Is there a social/structural notion of entropy?

Asta [AMP]

or the second amendment i think the concept of textual interpretation is actually a dodge and the issue is more around selective enforcement

oh yeah, I totally agree. That is the problem, and indeed much of the problem with writing rules in general, it seems. Definitely gun owners are acting in serious bad faith here and it seems given enough time there's no way they can't torture the language to mean whatever they want it to mean.

which, so, maybe the entropy in reality is "infinite, boundless, and uncaring".

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud i think writing down a system of rules and their enforcement which does not depend on assumed benevolence (something the us constitution does do in some respects but not others, as it was written to defend against monarchic and not oligarchic power) is both possible to achieve and maintain

Charles U. Farley

@aud The Second Amendment is a very interesting example, because it's been "obsoleted" by both the 14th amendment and the fact that we now have a large, permanent standing army, large reserves, the national guard, and paramilitary police forces. I'm pretty sure it was originally intended to protect the states from the federal government, and that it didn't really occur to the framers that states would try to disarm their own people because that would be disarming *themselves* since they didn't have their own militaries.

There are those who argue that the 14th Amendment makes the Constitution a completely different document by applying it to the states. So that would have been a step change in the entropy of the country.

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] I think you're right. I think this thought exercise just made me marginally more of a fan of the central idea of anarchy (no hierarchies!) if anything.

Even if you could measure it at a moment in time, you can't avoid capture of the organization (which means who cares what you wrote down) any more than you can avoid the linguistic, cultural, and legal landscape changing.

Sometimes I think, it would be nice to build something that lasted beyond me, right? But it doesn't matter if I'm corruptible, because even if I am not, I will one day die and not be in charge of it or I will be removed. And I struggle with this because I don't think it's better to not build. You just have to be careful about what you do build. Except you can't possibly see all ends.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud i'm saying that like all metrics it measures only what the measurer is measuring, and the claims of universality associated to shannon information make it an extremely intoxicating viewpoint to misuse—but if we want to be fair, this is not a problem with shannon information but its usage. to some extent there are very meaningful forms of power and intent that aren't written down and run through all forms of language which i think is important

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] This is definitely one area where I am waaaay outside of my depths regarding the specifics as I am not a legal scholar nor do I pretend to understand the way in which the language involved in the amendment(s) is now applied or commonly believed to apply.

However, now that you bring it up, the fact that there's been such... shifting around of the ideas even when the language hasn't changed (and as you point out, changing the number of possible ... I'm gonna use 'modes' instead of 'states' here to talk about the number of possible configurations that exist depending on how the language is interpreted. But anyway, it definitely changes the number of modes depending on which entities people think the language does or does not apply to).

Maddening.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud i think codifying the enforcement mechanisms is absolutely possible to a meaningful if not perfect extent and absolutely helps to remove ambiguity which can be misused. my main complaint was just what i perceived to be an assumption that this is intrinsic to all systems and not an expression of the power(s) that created the systems in the first place—this may have been a misunderstanding on my part

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] Yeah, for sure; I hadn't really encountered the idea outside of very narrow applications, so when I think of Shannon entropy I tend to think in somewhat technical contexts where we're talking bits and such. The idea that it's been 'applied' in other areas is... concerning.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud you mentioned the bdfl and obviously a system with one of those clearly elides power

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] ah, well, no, I think you're right. It's 100% dependent on the powers that created the system, for sure. I just hadn't really wandered outside of a specific slice of that (ie, this moment in time, with this set of possible meanings and this set of possible interpretations of laws/context that these words can be held to at this moment, which is a lot but for a static moment in time may be considered... not-infinite. Not until you go to the next timestep, anyway...)

Charles U. Farley

@aud I suspect the framers would be shocked at the 14th amendment and would have expected us to have had a new constitutional convention rather than a civil war.

The whole concept of originalism makes no sense when you consider that the Constitution wasn't intended to apply to the states. Which makes me suspect that originalists actually want to throw out the 14th amendment. And probably most of the others beyond the Bill of Rights.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud i don't think the problem is in being unable to foresee/forestall all possible futures but in effectively responding to what arises and building in mechanisms for what you can see in response. we've seen that rust has a code of conduct but fails to enforce it—this is something we can look to address. no system of government is perfect

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] absolutely. I used to phrase this kind of thing, as, say... a "good king" example. Like you can, in theory, have a benevolent ruler (let's ignore that's probably never happened); even if you did, it doesn't make the monarchy a good system to so speak.

So it's just sort of musings on that idea taken a little further with regard to the inherent flexibility of how rules and laws might be interpreted.

Power being what it is, though, as was pointed out with the gun lobby, there's nothing stopping the 'second king' from deciding to pursue a propaganda campaign where words used in the original laws now mean something else that is easily abused (and frankly this probably happens).

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] yeah... hmmm. It's just, how do we get to completely ridiculous point where an entity like the rust foundation says it would be discrimination to not accept funding from war profiteers?

Speaking of linguistic abuse... bleh.

Anyway, there's no using technology (and I mean this to include the written word) to get rid of the "trust" problem at the end of the day.

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] I'm kind of glad to hear this, because originalism on its face is such a ridiculous concept (the idea that you can divine out what they mean is ridiculous; the idea that you should even more so) so it's nice to hear that when you take other parts of the constitution in, it also already doesn't make sense.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud unfortunately a lot of libertarians (derogatory) use a similar framing re software licenses that disallow military/surveillance/apartheid like the ACSL. there is an idea that these restrictions can be misused to harm good people, which only makes sense if you do not really care about the harm they are trying to stop imho. you can see US sanctions as an example of this, but US sanctions are imposed by an imperialist military state and not a band of people over the internet, so it's a bit wrong to draw the analogy

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud there is a claim i don't agree with that licenses depend on laws, which depend on the state, which is therefore bad. a license is actually a contract with users, which can be applied even in non-state contexts. one thing i don't like is anarchists who use it to act like no agreement between people(s) can be upheld in an anarchist society, when my conception of an anarchist society is precisely one in which agreements can be upheld

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] reminds me of the “how can you have morality without god?” question which is like, wait, what? it seems like morality is more important if you believe this is all there is.

d@nny "disc@" mc²

@aud it's extremely common in "AI" discourse because the fundamental assertion of an LLM is that all meaning can be distilled to textual language (this part is not really that bad in itself; it's possible to speak to people purely through text) and furthermore that any mode of statistical text generation is equivalent to the exercise of language (this is marketing and obviously false)

Asta [AMP]

@[email protected] ARGH