There is an observation on the economists’ use of game theory suggesting [it] vitiates ontological “reality” and renders the application [of game theory] meaningless — except as a semiotic device to regulate human behaviour.
The idea is game theory must allow for “the Law” to be “a law”, rather than “fate”, through an implicit admission at least, a successful grace or move from the game, is possible.
This observation is relevant to Nietzsche’s diachronic identity in Genealogy where memory is believed instilled through a debtor/creditor relationship, persisting through time, since each party isn’t born anew each day.
Syntax and Semantics
Modern logic is a dichotomy, with the syntactical aspect formally aloof in providing rules, proofs, quantifiers, variables, recursions, constants etc — such that reality doesn’t care to how this logic is applied.
Semantics being the interpretation and meaning [of logic], where Nietzsche became cognitive to the deep structure and vacillations of language — which can be misleading — since language may rest on assumptions not corresponding with reality, so as to dissipate conviction in a grand universal scheme.
In this light, Nietzsche remarked “I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar”.
There was scrutiny too of bivalence, by asking what forces us to polarise good and bad, rather than lighter or darker shades in between?
The Prudential Reasoning
Nietzsche believed the diachronic identity to be logical, but like objects, a fabrication also, since he observed objects as convenient fictions constructed out of properties put together to satisfy a perspective.
For Nietzsche, things were always coming in to and out of existence. A member of a philosophical tradition prefigured by Berkeley and Hume, his Bundle theory of objects made Nietzsche realise if he removed all the relationships of all the properties and all activities of a thing, that thing will not remain over.
To this end, there could be no genuine or everlasting diachronic, since the bundle duration is fleeting, making the semantics extant in the process.
Good and Bad Money
To a general audience, the bivalence of a good and bad money would lay in the purchasing power of each, which in all likelihood translates to mean how susceptible that money is to inflation.
Indeed, the subject of inflation re-occurs in respect of Bitcoin, where semantic differences soon raise themselves to the degree further analysis is inevitable in the way Nietzsche regarded transitory logic.
Influences on Bitcoin
It’s interesting while working on Ideal Money, Nash thought a zero inflation target would be “ideal”, but also observed a money could be too good, in that it wouldn’t circulate — and so realised it would require a constant and predictable inflation rate: thus Ideal Money became an Asymptotically Ideal Money.
It should be noted too Bitcoin in itself isn’t asymptotic [in respect] of inflation because its issuance becomes tangential in attaining to the supposedly ideal rate; but when opening a relationship of comparable standing, the asymptotically limiting volatility between sovereign issuance makes Nietzsche relevant again in a new kind of theatre.
Bundle Theory and the Electronic Peer to Peer Cash System
This subtle shift in “ideal” moves toward inter-relational stability, but indeed this is not ultra “modern” in itself: Keynes worked toward such notions, even if the current method of internal balance targeting (inflation) is vogue and exchange rates float freely against each other.
The Central Bank themselves will admit to inflation targeting not being “ideal” since inflation can be anything — while they are not sure how to completely understand inflation, it allows them licence in managing the monetary environment through a price level stability: something which can be communicated with relative ease in a language game.
One of the distinctions relevant here between Nash’s Ideal Money and Szabo’s bit gold, is Nash’s admittance his proposal wouldn’t be suitable for the world empire context: he understood there are differing currencies existing in competition, not working toward multilateral co-operation.
The backdrop of Nietzsche’s Bundle theory helps explain the relevance of this to Bitcoin: there is no such thing which exists in itself and there is no thing which can exist without other things.
When understanding Bitcoin as a cash system, this emphasises the fiat exchange price as a market value expression [of] the bitcoin: in other words, Bitcoin and fiat are not bivalent:
The Semantic Limitations on “Scaling”
This expression [of market value] is where the semantic retreat finds context: Bitcoin is generally seen as a stand alone system by both advocates and detractors:
Meaning the general level of discourse centres around themes of fees, energy consumption, decentralisation, transaction speeds, censorship resistance, anonymity, inflation rates etc in the way Nietzsche observed logic fettered by language:
Agency in Settlement
The idea of stable coalition formation would appear outside of this paradigm, but there is a problem to which game theory can be applied:
That Bitcoin doesn’t necessarily need an explicit use case, since it already has a fundamentally implicit feature of hedging against the costs of “Law”:
An unambiguous flow fragmenting semantic difficulties under brute force Bitcoin logic recursions, finding equilibrium and transcending “the game”:
How casual can cas-ual become in a cas-h system, where price discovery becomes an expression of agency?
In relatively shorter and tremendous bursts, the diachronic evolves away from a prosaically described internet money: words forgotten to the extent I’ve already perhaps little actual idea of that [in which ] I’m speaking!