I think the OTC/PGP web of trust model is a pretty good start. While, it still requires diligent human confirmation, I so far trust the small hand full of people with whom I've traded and would trust most of those my trusted friends trust. This could perhaps be expanded upon.

I'm assuming "I" in quotes alludes to the teachings of anattā (no-self), the negation of the personal ātman (self ego) XOR to the philosophical antithesis, a big daddy of all interconnected Ātman (One, Ultimate Soul, Godself, Reality, Momma's Homemade Cook'n). And either are cool if you aspire toward a selfless, truly kind and loving, Barney the Purple Dinosaur society, but you'll be immune to others' expression of their egos only if you truly abandon your own ego. But there's the rub.

Anarchy would work brilliantly if everyone respected axiomatic moral codes. We build governments because people don't. Either the a$sholes create the government or the meek band together in opposition, but either way egos use whatever power structures are at hand to further express and elevate themselves, otherwise they create those power structures, whether church, government, or knitting club.

Ideal society arises ONLY from the individual, who may inspire by example but must be immune to the uninspired, and be willing to suffer the consequences of his determination to the very end.

Appamāda!

Well, there *is* a way to test this hypothesis. Any contestants?

The method as you have it sounds like computer program. If you'll accept a human and computer combo that can do it as sufficient evidence of a method, then I think you'll find such individuals. I ramble here because what you seem to require is that the best chess/go/poker player can create an AI or that the best programmers can play chess.

I think more interesting terms would be this: Given a fixed amount of money ($100) and a fixed time frame (month), can a specific trader in isolation beat the market by at least some percentage (3%) using only charts and indicators but no news media? Then do it again next month and next?

I have no critique of Taleb's book as presented by Wikipedia. If I recall someone earlier made the (99:1 bet in which you almost always win, but when you lose, you lose all your savings) point that successful trading is more about money management, setting stops, investing a small percentage of your treasure to invest in a single trade according to risk, etc.

I also agree with a statement you made earlier: "If a thousand traders decide whether to buy or sell depending on coin flips, some of them will outperform the market and some won't. The ones who outperformed the market when looking back will claim it's due to their skills at flipping coins. Yet it's still not predictive."

It is true that within a large body of seemingly random noise, it is highly probably to find instances of pattern/consistency. For example, if ten people flip three coins, it is quite likely that at least one of them will flip heads, heads, heads. And you are correct that this says very little about his next coin flip. However, if after taking note of this ONE individual, he continues to flip heads, heads, heads, heads then you should start suspecting a duplicate sided coin, because this is statistically significant.

I don't think that's strictly true. It is only that the (whole of subset of) participants feel the cost of rebellion is greater than the disadvantages of participation, otherwise they revolt or flee. I don't think even the ruling generals in Burma's junta thought it was a good system or that they were ultimately benefiting.

Even consistent losers may enjoy a game, but if players feel that the rules are stacked against them or that they have better alternatives (with respect to all rules like social cohesion, etc), they won't play.

While I think I understand what you mean when you say for every Up there is a Down, what you actually said was both incorrect and irrelevant. Your argument seems to be that because a system is closed it is therefor homogeneous (no entropy) or unpredictable (maximal entropy).

In my own experience, I matched the market on the rise up, and tend to under perform the market on the way down. I do not conclude that day trading is impossible. No, I conclude that I am bad at it. I suspect you are as well, but you blame 'random' for your consistent performance.

As it happens, patterns emerge in chaotic systems. Indeed there is a branch of mathematics dedicated to the study. Even if you argue that humans are non-deterministic, they are after all human.

BubbleBoy, that was an inspired argument in the discussion of abortion. I have equally respected the opinion of (non violent) pro- and anti-abortionists. It seemed axiomatic, when does life begin, or suffering cost, etc. How would you argue that the mother is not actively killing the child rather than simply refusing to save it? And if you successfully argue that, what about negligent manslaughter?

I fully respect Ron Paul's stance (as I hear him) that the issue of evolution is irrelevant and he would ensure that this was a choice by parents, schools, and students, not government. +1 on political index, -1 on the idiot index, but on balance, he's doing very well.

Correct.

Certainly. Even societies of thieves have rules, morals, customs, and obligations. Which I suppose is part of what 'society' means.

Animals have societies too, many have hierarchies and family raising, but as far as I know, they don't have religion. So it doesn't seem to follow that we are creating government in order to construct a god. I think god is just an ideal, be it family, government, or life. It's inevitable that with man's creation of a perfection in his own image that any powerful imperfection (say nobility) will attribute those qualities upon themselves for marketing and public relations.



Interesting point, but games, like dreams, are ways for us to hone our survival skills. When games are invented by children, they come up with the rules as compromises to make it mutually beneficial, but both the play and the generation of the rules are a power struggle. Once the rules are codified, they struggle for power within those frameworks and very often break the rules if they think they can get away with it, while appealing to the rules if they've been cheated by others or can convince the ref to their own advantage. Thus the 'rules' are only constraints of reality (even if imagined). The fact that they helped generate (or agreed to accept) the rules that now constrain them are 'sunk costs'.

I interpret the OP asking why we continue to submit to governments. I think it's a genetic semi-altruistic tendency, including a deference to parents. Both religion and government are attempts to understand, exert control over, and protection from the frightening unknown. Our susceptibility to control I think is a survival instinct that creates the bond between child and mother that we never quite ween.

Sure, it's all a conflict between our own desires for comfort against others' desires and against the comfort of the collective, in numerous levels and interdependencies. Ultimately we are organisms that exist only because we can control our environment, which of course includes other organisms. Our strategies include the purely selfish, cooperative, and deceitful.

The primary desire is survival. From this comes the ego, which spawns the whole glorious mess.

On the path to enlightenment we need to find a balance, a middle road, between personal gain and mutual benefit. There are no successfully predefined 'isms' (individualism, socialism, anarchism) that we can blindly follow. The trick is to be aware now and make the wisest choice given the unique situation at hand. The only preparation is diligent concentration on and awareness of the present.

Is Biology among your theological bookshelves. The Selfish Gene is an inspired text.

The muslims see it most succinctly; Islam=Submission.

I think the human tendency to the collective, to willingly conform and submit must be one and the same explanation for belief (self deception) and worship (engaging in rituals) of imaginary supreme beings, whether they sit on Cloud Nine or One Pennsylvania Ave.

The metaphors of parental figures and deities are all mixed up. Our Father of the Kingdom of Heaven. Father of the Republic. Lord of the Land. Supreme Ruler.

Incidentally, Sin = Guilt = Debt in the original Hebrew. Birth is the original Debt. We're taught at an early age that our birth parents have rights over us granted by the earth parent (government) whose sovereignty is blessed by the ultimate parent (god) who was created by the parent of all ignorance (ourselves).

It's no accident that the Gaia Hypothesis was named after the grandmother of Zeus.

Human desire is the netrin which developed the nervous system, satellites, telescopes, computers and networks. Humans, in exploring space are the gametes, zygotes, or spores which may germinate from our conspired creation.

We are god, individually or collectively. Jesus said as much. The kingdom of heaven is upon us in the here and now if we choose to accept. In death, when our senses collapse upon us, we are ultimate, and pass unmerciful judgment upon ourselves, and create our next reality as we see fit for ourselves, whether that is heaven, hell, reincarnation as a toad or god.

Oh please. Surely you are not suggesting a relaa... oh my!

No worries. Humbly accepted. Here is perhaps a good example of a thoughtful post that was immediately stamped "troll". I probably would have thought the same at the time in July at my future's peril:

Top of the page:

Head and shoulder reversal?

I equally dislike defining debt repaid with devalued currency as a default. However, when a note is redeemable for gold and then in an instant that note is no longer redeemable for anything, I'd have to call that a default, just as if a UST returns nothing.

Shanghai based Sina is quite mainstream. Chinese interest could have an enormous impact on the bitcoin economy. I'm just concerned (for myself) that I'll be left out of the conversation.