the mind, or based upon a person or upon conduct: We admire the high ideals of a religious person.
People are arguing Nash Ideal Money can’t exist; they don’t understand the meaning of ideal. Might you quickly skim through this thread to understand exactly what I am saying: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ogp/a_proposal_for_a_simpler_solution_to_all_these/
Its a quick skim, you’ll figure it out.
If it filters out Nash’s argument, Ideal Money, then it makes no sense and is completely irrational for it.
Think about what you are saying, its ridiculous.
Are you also unwilling to discuss the content, and simply are stuck on my posting methods, writing, and character?
Yup but that ruins my first post cause I wanted it to be something specific. So what you are effectively saying is I have to make a sh!t post first, and I think that is irrational. I came here to bring value not be filtered from doing so.
Cheers!
You are not using the standard accepted definition of the word ideal, please look it up, and or create a shared meaning with me.
“Nothing in the lecture you linked to a transcript of makes the extremely strong claim you are making, that we should use “ideal money” as a measure for literally all human values.”
This is a founded extrapolation of mine and an implication of his.
Yes the mod said Hayek > Nash and its not a joke its a prevailing ignorant attitude, by those that read Hayek but won’t read and address Nash.
It’s not significant if I omitted something, I was told it was effectively petty (my words) but it isn’t. It’s significant because John Nash said so.
First of all, we will all do better without the hectoring tone. But yes, I was ignorant of this. There is scarcely any limit to the things I don’t know about. However, nothing I have read about Nash suggests to me that it’s correct to describe “ideal money” as “his life’s work”.
He lectured and wrote on the topic for the last 20 years of his life, and it is something he had been developing in his 30′s
You are not helping your case here. He was, at this point, suffering pretty badly from schizophrenia. And so far as I can tell, the reasons he himself gave for leaving the US were nothing to do with the quality of US and Swiss money.
Yes he was running around saying the governments are colluding against the people and he was going to be their savior. In Ideal Money he explains how the Keyneisan view of economics is comparable to bolshevik communism. These are facts and they show that he never abandoned his views when he was “schizophrenic”, and that they are in fact based on rational thinking. And yes it is his own admission that this is why he fled the US and denounced his citizenship.
Let me see if I’ve understood this right. You want a currency pegged to some basket of goods (“global commodities”, as you put it), which you will call “ideal money”. You then want to convert everything to money according to the prices set by a perfectly efficient infinitely liquid market, even though no such market has ever existed and no market at all is ever likely to exist for many of the things people actually care about. And you think this is a suitable foundation for the values of an AI, as a response to people who worry about the values of an AI whose vastly superhuman intellect will enable it to transform our world beyond all recognition.
What exactly do you expect to happen to the values of those “global commodities” in the presence of such an AI?
Yup exactly, and we are to create AI that basis its decisions on optimizing value in relation to procuring what would effectively be “ideal money”
But nothing in what you quote does any such thing.
I don’t need to do anything to show Nash made such a proposal of a unit of value expect quote him saying it is his intention. I don’t need to put the unit in your hand.
It may be important to you that I do so, but right now I have other priorities. Maybe tomorrow.
It’s simply and quick, your definition of ideal is not inline with the standard definition. Google it.
The quickest way to understand Nash’s proposal is through these two threads:
This first link introduces the concept of a stable metric for value and starts to show how it could be used to solve many complex problems (especially ones discussed on this forum):
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ogp/a_proposal_for_a_simpler_solution_to_all_these/
This thread questions our shared meaning of ideal, if we have one, and if we can have one:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/ogt/do_we_share_a_definition_for_the_word_ideal/
John Nash’s Ideal Money: The Motivations of Savings and Thrift
Given time, markets reach equilibria related to the wants of the participants. Sure. So far as I know, there are no guarantees on how long they will take to do so (and, e.g., if you’re comparing finding market equilibria with solving chess, the sort of market setup you’d need to contrive to get something equivalent to solving chess surely will take a long time to converge, precisely because finding the optimum would be equivalent to solving chess; in the real world, what would presumably actually happen is that the market would settle down to something very much not equivalent to actually solving chess, and maybe a few hedge funds with superpowered computers and rooms full of PhDs would extract a little extra money from it every now and then); and there are any number of possible equilibria related to the wants of the participants.
Thats where poker is relevant. Firstly I am not speaking to reality, that is your implication. I spoke about a hypothetical future from an asymptotic limit. In regard to poker I have redesigned the industry to foster a future environment in which the players act like a market that brute force solve the game. The missing element from chess, or axiom in regard to poker, is that it should be arranged so players can accurately asses who the skilled players are. So we are saying theoretically it COULD be solved this way, and not speaking to how reality will unfold (yet).
Well, we could cut out anything from the dialogue. But you can’t make bits of human values go away just by not talking about them, and the fact is that lots of things humans value are not practically reducible to money, and probably never will be.
I will show this isn’t wholly true but I cannot do it before understanding Nash’s proposal together, therefore I cannot speak to it atm.
That … isn’t quite how human relationships generally work. But, be that as it may, I’m still not seeing a market here that’s capable of assigning meaningful prices to love or even to concrete manifestations of love. I mean, when something is both a monopoly and a monopsony, you haven’t really got much of a market.
Some as the above, I can’t speak to this intelligibly yet.
I don’t know why you aren’t. I’m not because I have only a hazy idea what it is (and in fact I am skeptical that what he was trying to do was such a metric),
Yes it was:
The metric system does not work because french chefs de cuisine are constantly cooking up new and delicious culinary creations which the rest of the world then follows imitatively. Rather, it works because it is something invented on a scientific basis…Our view is that if it is viewed scientifically and rationally (which is psychologically difficult!) that money should have the function of a standard of measurement and thus that it should become comparable to the watt or the hour or a degree of temperature.~Ideal Money
Its exactly his proposal.
and because it’s only after much conversation that you’ve made it explicit that your proposal is intended to be exactly Nash’s proposal (if indeed it is). Was I supposed to read your mind? Regrettably, that is not among my abilities
Perhaps there is some history here of which I’m unaware; I have no idea what you’re referring to. I haven’t generally found that the moderators here zap things just out of spite, and if something you posted got “buried” I’m guessing there was a reason.
Yes exactly the mod messed up our dialogue, you weren’t properly introduced, but the introduction was written, and moderated away. The mod said Hayek > Nash
It was irrational.
I’m not sure what your objection actually is. If someone comes along and says “I have a solution to the problems in the Middle East. Let us first of all suppose that Israel is located in Western Europe and that all Jews and Arabs have converted to Christianity” then it is perfectly in order to say no, those things aren’t actually true, and there’s little point discussing what would follow if they were. If you are seriously claiming that money provides a solution to what previously looked like difficult value-alignment problems because everyone agrees on how much money everything is worth, then this is about as obviously untrue as our hypothetical diplomat’s premise. I expect you aren’t actually saying quite that; perhaps at some point you will clarify just what you are saying.
Yes exactly. You want to say because the premise is silly or not reality then it cannot be useful. That is wholly untrue and I think I recall reading an article here about this. Can we not use premises that lead to useful conclusions that don’t rely on the premise? You have no basis for denying that we can. I know this. Can I ask you if we share the definition of ideal: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ogt/do_we_share_a_definition_for_the_word_ideal/
I don’t see much sign that humanity is “evolving rationally”, at least not if that’s meant to mean that we’re somehow approaching perfect rationality. (It’s not even clear what that means without infinite computational resources, which there’s also no reason to think we’re approaching; in fact, there are fundamental physical reasons to think we can’t be.)
Yes because you don’t know that our rationality is tied to the quality of our money in the Nashian sense, or in other words if our money is stable in relation to an objective metric for value then we become (by definition of some objective truth) more rational. I can’t make this point though, without Nash’s works.
If you are not interested in explaining how you reach your conclusions, then I am not interested in talking to you. Please let me know whether you are or not, and if not then I can stop wasting my time.
Yes I am in the process of it, and you might likely be near understanding, but it takes a moment to present and the mod took my legs out.
You are doing a good job of giving the impression that you are. There is certainly nothing resembling a consensus across “society” that money answers all questions of value.
No that is not what I said or how I said it. Money exists because we need to all agree on the value of something in order to have efficiency in the markets. To say “I don’t agree with the American dollar” doesn’t change that.
Yup. Firstly you fully admit that you are, previous to my entry, ignorant to Nash’s lifes work. What he spoke of and wrote of for 20 years country to country. It is what he fled the US about when he was younger, to exchange his USD for the Swiss franc because it was of superior quality, and in which the US navy tracked him down and took him back in chains (this is accepted not conspiracy).
Nash absolutely defined an incorruptible basis for valuation and most people have it labeled as an “icpi” industrial price consumption index. It is effectively an aggregate of stable prices across the global commodities, and it can be said if our money were pegged to it then it would be effectively perfectly stable over time. And of course it would need to be adjusted which means it is politically corruptible, but Nash’s actual proposal solves for this too:
…my personal view is that a practical global money might most favorably evolve through the development first of a few regional currencies of truly good quality. And then the “integration” or “coordination” of those into a global currency would become just a technical problem. (Here I am thinking of a politically neutral form of a technological utility rather than of a money which might, for example, be used to exert pressures in a conflict situation comparable to “the cold war”.)
Our view is that if it is viewed scientifically and rationally (which is psychologically difficult!) that money should have the function of a standard of measurement and thus that it should become comparable to the watt or the hour or a degree of temperature.~All quotes are from Ideal Money
Ideal Money is an incorruptible basis for value.
Now it is important you attend to this thread, its quick, very quick: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ogt/do_we_share_a_definition_for_the_word_ideal/
I haven’t had a chance yet, but it’s now on my list. I am digging into Keynesian Economics and Revealed preference theory at the moment.
Nash explains how Keynesian is just another form of failed communism. He explains even post-Keynesians are just Keynesians (alluding to the fact that he is thinking FAR beyond anyone even just emerging crypto currencies. He explains how a revolution will end the Keynesian ero of central banking.
More importantly you said we aren’t being ignorant to Nash, and I showed that you are and still assert we all are. He did something significant with his whole life and stored it in 8 pages. I read more than 8 pages of links from you alone I think ;)
I hope so, but just to be clear it’s best to state your premises. Especially when presenting your information.
My premise is well stated. The introduction of an objective stable unit of value. But the mod moderated my presentation out of existence.
Nash was a mathematician, I would love to see the easiest explanation to understand that you have.
He was much more than that, and the mod removed the explanation! It involves two thread that still exist that I made today though, one on how to solve every problem on this forum, and another that discusses the shared meaning of ideal. Read those and that is the best explanation ever.
Main is currently closed. As a matter of retirement, it’s mostly inactive. And is reserved for posts that both excel in ideas and clear presentation of those ideas to a wide audience. If I were to drop a link to the homepage of wikipedia and suggest all folks need to read it, that would be of little help to anyone, and would not make it to main.
Nash’s works Ideal Money obviously belongs there. Don’t be irrational.
Yes its related. But I come from a wildly different perspective in which you are unknowingly making assumptions that I don’t subscribe too.
What does it mean to you, if instead of creating goals that might (likely) be desires that are eventually contradicted as such by our actions, we create goals that are inline with our actions?
So we change our desires to match our actions rather than our actions to match our desires.
The link was broken, and I don’t mind them, I expected it, and I think they are useful, I certainly skim them and re-read them if I don’t feel I got the point.
You are underestimating the time and effort I have put into all this. Years. And I really appreciate it but you see its such a difficult concept and so deep to traverse that it needs to be presented in a certain way. And its not rational for you to make the assumption that your help would taint the presentation (especially cause it would)
Nash was a brilliant gift to humanity.
You have no idea what he did, no clue. You don’t know anything about him. No one does. He spent his whole life on this problem of Ideal Money and 20 years explaining the solution.
Why will no one read and address his works?
Cheers!
Thank you. Yes I expected it did. But these days tapping out in martial arts implies win/loss. I am happy to see the definition here doesn’t imply that, but at the same time there seems to be a need to imply “im not saying you won but I am tapping”, which is still different than I teach.
My students look for equilibrium positions and so there is never a purposeful ends. They don’t seek ends through conflict they seek re-solution through inquiry.
I have read many posts from here and look forward to reading more. But I will be sad if I can’t engage because we all lose a lot of value, and on my first real post I was warned I would be banned if I continue and I’m not sure what I am to avoid (or why we can’t have a thread/discussion about 20 years of Nash’s works that no one is talking about).
To the first set of paragraphs...ie:
If I start by saying there IS such a currency? What does “ideal” mean to you? I think you aren’t using the standard definition: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ogt/do_we_share_a_defintion_for_the_word_ideal/
I did not come here to specifically make claims in regard to AI. What does it mean to ignore Nash’s works, his argument, and the general concept of what Ideal Money is...and then to say that my delivery and argument is weak in regard to AI?
No you have not understood the nature of money. A money is chosen by the general market, it is propriety. This is what I mean to say in this regard, no more, no less. To tell me you don’t like money therefore not “everyone” uses it is petty and simply perpetuating conflict.
There is nothing to argue about in regard to pointing out that we converge on it, in the sense that we all socially agree to it. If you want to show that I am wrong by saying that you specifically don’t, or one , or two people, then you are not interesting in dialogue you are being petty and silly.