How (and Why) Block Chain Works (and Doesn’t)
The fallacy of ‘no agent.’
You have to understand the basis for a unit (block) (chain) before you can analyze block chain (decide whether it ‘works’ or ‘doesn’t work’). In ‘other’ ‘words,’ you have to dig deeply into the circular relationship between ‘how’ and ‘why’ anything ‘works.’
It starts with complementarity, and looks like this:
Dependent on circularity:
Meaning the number ‘two’ (exactly 50–50) is ‘constant:’
Giving us the correct ‘analysis’ (analyses) for ‘block’ and ‘chain:’
Which is, always, the correct ‘analysis’ (analyses) for ‘how’ and ‘why:’
Where the number ‘two’ is dependent on the number ‘one,’ and the number ‘one’ is dependent on the number ‘three.’
Where the ‘agent’ relationship is, again, dictated by zero and one (one and two) (two and three).
Meaning, block-chain does not eliminate the ‘agent.’ At all. In any way.
Because the block and the chain, like any individual and group, share a mandatory circular (complementary) relationship. Meaning the individual is a group (and vice versa):
Where a ‘distributed’ ledger, is, after all is said, and done, an ‘agent’ for a transaction and a transactor. Therefore, all we have done by moving to a block chain system, is, transfer the agent from zero to one (and vice versa).
Meaning, block chain systems are man’s amorous relationship with both zero, and one. And, vice versa.
Where, no matter what you call it, a three-state-system, is constant (more accurately depicted ‘two-state-system’).
Meaning, you can’t get away from the ‘agent.’ Circularity (the basis for zero and one) is, always, no matter what ‘system’ you prefer, the ‘agent.’
Block chain systems assume we are all on the same block. And, in the same chain. Which, technically, is true. And, not-true. No matter what system.
Based on the diagrams above, there will have to be ‘two’ systems. To fight it out. Etc. One ‘block’ chain. The other ‘no-block’ (no) chain. Again, etc. You can do the ‘math.’
This takes deep thinking. Abstract thinking. Technologist-type ‘thinking.’
Why is ‘deep, abstract, technologist-type’ thinking necessary?
Conservation of the circle is the core dynamic in nature.
