Simulacra as free-floating schelling points could actually be good if they represent mathematical truth about coordination between agents within a reference class, intended to create better outcomes in the world?
But if a simulacrum corresponds to truth because people conform their future behavior to its meaning in the spirit of cooperation does it still count as a simulacrum?
It feels like you’re trying to implicitly import all of good intent, in its full potential, stuff it into the word “truth”, and claim it’s incompatible with the use of schelling points via the distortions:
the idea that the symbol had an original meaning and any change involving voluntary conformance to the new meaning would inherently be malicious
using an example (job title) which is already a simulacrum, but initially used cooperatively
assuming that people lagging in stage 1-3 would be exploited/arbitraged by people in stage 4
cooperative simulacrum (e.g. maps) are less contentious and so not salient examples of the word
In other words I think you’re assuming:
good intent = truth = in-principle CDT-verifiable truth (fair)
I don’t think [2] is accurate. Certainly some people are using simulacrums “cooperatively” but only as a larger defection – that’s the whole point: to receive benefits that are unearned per object-level reality.
I agree that all of this behavior isn’t a good (central) example of ‘immoral behavior’, but it’s certainly not good. It might be to some degree inevitable, but so are lots of bad things.
Simulacra as free-floating schelling points could actually be good if they represent mathematical truth about coordination between agents within a reference class, intended to create better outcomes in the world?
But if a simulacrum corresponds to truth because people conform their future behavior to its meaning in the spirit of cooperation does it still count as a simulacrum?
It feels like you’re trying to implicitly import all of good intent, in its full potential, stuff it into the word “truth”, and claim it’s incompatible with the use of schelling points via the distortions:
the idea that the symbol had an original meaning and any change involving voluntary conformance to the new meaning would inherently be malicious
using an example (job title) which is already a simulacrum, but initially used cooperatively
assuming that people lagging in stage 1-3 would be exploited/arbitraged by people in stage 4
cooperative simulacrum (e.g. maps) are less contentious and so not salient examples of the word
In other words I think you’re assuming:
good intent = truth = in-principle CDT-verifiable truth (fair)
I don’t think [2] is accurate. Certainly some people are using simulacrums “cooperatively” but only as a larger defection – that’s the whole point: to receive benefits that are unearned per object-level reality.
I agree that all of this behavior isn’t a good (central) example of ‘immoral behavior’, but it’s certainly not good. It might be to some degree inevitable, but so are lots of bad things.