The Levation of a Missing Axiom: What do We Need to Bring the Central Banks into Order? Juice Follow May 9, 2016 · 4 min read

A lot of people, or the internet, tends to see the discovery of pyramids across different otherwise unconnected civilization as the possibility or likelihood we were at one time connected, and/or possibly visited by aliens, or perhaps have lost a special technology. Science for some reason, especially when it comes to understanding economics and money, doesn’t come to the Occam’s conclusion that pyramids, for whatever reason (I don’t have to show), are in fact part of our natural evolution.

The suggestion here, is if we are allowed to make a comparison between, the stability to society a block-laying venture with a pyramid might bring, and that of the block-chain we might understand something important…

Somewhere here there is the realization, that bitcoin was bound to happen. An internet money in the form of a stably issued supply. However, for whatever reason today it isn’t obvious to anyone, that it is absolute inevitable natural evolution, but John Nash.

Nash created Ideal Money on the assumption that bitcoin would arise:

I think of the possibility that a good sort of international currency might EVOLVE before the time when an official establishment might occur. Here I am thinking of a politically neutral form of a technological utility rather than of a money …money itself is a sort of “utility”, using the word in another sense, comparable to supplies of water, electric energy or telecommunications. …We may become irrational in thinking about it and fail to be able to reason about it as if about a technology… We of Terra could be taught how to have ideal monetary systems if wise and benevolent extraterrestrials were to take us in hand and administer our national money systems… Such a result would necessarily have a political content since it is the states that control and supply the various currencies that are in use at the present time.

It took me much time before I felt I could understand the below but I think I do now. Let us pay attention particularly to the end paragraph (I think I made a typing mistake in the last line of the 3rd paragraph!):

I think there is a good analogy to mathematical theories like, for example, “class field theory”. In mathematics a set of axioms can be taken as a foundation and then an area for theoretical study is brought into being. For example, if one set of axioms is specified and accepted we have the theory of rings while if another set of axioms is the foundation we have the theory of Moufang loops. So, from a critical point of view, the theory of macro-economics of the Keynesians is like the theory of plane geometry without the axiom of Euclid that was classically called the “parallel postulate”. (It is an interesting fact in the history of science that there was a time, before the nineteenth century, when mathematicians were speculating that this axiom or postulate was not necessary, that it should be derivable from the others.) So I feel that the macroeconomics of the Keynesians is comparable to a scientific study of a mathematical area which is carried out with an insufficient set of axioms. And the result is analogous to the situation in plane geometry, the plane does not need to be really flat and the area within a circle can expand hyperbolically as a function of the radius rather than merely with the square of the radius. (This picture suggests the pattern of inflation that can result in a country, over extended time periods, when there is continually a certain amount of gradual inflation.) The missing axiom is simply an accepted axiom that the money being put into circulation by the central authorities should be so handled as to maintain, over long terms of time, a stable value.

This is how Nash works:

We make the realization that in order to bring about Ideal Money, we need the central banks to issue money with stable value. So we arrange them in such a way they do so. This is the introduction of the above axiom.

But by what external force other than pure thought experiment can we do so?

Are you with me? Did you miss it?

The difference between reality and the addition of the axiom reveals there IS a SOLUTION!

This is a very Nashian way to solve something. Nash is famous for showing that all finite games DO in fact have a solution.

If I went around to people and said I just proved all games have a solution, ignorant people would say “What is the use of simply proving a solution exists?”

But Nash was ecstatic with this conclusion that all games of a certain type had a solution. It changed the world.

And so did his realization of the missing axiom in regard to macro-economics. It allowed him to extrapolate the implementation of the solution that causes the levation of the axiom he describes.

He created the question: “What do we need to bring the central banks into order?”

The rest of Ideal Money is the philosophical considerations, from every perspective, in every discipline related to how to bring about Ideal Money, a concept that Nash created in the 60’s shortly before he fled to Europe to change his USD for the Swiss franc.

:)