Counter question why can't the Ergodic Hypothesis be correct, and that the infoverse only goes through booms and busts, where temporal extropy manifests in information complexity?
"The more closely we align money with truth, the stronger the moderating force exerted on all social groups simultaneously, drawing them toward a common reality."
The internet means people can believe virtually anything and still find social support for it. In the absence of other motives, people will naturally follow their preferences instead of trying to understand the world as well as they can. I'm suggesting we can use financial risk & reward to introduce an "other motive," which will give people a good reason to do something other than follow their preferences.
It's impossible to make someone be rational against their will. They have to want it. A financial motive gives people a new reason to want to be rational.
Of course--people must value rationality or its end in order to be rational. And providing a financial end will motivate people toward it in a certain way. But what, specifically, is the way in which that happens? What are some examples of things that people might reason more about given a financial motive?
Let me put it this way — when the public is looking for knowledge about something important like the COVID crisis, we tend to seek authority. We look toward the big names, the big institutions — NYT, WHO, etc. But these keep failing us. Instead of looking for "the most authoritative" information, markets motivate people to look for "the most valuable" information. That shift by itself makes a huge difference. Just by changing the question that guides how we seek information together as a culture, we can improve the results of that seeking. Does that make sense?
Counter question why can't the Ergodic Hypothesis be correct, and that the infoverse only goes through booms and busts, where temporal extropy manifests in information complexity?
"The more closely we align money with truth, the stronger the moderating force exerted on all social groups simultaneously, drawing them toward a common reality."
What do you mean by "align money with truth"?
The internet means people can believe virtually anything and still find social support for it. In the absence of other motives, people will naturally follow their preferences instead of trying to understand the world as well as they can. I'm suggesting we can use financial risk & reward to introduce an "other motive," which will give people a good reason to do something other than follow their preferences.
That helps, but here's where I'm still confused: how does this sort of financial risk and reward promote truth and objectivity?
It's impossible to make someone be rational against their will. They have to want it. A financial motive gives people a new reason to want to be rational.
Of course--people must value rationality or its end in order to be rational. And providing a financial end will motivate people toward it in a certain way. But what, specifically, is the way in which that happens? What are some examples of things that people might reason more about given a financial motive?
Let me put it this way — when the public is looking for knowledge about something important like the COVID crisis, we tend to seek authority. We look toward the big names, the big institutions — NYT, WHO, etc. But these keep failing us. Instead of looking for "the most authoritative" information, markets motivate people to look for "the most valuable" information. That shift by itself makes a huge difference. Just by changing the question that guides how we seek information together as a culture, we can improve the results of that seeking. Does that make sense?