Introducing Value Area Networks - Matched participants by shared values. By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. December 14, 2018.
This concept is possible only based on the design of Tauchain presented by Ohad. In his design for Tauchain he highlights the fact that any member of the social network will be allowed to input their worldview. It has been discussed by myself previously that moral values could be an important part of Tauchain in this setting.
A Value Area Network is a concept I'm introducing which is designated to mean a kind of network where all participants are matched according to shared values. These participants in the network (economic agents, bots, machines, humans, companies, whatever) should in theory be allowed to outline as much of their current values and as long as all participants are deemed to be in alignment by the consensus algorithm of Tau then they will be considered part of unified network.
The acronym VAN can be designated to stand for Value Area Network, not to be confused by Value Added Network. Unlike a LAN (Local Area Network) which is based on physical geography, the VAN is based on "social geography". People who are closer to each other socially on the moral and "concerns and values" level would represent a sort of shared location. In social science the concept of social proximity is defined mostly in geographical terms but in the digital age with a technology like Tau in existence the idea of closeness might not have to be restricted to the geographical definition.
Closeness in terms of how close your values align to another participant in a network would represent a distinct place on a sort of map. This distinct place would be represented or quantified by a score which indicates it's potential location on a spectrum of possible locations. Of course the mathematics behind this would have to be more clearly defined in future posts but this post is to introduce the concepts for future discussion.
My concerns and reasons behind thinking up VANs is based on that fact that while social media today does a pretty good job connecting billions of people to random people it also does a horrible job connecting socially compatible people to each other. It's not good enough to connect a bunch of random people. People want to connect to people who have compatible values with themselves as their values are constantly updating over time. Tauchain in theory is the only platform which is expected to have the features to make this idea a possibility.
Values in this context could be negotiated from or derived from beliefs or worldview using Tau discussion. The values then would over time be updating as the person updates their beliefs or worldview. This would be to go the emergent route of letting Tau try to identify the values of the participant based on what the participant said in discussions (avoiding contradictions). The other would be to let the participant explicitly enter their current values and over time let Tau help them to constantly update that over time.
These are features I hope to see developed over Tau in some form some day. If I'm in the position to bring these features into development (provided AGRS works as intended) then this could be one of my contributions. The key mechanism behind this feature would be a novel matchmaking algorithm which leverages the Tau Shared Knowledge Base and reasoning capabilities. The social values map feature could be deduced via the discussions had over time or it can simply be a checkbox setting where the participant chooses by checking boxes and sliding scales.
If Money = Memory, if Society = a Super Computer, if Computation is in Physical Systems, what is a Decentralized Operating System? By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. October 24, 2018.
These concepts are not often discussed so let's have the discussion from the beginning. The first concept to think about is pancomputationalism or put another way the ubiquitous computers which exist everywhere in our environment. We for example can look at physical systems living and non living and see computations taking place all around us. If you look at rocks and trees you can see memory storage. If you look at DNA you can see code and if you look at viruses you can see microscopic programmers adding new codes to DNA. Even when we look at the weather such as a hurricane it is computing.
If you look at nature you see algorithms. You will see learners (yes the same as in AI), also in nature. The process is basically the same for all learning. Consider that everything which is physical is also digital. Consider that the universe is merely information patterns.
If we look at society we can also think of society as a computer. What does society compute though? One way people talk about a society is as a complex adaptive system, but this is also how people might talk about the human body. The human body computes with the purpose of maintaining homeostasis, to persist through time and reproduce copies of itself over time. The human brain computes to promote the survival of the human body. Just as viruses pass on codes to our DNA, the human brain is infected with mind viruses which are called memes. Memes are pieces of information which can alter physically how the brain is working.
The mind isn't limited to the brain. The mind is all the resources the brain can leverage to compute. In other words a person has a brain to compute with but when language was invented this allowed a person to compute not just using their own brain but using the environment itself. To draw on a cave is to use the cave to enhance the memory of the brain. To use mathematics is to use language to enhance the ability of the brain to compute by relying on external storage and symbol manipulation. To use a computer with a programming language is essentially to use mathematics only instead of writing on the cave wall we are writing in 1s and 0s. The mind exists to augment the brain in a constant feedback loop where the brain relies on the mind to improve itself and adapt. If there were no external reality the brain would have no way to evolve itself and improve.
A society in the strictly human sense of the word is the aggregation of minds. This can be at minimum all the human minds in that society. As technology improves the mind capacity increases because each human can remember more, can access more computation resources, can in essence use technology to continuously improve their mind and then leverage the improved mind to improve their brain. The Internet is the pinnacle of this kind of progress but it's obviously not good enough. While the Internet allows for the creation of a global mind by connecting people, things, and minds, it does nothing to actually improve the feedback loop between the mind and the brain, nor does it really offer what could be offered.
Bitcoin came into the picture and perhaps we can think of it as a better memory. A decentralized memory where essentially you can have money. The problem is that money is a very narrow application. It is the start, just as to learn to write on the cave wall was a start, but it's not ambitious enough in my opinion.
Humans in the current blockchain or crypto community do not have many ways where human computation can be exchanged. Human computation is just as valuable as non biological machine computation because there are some kinds of computations which humans can do quite easily which non biological machines still cannot do as well. Translation for example is something non biological machines have a difficult time with but human beings can do well. This means a market will be able to form where humans can sell their computation to translate stuff. If we look at Amazon Mechanical Turk we can see many tasks which humans can do which computer AI cannot yet do, such as labeling and classifying stuff. In order for things to go to the next level we will need markets which allow humans to contribute human computer and or human knowledge in exchange for crypto tokens.
The concept of a decentralized operating system is interesting. First if there are a such thing as social computations (such as collaborative filtering, subjective ranking, waze, etc) then what about the new paradigm of social dispersed computing?
The question becomes what do we want to do with this computing power? Will we use it to extend life? Will we use it to spread life into the cosmos? Will we use it to become wise? To become moral? To become rational? If we want to focus on these kinds of concerns then we definitely need something more than Bitcoin, Ethereum, or even EOS. While EOS does seem to be pursuing the strategy of a decentralized operating system which seems to be the correct course, it does not get everything right.
One problem is as I mentioned before the importance of the feedback loops between minds and brains. The reason I always communicate on the concept of external mind or extended mind is based on that fact that it is the mind which creates the immune system to protect the brain from harmful memes. The brain keeps the body alive. The brain is not really capable of rationality, or morality, or logic, and relies on the mind to achieve this. The mind is essentially all the computation resources that the brain can leverage.
EOS has the problem in the sense that it doesn't seem to improve the user. The user can connect, can join, can earn or sell, can participate, but unless the user can become wiser, more rational, more moral, then EOS has limits. EOS does have Everpedia which is quite interesting but again there are still problems. What can EOS do to improve people in society and thus improve society, if society is a computer and is in need of being upgraded?
Well if society is a computer first what does society compute? What should it compute? I don't even know how to answer those questions. I could suggest that if computation is a commodity along with data then whichever decentralized operating systems that do compete and exist will compete for these commodities. The total brain power of a society is just as important as the amount of connectivity. And the mind of the society is the most important part of a society because it is what can allow the society to become better over time, allow the people in the society to thrive, allow the life forms to continue to evolve avoid extinction.
A decentralized operating system on a technical level would have a kernel or something similar to it. This is the resource management part. For example Aragon promises to offer a decentralized OS and it too mentions having a kernel. A true decentralized operating system has to go further and requires autonomous agents. Autonomous agents which can act on behalf of their owners are philosophically speaking the extended mind. But the resources of a society is still finite, has to be managed, and so a kernel would provide for an ability to allow for resource management.
The total computation ability of a society is likely a massive amount of resources. A lot more than just to connect a bunch of CPUs together. Every member of the society which can compute could participate in a computation market. Of course as we are beginning to see now, the regulators seem concerned about certain kinds of social computations such as prediction markets. So it is unknown how truly decentralized operating systems would be handled but my guess is that if designed right then they could be pro-social, be capable of producing augmented morality by leveraging mass computation, and also by leveraging human computation be able to be compliant. To be compliant is simply to understand the local laws but these can be programmed into the autonomous agents if people think it is necessary.
What is more important is that if a law is clearly bad, and people have enhanced minds, then it will be very clear why the law is bad. This clarity will help people to dispute and seek to change bad laws through the appropriate channels. If there is more wisdom, due to insights from big data, from data scientists, etc, then there can be proposals for law changes which are much wiser and more intelligent. This is something specifically that people in the Tauchain community have realized (that technology can be used to improve policy making).
A lot is still unknown so these writings do not provide clear answers. Consider this just a stream of consciousness about concepts I am deeply contemplating. This is also a way to interpret different technologies.
Truth vs Consensus
Truth can be thought of either as something which we can prove by experiments or it can be the result of a consensus. A scientific fact is arrived at by the process of conducting scientific experimentation. A mathematical fact is discovered by finding a proof. Consensus is discovered by analysis of sentiment (or by voting) to determine what the majority currently believes at a point in time about a subject. The truth of the scientists might not match up with the popular consensus at the time. The mathematical proof might say one thing but a majority of people might agree to disagree with the math. We have seen this happen in the past and this blog post is a discussion on that topic. Particularly for Tauchain we have the question of what is the truth and what is more important? Do we care more about the truth or more about consensus?
Tauchain offers helpers in the form of reasoners and logic to improve the quality of discussion. These helpers will not necessarily work unless people agree to accept the results generated. In addition, the bias people inherently have could influence what they discuss in the first place which could create a consensus but not necessarily an improvement.
Consensus as Truth
According to the "truth by consensus" paradigm the truth is produced by consensus gentium. Consensus gentium means agreement of the people. In my previous post I discussed exactly this topic: Consensus Morality and Tauchain | Consensus Gentium. To be specific we can think of consensus gentium to mean: "the truth is what everyone currently believes". In this model of truth we can only get the truth by finding out what everyone believes but how do we determine what people believe? It is a challenge to find a way to determine what people actually believe in a blockchain context. One method of attempting this is called Futarchy which provides an economic reward and an economic cost for having correct or incorrect beliefs. In essence under Futarchy the people must bet on their beliefs rather than just vote. Under Futarchy prediction markets are used to apply market elements to produce a market consensus truth.
Consensus gentium in an environment where there is persecution and or coercion can result in widely held "beliefs" which are enforced into existence such as the belief in geocentrism. Victims of this kind of persecution may include Galileo who was forced to recant his beliefs or face the inquisition. Ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander proposed that the universe revolved around the earth and this idea caught on. Once the idea caught on it became the gospel truth and over time it became blasphemous to dispute this belief. We continue to see this happen even now in the cryptospace with for example the belief of "code is law" or that "blockchains must be immutable", but these too are beliefs based on a particular set of values which the holders of these beliefs hold dear.
Consensus as a regulative ideal
A descriptive theory is one that tells how things are, while a normative theory tells how things ought to be. Expressed in practical terms, a normative theory, more properly called a policy, tells agents how they ought to act. A policy can be an absolute imperative, telling agents how they ought to act in any case, or it can be a contingent directive, telling agents how they ought to act if they want to achieve a particular goal. A policy is frequently stated in the form of a piece of advice called a heuristic, a maxim, a norm, a rule, a slogan, and so on. Other names for a policy are a recommendation and a regulative principle.
In this case we have a distinction between the way things are and the way things ought to be. Policies can be directed to shape the way things ought to be.
The problem with consensus as truth | argumentum ad populum
If consensus equals truth, then truth can be made by forcing or organizing a consensus, rather than being discovered through experiment or observation, or existing separately from consensus. The principles of mathematics also do not hold under consensus truth because mathematical propositions build on each other. If the consensus declared 2+2=5 it would render the practice of mathematics where 2+2=4 impossible.
A big problem is that of coercion. Another big problem is that popular opinion can in fact lead to really bad outcomes. If something is true at a point of time merely because a lot of people believe it then we are basing our decisions merely on what a lot of people believe. This can result in decisions which satisfy what is popular yet also unwise. A lot of people believe a lot of crazy wrong stuff but this does not mean they do not passionately believe it. The question of truth is more about what is true even if not very many people believe it. Geocentricism turned out to be false even though a lot of people believed it at some point in time. On the other hand the laws of physics appear to be true for 13 billion years even during times when a lot of people didn't believe it.
The State, or the ruling government, has the special role of taking care of the people; however, what distinguishes the Chinese ruling government from other ruling governments is the respectful attitude of the citizens, who regard the government as part of their family. In fact, the ruling government is "the head of the family, the patriarch." Therefore, the Chinese look to the government for guidance as if they are listening to their father who, according to Chinese tradition, enjoys high reverence from the rest of the family. Furthermore, "still another tradition that supports state control of music is the Chinese expectation of a verbal 'message.'" A "verbal message" is the underlying meaning behind people's words. In order to get to the "verbal message," one needs to read into words and ask oneself what the desired or expected response would be.
The importance of modeling opinion dynamics in Tauchain. By Dana Edwards. Posted on Steemit. October 9, 2018.
The videos I recommend anyone watch to understand the importance of this are listed below:
Opinion dynamics modeling in society (part 1)
How do governments determine policy priorities?
The Hidden Trump Model - Opinion Dynamics w/ Social Desirability Bias - H. Zontine & S. Davies
Tauchain is unique because it can aggregate opinions into consensus and toward synthesis
For those who do not understand what Tauchain is trying to do we have to understand that in the beta network of Tauchain consensus = synthesis. Synthesis in this case is program synthesis. In other words the product of consensus is the software. The consensus emerges based on discussion. During this discussion the opinions will be broadcast in such a way that agreements will be reached. These agreements will form the basis of the specification from which program synthesis can produce or output the software.
The problem Tauchain will face is the same problem which any preference aggregation optimization network will face. In other words just because people have preferences and try to express those preferences it does not mean that these preferences will be effectively expressed. In my other post I identified a specific problem which is summed up in the question on whether or not you can effectively aggregate preferences if there is false preferences being expressed? This problem has been called preference falsification but in general it seems to make the case for why privacy is necessary.
Tauchain promises to scale discussion which is great but the problem is some discussions cannot be had at all. Some discussions are so controversial that people cannot even attempt to start them. For these discussions only privacy would allow for the discussion to take place. Of course this doesn't mean discussions will be equally productive even if privacy was allowed.
What is so important about modeling opinion dynamics?
Opinions have to be formed. How are opinions formed? If a agent must make a decision to be pro or con some specific issue then can we model this process? The utility of this is explored in the video below:
The mathematics of influence is the title of the video above. In other words it might be possible to use Tau not just to scale discussion but to discuss how to better discuss. To improve opinion formation or to at least understand how opinions are being formed in the network could be of utility. The more participants in the discussion, the bigger the network, the more important the mathematical models could become.
How do we deal with problems such as bias? This could include racism, sexism, etc? Any kind of cognitive bias can influence opinion formation but how? Ultimately if we do not understand how to model or think about these things mathematically then it's going to be much harder to examine in depth what is going on. For people who are math inclined and who understand the danger of bias in AI then this may be of interest.
The voter model is specifically interesting. It examines how opinions on who to vote for forms. Under this model a node is picked at random from the network (a neighbor) and the opinion of that neighbor is adopted by the node. Which opinion wins out? The high degree nodes (hubs) which have the highest probability of being connected to. This could mean a lot for an election or for opinion shaping. To me this would resemble the thought leader paradigm where the most connected thought leader expresses their opinion in the group and because a lot of people are connected to them in some direct or indirect way their opinion holds a lot more weight. If those thought leaders are zealots (will not change their mind no matter what new evidence they receive) then these individuals have even more influence on the outcome and on opinion formation.
''We live in a world in which no one knows the law.''
Ohad Asor, Sept 11, 2016
I continue herewith with sharing my contemporary state-of-grok  of the up to now four  scriptures of the aka newtau . Sorry for the delay, but it comes mostly from the efforts to contain the outburst of words, catalyzed by the very exegetic process of such a rich content, into a reader-friendly shorter form.
The subject of vivisection textographically identifies as the first three paragraphs of ''Tau and the Crisis of Truth'', Ohad Asor, Sep 11, 2016 .
The four core themes extracted are ennumerated bellow, with as modest as not to sidetrack the thought and to not spoil the original message, streak of comments of mine.:
As I guy who's immersed in Law for more than quarter of century  I can swear with both hands on my heart in the notion of unknowability of Law.
Since my youth years in the law school  I was asking myself how it is possible at all to have 'rule of law'  in case any legal system ever known required humans to operate !?
It seemed that the only requisite or categorcal difference between mere arbitrary 'rule of man'  and the 'rule of law' was that in some isolated cases some ruling men happened to be internally programmed by their morals  to produce 'rule of law' appearance effects by 'rule of man' means.
Otherwise 'rule of law' done via 'rule of man' poses extremely serious threats of law to be used by some to exploit and harm others.
In that line of thoughts my conclusion was that the Law is ... yet to come.
What we know as Law is not good networking protocol software of mankind as such, but rather we see comparatively rare examples of individually well programmed ... lawyers.
On the wings of a technological breakthrough, just like: flying came with the invention of airplanes and moonwalk needed the advent of rocketry, or to remember without to stay alive - the writing. The Law is an old dream. If we judge by the depth of the abyss of floklore - one of the humanity's most ancient dreams, indeed. Needless to repeat myself that this was what sucked me into Tau as relentlessly as a black hole spagetification  :)
The referred by Ohad frustration by Law of the great Franz Kafka  expressed in his book The Trial  becomes very understandable for Kafka's epoch lacking the comforting hope in a technology which we already have - the computers - and the overall progress in the field of logic, mathematics, engineering ... forming a self-reinforcing loop centered around this sci-tech of artificial cognition.
Similarly to the nuclear fusion, which is always few decades away, but the Fusion gap closes noticeably nowadays , we are standing on the cliff of a Legal gap.
The mankind's heavy involvement in cognition technologies, especially in the last several decades, outlined multiple promising directions of further development, which seem to bring us closer to abilities to compensate the fundamental deficiencies of Law and in fact to finally bring it into existence.
It took entire Ohad Asor, however, to identify the major reasons why the Law is bottlenecked out of our reach yet, and to propose viable means to bridge us through that Legal gap... The other side is already in sight.
It is in the first place the language to blame !
The human natural language . Our most important atribute as species. The mankind maker. The glue of society. It just emerged, it hasn't been created. It has rather ... patterns, vaguely conventional, than intentionally coined set of solid rules. There ain't firm rules to change its rules, either ... The natural human language is mostly wilderness of untamed pristine naked nature, dotted here and there with very expensive and hard to install and maintain ''arteftacts'' . Leave it alone out of the coercion of state mass media, mass education and national language institutes and it falls back into host of unintelligible dialects. Even when aided by the mnemonic amplifier which we call writing.
Ambiguity is characteristic of the natural language, a feature in poetry and politics, but a deadly bug in logic and law.
We'll put aside for now the postulate of impossibility of a single universal language to revisit it later when its exegetic turn comes. In another chapter onto another scripture. Likewise, not in this chapter we'll cover the neurological human bottlenecks which are targetted to be overcome by Tau. Lets observe the sequence of author's thoughts and to not fast forward.
Instead of that I'll dare to share with you my own hypothesis about why the natural human languages are so. (I'm smiling while I type this, cause I can visualize Ohad's reaction upon reading such frivolous lay narrative. I hope he being too busy will actually not to.) To say that the human languages are just too complex does not bring us any nearer to decent explanation. Many logic based languages are more than a match of the natural human ones in terms of expressiveness and complexity. It shouldn't be that reason.
My suspicion is rather that the natural human languages pose such a Moravec hardness  for being not exactly languages. Languages are conveyors of meaning. Human languages convey not meaning, but indexes or addresses or tags of mind states. The meaning is the mind state. Understanding between humans is function of not only shared learnt syntaxi, but also of shared lives. Of aggregation of similar mind states which to be referred by matching word keys.
If this is true it is another angle for grokking the solution of human users leaning towards the machine by use of human intelligible Machinish, instead of Tau waiting the language barrier to be broken and machines to start speaking and listening Humanish.
In a nutshell we yet wait the Law to come cuz Law is not doable in Humanish. Bad software. And the other side of the no-law coin is that the humans are no cognitive ASICs . We do congnition only meanwhile and in-order-to do what other animals do - to survive. Bad hardware.
In order law to become law it must become handsfree .
Not humans to read laws, but laws to read laws.
The technology to enable that looks on an arm's length.
Ok, so far we butchered the law and the language. What's left?
The nature and essence of human language brought one of the most harmful and devastating notions ever. Literally, a thought of mass destruction.
The ''crisis of truth''. The wasteland left by the toxic idea spilover of ''there is no one truth'' or even ''there ain't truth'' at all. This is not only abstract, philosophical problem. Billions of people actually got killed for somebody else's truth.
Not occasionally the philosophers who immersed themselves into this pool are nicknamed 'Deconstructivist' . Following back their epistemic genealogy, we see btw, that they are rooted rather in faith than in reasoning, but this is another story.
The general problem of truth, of which the problem of law is just a private case, opens up two important aspects:
Number one, is that all knowledge is conjectural to truth and that, truth is an asymptotic boundary - forever to close on but never to reach. Like speed of light or absolute zero. Number two, is that human languages make pretty lousy vehicles to chase the truth with.
If really words are just to match people's thoughts together, then there are thoughts without words and words without thoughts. Words mismatch thoughts, so how to expect they to bridge thoughts to things? Entire worlds on nonsensical wording emerge, dangerously disturbing the seamless unity of things and thoughts. Truth displaced.
''But can we at least have some island of truth in which social contracts can be useful and make sense?''
This island of shared truth is made of consensus  bedrock and synchronization  landmass.
Thuth and Law self-enforced. From within instead of by violence from without. And in self-referenial non-regressive way.
''We therefore remain without any logical basis for the process of rulemaking, not only the crisis of deciding what is legal and what is illegal." 
Peter Suber with his ''The Paradox of Self-Amendment: A Study of Law, Logic, Omnipotence, and Change''  proposed a rulemaking solution which he called Nomic .
''Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move.'' 
The merit of Nomic is that it really eliminates the illths of the infinite regress  of laws-of-changing-the-laws-of-changing-the-laws, ad infinitum, by use of transmutable self-referrenial rules. But Nomic suffers from number of issues - the first one, in the spotlight of that chapter, being the fact that we still remain with the “crisis of truth” in which there is no one truth, and the other ones - like sclability of sequencing and voting - we'll revisit in their order of appearance in the discussed texts.
The aka 'newtau'  went past the inherent limitations of the Nomic system and resolves the 'crisis of truth' problem.
The next few chapters will dive into Decidability and how it applies to provide solution to the problems described above.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-exegesis-intro
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-exegesis-the-two-towers
 - http://www.idni.org/blog/tau-and-the-crisis-of-truth.html
 - http://www.behest.io/
 - https://steemit.com/blockchain/@karov/behest-for-tauchain
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
 - https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Despair-Environmentalists-Pseudo-Scientists-Antihumanism/dp/159403737X
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_language
 - https://steemit.com/blockchain/@karov/tau-through-the-moravec-prism
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application-specific_integrated_circuit
 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/manipulation
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization
 - http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/index.htm
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
 - the illustration is a painting courtecy of the author Georgi Andonov https://www.facebook.com/georgi.andonov.9674?tn-str=*F
This topic is loaded in the barrel since - as I see in my draft records - April 2018. It is my free assotiations on the major topic of the aka ''tragedy of the commons''  refracted through the prism of things which I had to pass through with Tau  in mind. In the months it replicated itself into numerous subtopics and threatens to grow in several general theories  so I decided to better unleash it in the wild and to handle it with your help and if necessary to tame and domesticate it and its progeny by the coming power of Tau.
The problem of the 'tragedy of the commons' as a symptom of the more general theme of ownership .
I think I kinda nailed it. It seems this approach brings serious inference power, i.e. via it most of what we know can be derived. Of course it lacks mathematical / logical rigor, but still even on such haiku expression level seems to work.
Yes, there is such a word. In linguistics .
Per se, ''clusivity'' is modulus  of inclusion  and/or exclusion .
Absolute value in maths denotes 'distance' from zero, regardless of direction, which seems to translate well for depicting the spectrum between 'included' and 'excluded', if we imagine that excluded=-1 as the opposite of included=1, and zero measures state of equal clusion. The other, more intuitive and easier to grasp, way would be of the fuzzy logic  of zero to one fractional values, where zero is no clusivity, and one is full clusivity. Lets say we take one of the possible 'directions' and 0= complete exclusion, 1=complete inclusion ... multi-values in between.
Of course due to purely physical reasons 0 and 1 are asymptotic values - ever to approach, never to reach. And of course due to purely physical, finitist  reasons the clusivity fuzzy spectrum is quantized , not smoothly continuous .
Attending etymology usually pays off, because of two reasons:
Thus, we can visualize all languages as a single language, a continuum with mascons  of commonality of indexing-meaning pairs. Like a strange form of semantic entanglement  - to be inevitably hacked someday open and to give birth to endless valuable technologies...
What does this up to now have in common with Commons, Ownership and Tau?
Interestingly, the etymology of 'include'  automatically leads to its privatization-publicization functionality.
It is cognate with both.:
The private/public ''divide'' as key/access driven relation.
Do we ''have the keys''? Or ''are we'' the keys (given non-computerized 'face-control' type of access cases)?
NO. For any entity and for every access, the keys are not the entity or are not property of it.
Key is OUTPUT by us. Fed as INPUT into other systems, so they to perform.
Society can be imaged as a network of partially-black boxes  , where free will is function of the box certainty of autoreflection and trust is function of the uncertanty of other boxes behavior prediction ...
We do not know and in most cases can not know what's going on inside other peoples or organizations or other artifacts inner workings, but we know that by inserting Key we can make them to perform certain expected predicted action.
The boxes are said to be partially-black for the non-black part denoting the zone of predictability - i.e. ''if I input this into that black-box I know it will return to me this and that specifically''...
Key, be it biometrics, piece of shaped metal, digital string of bits ... a reason which causes, a input which brings the outcome of access to...
Important side note is that in the case of key-pair philosophy it is NOT two keys - public & private, but rather a (public) padlock  and THE (private) key , so everybody can lock it but only the key-owner can unlock it / access it.
You maybe have noticed one of my many times repeated slogans :
LAW IS BETWEEN, CODE IS WITHIN
, coming to delineate the map of Trust - i.e. where force is needed ( ''I trust you only as much as I can make you to'') and the self-enforcing systems of blockchain and god knows what else possible systems.
The whole picture is pretty insightful in both the blockchain and the trust (e.g. force)  context, when we realize that it is not so much about de jure, but purely de facto situation. Even when minding the Law. For, private-public being function of the performance and efficiency of the protocol. Incl. the key-making ones. Incl. the key-breaking ones.
On The Law and the related trust=enforcement relations to code and protocols, I'll go some other time in detail (actually lots of times because it seems the bunch of concepts here have lots of fruitful logical consequences), but the inevitable conclusion seems to be that it is in general a Clusivity thing even in the Legal case. For it is matter of accessing the output of compulsory legal action by inputting a ... key.
The recent EU intellectual law directive  is alphabetical example of the Fiat  approach of the external enforcement (as opposed to the cryptographic 'trustless' one). The Fiat way of enforcing ownership rights is also a Clusivity system. The subjects victims of property rights breach ACCESSES the authorities with their ID information, evidence, procedural codes and as output they have to receive enforcement actions vs the delinquents . The cost of trust  this way might be staggering and it is apparent that such a system may easily get clogged and to implosively unscale , .
Tau is mostly about knowledge economy. Economy without ownership ... is very hard, if not impossible to imagine. Like , where there ain't between anymore but everything is within, but even all white boxes system is prone to failures . Especially when we go past the veil of the ideological cliche definitions and take ''to own'' = ''to access'' in the purely factual, physical sense of the word.
In this sense each and every economy is a Clusivity management system.
Tau promises the ultimate Clusivity management.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
 - http://www.idni.org/
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value
 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/inclusion
 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/exclusion
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete
 - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/continuous
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_(disambiguation)
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphism
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_concentration_(astronomy)
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/include
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
 - https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/87247/why-is-a-public-key-called-a-key-isnt-it-a-lock
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography
 - http://www.behest.io/
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-and-the-cost-of-trust
 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/20/eu-votes-for-copyright-law-that-would-make-internet-a-tool-for-control
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delict
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-trumps-procrustics
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/scaling-is-layering
 - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-transcaling
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer
 - The marvelous picture above is quoted from : https://www.deviantart.com/lora-zombie/art/LORA-ZOMBIE-THREADLESS-351467642
''Tau solves the problems from the Tower of Babel to the Tower of Basel''
- an early 21st century yet undisclosable author
Okay, dearest friends, lets pull sleeves up and start with it. Vivisection of the Scriptures? Revelation by transfiguration? Pulling the Tau from the ocean of wisdom out on the dry no-Maths-land? I hope not.
The quote above on first glance sounds so pompously biblical, but in fact it denotes the crystal clear and simple practical and mundane rationale of Tau which I already tried to approach from few angles , .
It is about the hierarchic bottleneck of one unscaling ,  Humanity. Take the hint about leveling of the Towers as a poetic symbol of elimination of the social 'verticality' -- the hierarchies as a so far necessary evil to compensate certain innate neurological limitations , , ,  -- and reforming  the network we are embedded into and usually call mankind or society or economy or world into an as geodesic as possibly possible one . For the sake of its own functional programmatic optimization .
Notice that towers leveling is not by demolition, but by uplifting the overall landscape level to and above the tower tops, turning them into deep roots or support pylons of asymptotically geodesic society .
Apparently, mentioning the Gate of God  denotes the unmixing  of languages & mentioning the apex global fiat settlement institution  - the excelling of the current fiat procrustics  i.e. the economy aspect.
That is: TML to Agoras . The first and last of the totally six identified aspects or steps of the social choice  as addressed by what we call Tau.
''our six steps of language, knowledge, discussion, collaboration, choice, and knowledge economy''
These aspects deserve of course separate zoom-in exegetic chapters and they'll definitely get it. I promise. And not only they.
Any exegesis of Tau unavoidably must start with scroll back and tracking down of the full history of the development so far. As a zoom out to see the full picture and to identify the dominant features of the landscape relief.
You, I reckon, already noticed this retrodictive inclination of mine , that in my mind the notion of ''Timeline of Development'' can not be by any logic just a handful of milestone promises thrown into the future, but it is a must to account for the up to now trajectory, too! No future without past.
It all started as Zennet , continued as Tau-chains  and 'turned' into aka 'newtau' , , , .
Wait! A New Tau?
Excuse me, Ohad, but I personally do not buy that and I said it many times. There ain't old and new Tau. The situation is much more straightforward and grokkable . Here it is:
Lotsa guts, balls, butt, brains or whatever human offal... is required for each of us to admit a mistake made in our everyday life. Generally quite a strength is needed to even look ourselves into the mirror...
It takes a whole Ohad though, to keep all oneself's work totally public and transparent even on the full and unedited live record of the infil  into entire branch of mathematics  and then throwing it all away as untauful. We witnessed that reported in real time!
Did this change the ends? No. But sorted out the means to an end.
Was it a 'mistake'? In no case. It was duly delivered R&D effort.
Was oldtau looking promising on first glance? Yes, of course it did.
Did it survive the Ohad's R&D 'crash-testing'? No, it didn't.
Was it a ''juice worth the sqweeze''? It was.
Was it a job well done? Absolutely.
The oldtau materials are for me legacy jewels. Like those dinosaur bugs trapped into blobs of amber .
Development is a process, not just results shipping. Related like cooking and serving.
Studying the zoom-out dev map we observe these few major landmarks:
The Zennet province is all right. Its gently rolling hills gradually merge into the Tau lands proper with the inevitable realization that a 'world supercomputer' can not be a Tauless thing. Zennet lives in Tau with .:
''... having a decentralized search engine requires Zennet-like capabilities, the ability to fairly rent (and rent-out) computational resources, under acceptable risk in the user's terms (as a function of cost). Our knowledge market will surely require such capabilities, and is therefore one of the three main ingredients of Agoras... hardware rent market...''
We move over through the oldtau wastelands  where the burnt ruins of MLTT  lie scattered - rough oldtau location-on-the-map indicator is the fall of 2015 with
''Tau as a Generalized Blockchain'' - posted Oct 17, 2015, 6:33 AM [updated Oct 17, 2015, 6:49 AM]
and then we reach the fertile gardens of newtau  in the fall of 2017:
''The New Tau'' - posted Dec 31, 2017, 12:27 AM [updated Dec 31, 2017, 12:28 AM]
Hmm. Apparently we crossed a watershed. Which relief feature it was? - The ridge  of:
''Tau and the Crisis of Truth'' - posted Sep 10, 2016, 8:25 PM [updated Sep 10, 2016, 8:28 PM]
Tau sorts out the Towers. I hope that the synopsis in this short chapter of Exegesis helped to sort out Tau dev in time as a navigation lookup tool.
Software is nothing but states of hardware. There is that intimate deep, not yet codified into a neat compact of logic, connection between Gödel , Heisenberg  and Laws of thermodynamics .
Tau keeps us off these traps.
I do not dare to state that someday we won't have the command on infinities and to play with them with the ease  of
''... a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.''
In fact, quite the opposite I'd rather take it as inevitability someday we to conquer the Cantor  expanses and to venture far even beyond that. To transcale  the transfinite. Like Hilbert  said it.:
''Aus dem Paradies, das Cantor uns geschaffen, soll uns niemand vertreiben können. (From the paradise, that Cantor created for us, no-one can expel us.)''
But it takes ... finitary vehicles of DECIDABILITY to conquer the transfinitary outer spaces. Because, in order to dear to dream to tame the infinities, we must first harness and get full command of finities.
Including of ourselves. Tau is ''understanding each other''. Without Tau we are ... others to ourselves.
Imperare sibi maximum imperium est.
Bizarre headline, isn't it? Sorry. It just ... coalesced spontaneously as ... a protein folding . Lets try to decompress it. Compression is comprehension . Decompression is experience. Firstly, I'll throw herein three bold statements - big separate mega-topics which I'll soon revisit by furnishing them with or backing them by their due Behest.io  full-fledged articles.:
1. The World is Fiat
I tend to generalize the term of fiat , to not only currency  but to all the Sollen  approach to transactors. In my vocabulary Fiat as an umbrella, general term for all social interaction which requires external enforcement, i.e. all what's not trustless or self-enforcing like morals  or blockchain . The whole system of monetized coercion. Or reciprocal - coercion backed fiat monetization . (Note: monetization of coercion vs coercion of monetization are not related by an OR  operator, but they are typical chicken-and-egg problem  - even the smallest children know that eggs precede chicks!) All what requires trust ...
2. Trust is Force
''You trust 'em only as much as you could make 'em to.''
Coercion or force or violence ... itself, IS currency per se - the primordial, the deeply preceding the emergence of Mankind one, and who manages to rigorize  it quantitatively will get and give us a TOE  unification of ecology and economics, i.e. instantly Nobel prizes! Not sure in which combination of fields. Simultaneously.
3. Money is Mnemonics
E.g. money in all forms is ... accountancy. Or book-keeping. Ledgers. Logs. Databases. Memory. They are even cognates  those - money and memory. Ancient truism.
It comes as necessity from the problem of simultaneity of transactions between autonomous agents, with other words - between automata , or self-thinkers, or those who are black-boxes  to each other. Regardless of whether the economy is mere barter, or it have uplifted one or more of its items to transactor/currency status.
Apparent feature of all accountancy systems is that they possess cardinality  of entries.
Up to now we know single-entry , double-entry  and tripple-entry  book-keeping system.
Not sure if a 'system' where everybody perceives, remembers and acts upon an isolated unshared 'ledger' of records on what's owed, contained only in its head - and runs it the way they could and want ... - counts for zero-entry book-keeping. Pun intended.
Can't wrap my head around negative or fractional numbers of book-keeping entries, nor I know what's the maximum practical and useful number of entries to juggle with. I expect Tau to bring together the, without any shadow of doubt, already available but dispersed across space and time bits and pieces of knowledge on accountancy entries cardinality into a general theory of transaction logging. It is necessary because, you know - an item is money (mnemonic  facility) ... transactor is accelerator , and general theory will give us a tool to know which monetary mechanism design  is the most powerful wealth growth booster.
Satoshi's blockchain is the first and only instance of successful implementation of the triple-entry book-keeping , so far, where credit and debit records and receipt are coined  into one. Self-enforcing log-book is as much (or not more) magical, or deus ex machina  solution then a horseless carriage vs a 'legacy' cart.
The blockchain catered total value is expectedly impressive grower itself. It took only 7-8 years to Bitcoin (and its imitations) to reach ~1% of what took 7-8 THOUSANDS of years to Gold  to get.
BUT, we still live in a predominantly Fiat, double-entry book-keeping world:
Visualize the modern world as a forest of centralized 2-entry ledgers:
From the several hundreds of tree stems - the Central Banks , though the thousands and thousands of commercial banks - fractional reserve franchisees of the Central Banks, down to the individual humans and firms credit-debit records.
A vast centralized fractal of 2-entry ledgers of ledgers. Lined into one by the global meta-ledgers - provided by international institutions like BIS .
Important Note: ... which I must make here - Lots of crap talk we've heard about how Blockchain is against Fiat, how it will replace it, how it frees us from the illths of the ancient regime  . NOTHING like that! The truth is that, for now, we do not have even the slightest idea or hint about how we could decentralize or detrust interpersonal voluntary exchange! Geography and history, e.g. nature and culture are forces to reckon. The propaganda suggestion that fiat money is kinda fake, printed at a wish, valuable only because we all believe in them ... is one of biggest nonsense I've ever heard.
As in any forest, the tree size and power varies. And matters. USD is the Yggdrasil  of the meatspace  of the global fiat mainstream Swartzwald  ! (Just like BTC is in the cyberspace one. It is not occasional at all that both are so perfect systemic benchmark matches.) In the ocean of fiat, USD is a giant landmass, a Pangea which is nearly impossible to go around of. The force of 20 000 golf balls of Plutonium coupled with same number of office dustbins of LiD  . And 1000+ military bases scattered around the world. And comprehensive coverage of the sea routes to guarantee that the global trade goes by the books. And working supremacy of law system as an antidote of internal corruption decay of the system... Shall the USD survive the Blockchaincalypsis? Of course! Taxcoins  are always needed. The runaway crypto-fication of the fiat monetary systems only makes the due payments of geopolitical services more and more unescapable. And more and more precise and fairer. With higher resolution and lower lag.
Backed by force means that the the strongest force is the most trustful. Like all those currencies who belong to the hall of glory of the millennial monumental transactors.: Hellenic drachma  - survived so far as a currency name in the Gulf , Roman solidus , Spanish silver dollar , etc. ... used to be. Mainstreamers - for being backed by the biggest force. (Mentioning the Force, we simply can not go without a Star Wars quote , I'm afraid - the best and most inexorable thesaurus of cliches.)
Lets close now the three side notes of dictionary intro here, and go back to PROCRUSTICS:
First, yes, it is about that antiquity gangsta, the psychopathic dropout of the noble blacksmiths profession - Procrustes .:
''who attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed.''
Secondly, the etymology turtledoves  who explained to us what Behest is , clarify that:
Don't look exactly like pigeons, do they?
Thirdly, Procrustics by the great philosopher Stanislaw Lem . This is from Wikipedia:
''In 1959 science fiction novel Eden by Stanislaw Lem, Procrustics is the name of a fictitious information-theory based social engineering discipline of molding groups within a society and ultimately a society as a whole to behave as designed by secretive hidden rulers, to create a hideous form of social control in which the very existence of the governing powers is denied and each individual appears to themselves to be free yet are being manipulated and controlled. One example described in the novel is "concentration camps" without any guards which are designed so that the prisoners stay inside apparently on their "free" will.''
Last but not least, it is no surprise that this so much meaning laden word entered the vast fields of mathematics, too - , , , to denote so important concepts. Procrustean transformations:
''Hence, it may change the size, but not the shape of an ... object.''
I think this is enough of explanation to tie it up into:
The Fiat is procrustic because it is ripe to be transcaled!
Fiat is saturated. It can not grow the old ways any more. It is really dearer and dearer to be grown. It reached its internal limits.
Fiat (as global fractal integration of all double-entry accountancy books) is a narrative.
Fiat is procrustic, because being unaffordable thing to cover it all: it omits, it cuts off, it keeps out, excludes, discriminates, sequesters ...
As a narrative it tells a story of wealth, but leaves out so vast unsung, though present, riches.
The global fiat bards memory is too weak to memorize it all and they are not clever enough to distinguish the true from false entries ...
The fiat Yggdrasil Norns  fingers are weak to handle all threads and to manage to interweave them all into the meta-ledger ...
Giant mass of economic data left lying in waste, unused. And that's REALLY bad cause the data about the system state is the fuel for its own self-reinforcing positive feedback loop . Yeah, data as the new oil , but literally.
The estimates are that as much as up to 80% of all economic information stays off the record .
Cf.: Hernando de Soto Polar , who estimated that.:
''The existence of such massive exclusion generates two parallel economies, legal and extra legal. An elite minority enjoys the economic benefits of the law and globalization, while the majority of entrepreneurs are stuck in poverty, where their assets—adding up to more than US$10 trillion worldwide—languish as dead capital in the shadows of the law.''
in his 2000, ''The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else'' 
Cf.: aka Bazaaristan .:
''Across the globe, 1.8 billion people -- a quarter of the world's population -- work off the books each day. They are paid in cash for the goods they sell and the services they provide, and due to their ubiquity, there's a word for these merchants in nearly every language. As Robert Neuwirth reports, in French colonies, they're known as débrouillards -- self-starters, entrepreneurs, all outside the bureaucratic system. They might be vendors selling revolutionary goods in Egypt's Tahrir Square, Nigerians selling mobile phones, or the guy down the street hawking flowers on the corner. Whoever they are, they work in the world's fastest-growing economy: System D. As Neuwirth writes, System D, slang for "l'economie de la débrouillardise," is the crucial blackmarket, providing opportunities where the regulated global economy has failed. Its value is estimated at roughly $10 trillion, meaning, as Neuwirth points out, that, "If System D were an independent nation, united in a single political structure -- call it the the United Street Sellers Republic (USSR) or, perhaps, Bazaaristan -- it would be an economic superpower, the second largest economy in the world." The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicts that two-thirds of the world's workers will be employed in System D as soon as 2020.''
Cf.: the world unbanked population phenomenon 
''Two billion people worldwide do not have a bank account or access to a financial institution via a mobile phone, or any other device.''
The ancient worldmap picture up at the bizarre headline, denotes exactly this 'Here Be Dragons' situation of the Blockchain-unboosted yet Fiat finance.
All these examples demonstrate not a conspiracy of a kind, but mere and obvious fiat unscaling symptomatics.
Probably in the old centralized way, for a double-entry book-keeping system in order to check, record and run all facts of relevant economic information, would have to consume more than what the economy makes as a whole! :)
This inevitably crosses with the important topics of the network scaling effects - for merely linking all the dots means automatically n^2 bigger economy . Without to add anything new, but by just noticing and accounting of the existing wealth.
We have probably dozens of TIMES bigger economy than we realize! Tantalus suffering .
On the comparative costs of the accounting systems there are three studies, , ,  which I particularly value, and which put into a neat perspective together with the network scaling effects  are definitely subject of separate near future blog posts of mine.
Now scroll-up back to the ''Important note'' above, please.
Blockchain is not the Fiat killer. It is its Transcaler  !!
And Tauchain being - together with so many other things - the generalization and the generalizer of all possible blockchains in particular and all possible accountancies in general - is the transcaler of the transcalers.
And as effect - the ultimate economy (incl. economy governance ) Accelerator .
Logo by CapitanArt
Enlaces / Links
Logo by CapitanArt
Archivos / Archives
Suggested readings to better understand the Tau ecosystem, Tau Meta Language, Tau-Chain and Agoras, and collaborate in the development of the project.
Lecturas sugeridas para entender mejor el ecosistema Tau, Tau Meta Lenguaje, Tau-Chain y Agoras, y colaborar en el desarrollo del proyecto.