[FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Right. But what I think this misses is the point of the hypergame (or my extension of the idea, maybe). I guess some call them "wicked", where the playing of the game defines the game. It's this circularity that the discussions *I've* seen about externalities lack. They discuss that in the podcast as well, where "organically grown" systems have organisms eating the waste of other organisms and the only "wasteland" is informationless heat. Ackley was also present at the open ended evolution meetings. So I know he's at least sometimes thinking hypergames. To *flatten* that rich, circular structure into a singular game, to project everything to the Almighty Dollar or some other low-dimensional measure like distance, seems odd. It reminds me of the incessant chattering we do about directed acyclic graphs, which encourage us to clump cycles into a single node and forget there are cycles lurking therein.

On 3/15/21 4:08 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> All of these questions of substitution, homogeneity, scale, coverings, and
> compactness have very much been on my mind recently. I cannot help but
> wonder if a science of the particular, built upon Deleuze's work, is not far
> off. For context, here is the relevant section of the Ackley monologue:
> 
> """
> One of the ways that we describe reality a lot is in terms of here is a
> situation and we imagine that this situation has some extent, it is my
> house, it is my city, it is my room and it has some properties and I
> describe it and I tell a story in that situation and there is an implicit
> sense in which this situation can be likened to other situations
> elsewhere, it's generalizable. It may not apply to everything, but from
> first-look, you could try to put someone else's room, and someone else's
> city, and someone else's country, and see how it applies to them and
> it's supposed to be useful in some way. But that very act of saying that
> this is a limited situation, that's supposed to be moveable, that this
> description is supposed to apply in multiple places, carries with it some
> sort of assumption of independence, or some sort of assumption of
> uniformity (homogeneity?) of the places it can go...There is a sort of
> first principles assumption that a description here should be a
> description there and my problem with it is that once the descriptions
> get really big like people on Facebook or people using the internet,
> there isn't really a place to move it. *It's everything*. The length of
> the (finite?) description *covers all of the stuff* (compactness?) we can
> imagine it covering. We can say, "Well we need Facebook on mars, we need
> the internet on Pluto", but that's not happening anytime soon, and what
> it means is that this assumption of independence, this assumption that
> there is a sink, where consequences can go, the assumption that there is
> something outside of the room where food can come in and waste can go
> out or power can come in or heat can go out and I can view this room as
> an isolated system that couples to this thing I don't have to care about
> ...Once the system becomes really big, like the entire planet, it isn't
> clear I can really do that, it's all of the internal properties that
> really matter, but people keep talking about it as if there is an
> infinite world outside.
> """


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ