/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11189905
I'm up for it. Let's do this, fellow member of society from arbitrary definition set A.

As far as I'm aware Game Theory supports tribal sharing, e.g. compassion and generosity towards tribe members, while encouraging selfishness towards outsiders.

So yes, if by socialism you mean early human gift societies, of less than 300 people.

If you mean a large nation state, or worse yet all of humanity, then absolutely no.

>>11189922
Those hecking digits though

>>11189922
Fat fetishist checking in.
Where my fellow fatty fuckers at?

>>11190081
To the extent that game theory is a mathematical formalism, it doesn't support anything. I mean 2+5 in N ist 7, but to say that arithmetic is supporting 2+5=7 is a bit odd

>>11190118
Anon, you're unconnectable.

>>11190126
the results of game theory support*
Don't be autistic, what I meant was clear.

>>11190290
You may be misapplying game theory by reducing society to a game.

>>11189905
Dialectical materialism already is science.

>>11189905
No, because it doesn't solve any of the problems that capitalism solves and introduces new ones which are less acceptable than those of capitalism. This is true regardless of whether game theory reveals problems with capitalism as a system, which it does.

>>11189905
This man says the truth >>11190081
Game theory supports tribalism.
Now if you bring competing xeno species it might change.

https://ncase.me/trust/

Socialism requires a singular human to be in charge of distribution. A single linchpin. A position of power easily that attracts corruption. Given how human nature is this linchpin will always fail, it's only a matter of time. Smaller groups may take longer, but it always happens. Once that position of power is compromised people lose trust in the system. Once trust is lost, people stop playing by the systems rules. Crime becomes rampant and quickly escalates, unless countered by authoritarian dictatorship rules.

Socialism is an unstable form of governance. It will always devolve into total anarchy, or dictatorship.

>>11190759
>>11190081
This is why analytic philosophy is silly. You can't just make blanket statements like "humans are tribal" or "humans always have this one particular behaviour", this is metaphysics and there's no evidence for it. Humans adapt to the material conditions, they don't have one rigid set of behaviors or preferences.

>>11190127
Lies! I connect with Anon! >>11190118

>>11190296
How is it a misapplication when all humans try to do is game one modality of communication in order to gain resource/command advantage over another, whether through commerce or education?
>e.g. I know more vs I have more

>>11190783
Why not just an open-source A.I.?

>>11190889
This is true, however the integrity or determination of said individual/group is what defines the scope and impact of resource consumption and material usage.

>>11190889
>biology doesnt exist
yikes

>>11191254
>yikes

>>11189905
Rather dialectics, dialectical materialism, Marxian economics and modern monetary theory

>>11191232
>Why not just an open-source A.I.?

Do you really wish to literally be ruled AI overlords?

>>11189905
Everyone knows Yui is ancap.

>>11192160
Well I mean, that's what's happened basically. And the delusions aren't working, they don't have enough verisimilitude. You should have started into the alterations when I was younger and more gullible.

>>11191254
>humans are tribal
>biology
yikes

>>11189905
a game theory solution would not be exploitable. can you describe a socialist system which meets that description?

>>11192160
We are all ruled by some predicate anyway, so who cares if it just finally becomes a digital story that runs in parallel to humanity?

>>11190081
No, game theory can optimize for multiple smaller states that share the same goal of a larger nation. Its more complex but its absolutely doable, and becomes a necessity.

No. /sci/ is a free market board.

>>11189905
no, game theory breaks down when the individuals are not all equal. treating humans like fundamental particles is nonsensical, read up on the history of bose-einstein statistics if you're interested in learning more about the difference between individuals and quanta

>>11193161
Many traits, including tribalism, are heritable.

>>11194439
>fundamental particles
particles aren't real you pseud

>>11190783
That's not what socialism means at all, and I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that somehow all the economic decisions of a socialist economy would be made by one person.
Socialism is simply the ownership, i.e. control, of the means of production (factories, machines, tractors, fields) by the people using them rather than by rentiers (monarchs, aristocrats, capitalists).
One way of doing this is having the means of production be owned by the state (state officials then act as the employers) and the state be controlled by elected representatives.
The problem is that it's then easy for some group or individual to consolidate both political and economic power and maintain their rank - but only if the society simply continues to reproduce the state that existed beforehand, and this problem/process also occurs under capitalism from the other direction and is arguably already complete in the US and other developed capitalist nations.
Another mode of socialist organisation is the worker co-operative, where the workers directly own the means of production, and make all decisions relating to it, by themselves democratically.
These are highly efficient, reliably out-compete traditional capitalist corporation modes of production in almost every metric, and are likely to be the primary form socialism will take in this century.
They also completely side-step issues of 'big government' and 'state control' because the government has no involvement, except perhaps to match the subsidies and tax breaks which capitalist corporations already enjoy.

>>11189905
Socialism is the creationism of economics.

Argumentation is the calculus of concerns vs priorities.

>>11194506
>These are highly efficient, reliably out-compete traditional capitalist corporation modes of production in almost every metric, and are likely to be the primary form socialism will take in this century.
As long as one can opt out and I'm not compelled to pay or work for anything I don't want to, I've got no problem with this

>>11194506
>Another mode of socialist organisation is the worker co-operative, where the workers directly own the means of production, and make all decisions relating to it, by themselves democratically.
>These are highly efficient, reliably out-compete traditional capitalist corporation modes of production in almost every metric, and are likely to be the primary form socialism will take in this century.

this would be great in principle but heterogeneous groups self-organize into hierarchies