Giorgio Japaridze has suggested an interpretation of dynamic logic as representable as game semantics, the stuff of game theory. Games are minimal worlds in which there are agents, objects, spaces, and it makes intuitive sense that dynamic logic (which tries to make logic marry up with real world activity) and game semantics would be closely aligned projects.
I would add Hegel's approach to dialectics to this group. He makes an move, presents reality's counter, makes another move and so on, until he gets to people and completes the analysis of master and servant. The servant is in the position of great consciousness for the servant must master himself and the whole world, while the master has only desire and violence. The submission quickly becomes only a part of what the servant is doing.
A long time ago now, people would ask in exasperation what game I was playing. That question - what game is it? - is fundamental. 'What game are we playing?' could be a candidate for game zero, the game of which all other games are sub-games. I recently commented somewhere that the only positive evidence of something beyond the greedy-pig-athon of modern economic life was the Bill Gates move of saying 'enough winning - what else have you got?'. Of course, that undersells Melinda Gates' Catholicism. He was made alive to the reality that thousands of people die for lack of $5, $20, $50 interventions, and looking around in exasperation for the people holding all the dollars, was able to see himself. Good on him. He's making universality game zero.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This is your chance to be heard, really heard! Finally the world will take you seriously. So do try to post something worthwhile.