The mathematical language of Game Theory is both machine readable and can be used to express and enforce values and function in our constitution.
When writing a constitution it would be well to stay away from any nebulas concepts like justice which depend on a person’s point of view and can not be expressed mathematically.
Better to encode a constitution which hunts for and enforces maximum cooperation.
Cooperation is self-evident.
When parties agree, there is cooperation.
And when parties agree, no one is worrying about justice.
Most importantly, cooperation can be expressed as a Nash Equilibrium or some similar mathematical construct depending on the situation and these are machine readable.
Liberty is another concept which self-evident and can be expressed mathematically in Game Theory as the maximum of choices or some other similar mathematical construct depending on the situation. So better to encode a constitution which hunts for and enforces maximum choices for all parties according to their preferences.
What follows from liberty is resistance to censorship because this is a limitation of a choice which again can be expressed mathematically and so can be used to validate code.
What about the opposing rights of privacy and transparency?
Again this may be solved using Game Theory by building upon the previous maths of cooperation, liberty, and resistance to censorship and the result could be encoded into the constitution and used to validate code.
There are challenges - for instance, some outcomes in Game Theory can only be expressed as a probability.
I am sure IOG has game theorists working on this now.
As for the work on encoding game theory math results into the constitution, that work is probably being done as we speak at the Hoskinson Center for Formal Mathematics.
I can’t wait to see the results.
It would be wonderful if we could encode Love thy neighbor as thy self into the constitution.
Unfortunately that can’t be done because love is lost the moment you try to enforce it.
But I think you might get pretty close to encoding The One Great Commandment if you can encode for a system that hunts for the maximum of well being. This is a dynamic mix of cooperation, liberty, censorship resistance, privacy, and transparency using Game Theory math. I think well being for a community or for an individual can be expressed as the maximum of choices according to your preferences (liberty) that lead the maximum growth of choices according to your preferences. In other words, well being could be defined mathematically as the maximum acceleration of liberty which is found by locating the derivative of liberty with the maximum slope. It’s all math and machine understandable and it can be used to validate smart contracts. The trick is to start with axioms which are self evident and so need no definition. The people who wrote The Declaration of Independence understood this - look at their axioms:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
We can’t code for happiness - it’s too subjective. But we can substitute well being for happiness.
This resolves to
Proxy for Life: You have at least the possibility of choices. Dead people don’t get that.
Proxy for Liberty: You have a lot of choices according to your preferences.
Proxy for Pursuit of Well Being: Pursue an accelerating range of choices according to your preferences.
All Men Are Equal:
It’s all game theory math.
I asked that new AI chatbot (it calls itself Assistant) to define the above using minimum English and maximum symbols from game theory. The following is what it answered.
- “Life” can be defined as the presence of a utility function for an individual, U(a), where “a” represents the set of actions available to the individual that align with their preferences.
- “Liberty” can be defined as the presence of a large and diverse set of actions, A, that an individual can choose from, where the actions align with the individual’s preferences.
- “Maximum Well-being” can be defined as the condition in which the rate at which the amount of choices aligned with an individual’s preferences grows at the maximum possible acceleration. This can be represented as the derivative of the utility function with respect to time, dU/dt, evaluated at its maximum value.
The machine’s answer above is a pretty good indication that we can write a constitution which is machine-readable and open to automatic validation.
Finally, if you read the rest of this, it becomes clear that we need a Declaration of Independence from the legacy financial system that runs our government even before we have a constitution.
.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.