protocols

"We can create rules that allow for a certain behaviour to emerge, and we can create rules that force a certain behaviour to vanish."

Wrote another banger in the latest Powerlaw Memo. 

A system is not a system if it has only "for" rules, because then it is a free for all. And a system is not a system if it has only "against" rules, because then it is just a prison.

This is the alt account of Sister Hazel. Writings at https://powerlaw.systems.

In terms of political elections, specifically to the US, the voter's choice unfolds on a distribution. It is just that this particular nation state defined system rules for two majority parties to emerge. The system itself dumbed down the number of outcomes. And the election result is then like a hashed representation of the cumulative vote. 

As you mentioned, it is almost a relief once your world view opens up to the mechanistic structure of the environment around us.

I see everything able to be put on a spectrum as well. 

It’s interesting how certain systems can create a dynamic where, rather than many options a spectrum deserves, we are forced to select between two, because of GTO. For example, US election voting system. If we used r
ranked vote, perhaps a 3rd candidate would emerge who is everyone’s second choice.

as for powerlaws, i’ve never thought about the world so broadly and simplified. wrapping my head around different examples and conclusions.