I think the comparison with Shannon + information theory is apt. Hardness feels like an extension of the Shannon-Weaver model, except the receiver/destination is also the future (and past) and the noise is time (https://blog.simondlr.com/posts/time-as-platform).
We can more effectively communicate with the future and past if we reduce the optionality (possible entropy) at a specific layer. A legal contract for example defines desired behaviour of the participants in the future such that breaking the agreement would be at cost to the participants. This means that some future becomes more possible as a result.
Hardness makes it easier to communicate through time. A harder protocol reduces the noise of time.
Love this, yet after reflecting on the notion of “hardness” I would suggest that “promises” as described by Promise Theory (http://markburgess.org/promises.html) is a better descriptor. As he describes it:
“Promise Theory bridges the worlds of semantics and dynamics to describe interactions between autonomous agencies within a system. It provides a semi-formal language for modelling intent and its outcome, which results in a chemistry for cooperative behaviour.”
Money, law and government all depend on the efficacy of promises, and Burgess’ treatment of this topic is one I and many others have found fruitful in many domains.
I can't say I'm a big fan of the term "hardness". "Robustness" or "stability" seems better. Hardness has connotations of brittleness, and the protocols that persist through time do so not because they are hard, but because they are adaptable. That's the opposite of hard, something that can change while retaining its essence.
Take the US Constitution, an institution that has had pretty remarkable staying power. It did so not because of hardness but because it was adaptable, both by design (the amendment process) and because people were willing and able to radically reinterpret it as historical conditions changed. It may be nearing the end of its useful life, and its weak points are being attacked, but it had a good run.
nice description of what "summer of protocols" is __actually__ about. am i to understand hardness as being like "rock suitable to drive a pinion into so we can use it for climbing"? "hardness" brings to my mind connotations of "difficulty" and i see you do not mean that at all, quite the opposite - by leaning on the right "hard" things" we make difficult things less so. right?
Awesome read!
I think the comparison with Shannon + information theory is apt. Hardness feels like an extension of the Shannon-Weaver model, except the receiver/destination is also the future (and past) and the noise is time (https://blog.simondlr.com/posts/time-as-platform).
We can more effectively communicate with the future and past if we reduce the optionality (possible entropy) at a specific layer. A legal contract for example defines desired behaviour of the participants in the future such that breaking the agreement would be at cost to the participants. This means that some future becomes more possible as a result.
Hardness makes it easier to communicate through time. A harder protocol reduces the noise of time.
Love this, yet after reflecting on the notion of “hardness” I would suggest that “promises” as described by Promise Theory (http://markburgess.org/promises.html) is a better descriptor. As he describes it:
“Promise Theory bridges the worlds of semantics and dynamics to describe interactions between autonomous agencies within a system. It provides a semi-formal language for modelling intent and its outcome, which results in a chemistry for cooperative behaviour.”
Money, law and government all depend on the efficacy of promises, and Burgess’ treatment of this topic is one I and many others have found fruitful in many domains.
BTW, this is great work overall and I don't want to let that thought get lost while quibbling over the fine details of terminology.
I can't say I'm a big fan of the term "hardness". "Robustness" or "stability" seems better. Hardness has connotations of brittleness, and the protocols that persist through time do so not because they are hard, but because they are adaptable. That's the opposite of hard, something that can change while retaining its essence.
Take the US Constitution, an institution that has had pretty remarkable staying power. It did so not because of hardness but because it was adaptable, both by design (the amendment process) and because people were willing and able to radically reinterpret it as historical conditions changed. It may be nearing the end of its useful life, and its weak points are being attacked, but it had a good run.
nice description of what "summer of protocols" is __actually__ about. am i to understand hardness as being like "rock suitable to drive a pinion into so we can use it for climbing"? "hardness" brings to my mind connotations of "difficulty" and i see you do not mean that at all, quite the opposite - by leaning on the right "hard" things" we make difficult things less so. right?