Tag Archives: philosophy

What is the core purpose of money/currency and value exchange?

Create your own magic with Web 7.0™ / TDW AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public LicenseWeb 7.0™, TDW AgenticOS™ and Hyperonomy™ are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

At the level of human society—not just markets—the real purpose of currency and value exchange isn’t money itself. It’s coordination.

Currency is a social technology that solves a deep, ancient problem:
How do millions of people who don’t know or trust each other still cooperate at scale?

Here’s what that really means.


1. The core function: enabling large-scale cooperation

Before money, exchange depended on:

  • Barter (which rarely matches needs),
  • Reputation inside small tribes,
  • Or coercion.

Currency replaces all three with something more powerful:
a shared belief system that lets strangers coordinate effort, resources, and time.

At a societal level, money allows:

  • A farmer to feed a software engineer,
  • A nurse to support a miner,
  • A poet to live in a city built by people they’ll never meet.

Not because they trust each other — but because they trust the system of exchange.

So the real purpose is:

To turn individual labor into collective civilization.


2. Value exchange is how society answers one question

“What matters enough that we will allocate our lives to it?”

Every society must constantly decide:

  • What gets built?
  • Who gets rewarded?
  • What work is considered worthy?
  • What future we are steering toward?

Currency is the mechanism that turns those abstract choices into concrete incentives.

Money doesn’t just move goods.
It moves human attention, time, and creativity.

Where value flows, society flows.


3. Money is not wealth — it’s a memory system

At a deep level, currency is a distributed memory of contribution.

It records:

  • Who gave value to society,
  • In what amount,
  • And stores the right to claim value later.

In this sense, money is society’s way of saying:

“You helped before. You can draw from us now.”

That’s why when currencies collapse, societies don’t just lose purchasing power — they lose trust, continuity, and social coherence.


4. The moral dimension: money as a proxy for meaning

In healthy societies, value exchange roughly tracks:

  • Contribution,
  • Skill,
  • Effort,
  • Risk,
  • Social benefit.

In unhealthy societies, it drifts toward:

  • Power,
  • Rent-seeking,
  • Manipulation,
  • Extraction.

So at a civilizational level, currency is also a moral instrument.
Not because money is moral — but because what it rewards defines what a society becomes.

Tell me what a society pays for, and I’ll tell you what it worships.


5. The deepest purpose: reducing violence

Before reliable exchange systems:

  • Resources were taken by force.
  • Status was enforced through dominance.
  • Survival meant conflict.

Currency allows societies to replace coercion with consent.

Instead of:

“I take what I need.”

We get:

“I earn what I need by giving value.”

This is one of humanity’s greatest civilizational upgrades.

Money is, in a very real sense,
a technology for peace.


6. Where this is heading

As societies evolve, the purpose of value exchange is shifting again:

  • From tracking labor → tracking impact.
  • From rewarding extraction → rewarding regeneration.
  • From scarce tokens → to trusted coordination systems (reputation, data, access, participation).

Currency is slowly becoming less about money
and more about governance of attention, trust, and collective direction.


In one sentence

At the level of human society, the real purpose of currency and value exchange is:

To transform individual effort into collective civilization by enabling trust, cooperation, and coordinated meaning at scale.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Chapter 12: Identic AI Rights vs. Identic AI Principles Correlation Matrix

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
Web 7.0™, TDW™, and TDW AgenticOS™ are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Introduction

Below is a clean correlation analysis between the 7 Rights in the Manifesto of the Digital Age and the original 7 Principles for managing identic AI. Both lists that were provided in the book You To The Power Two by Don Tapscott and co. but not matched or correlated. This article presents an new, independent, extended correlation analysis highlighting:

  • Strength of alignment,
  • Direction of influence, and
  • Gaps.

Big Picture First

  • The 7 Principles are design and governance constraints on AI systems.
  • The 7 Rights are human and societal outcomes those systems must serve.

In short:

  • Principles are the “how”
  • Rights are the “why.”

Rights vs. Principles Correlation Matrix

Legend

  • ●●● = strong, direct correlation
  • ●● = moderate correlation
  • ● = indirect or enabling correlation
Manifesto Rights ↓ / AI Principles →ReliabilityTransparencyHuman AgencyAdaptabilityFairnessAccountabilitySafety
1. Security of personhood●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
2. Education●●●●●●●●●●
3. Health & well-being●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
4. Economic security & work●●●●●●●●●●●●●
5. Climate stability●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
6. Peace & security●●●●●●●●●●
7. Institutional accountability●●●●●●●●

Narrative

Right 1. Security of Personhood

Strongest alignment overall

  • Human Agency → personal sovereignty, autonomy, consent
  • Transparency → knowing how identity/data are used
  • Fairness → protection from discriminatory profiling
  • Accountability → redress for misuse or surveillance
  • Safety → protection from manipulation and coercion

🧭 Interpretation:
This right is essentially the human-centered synthesis of five of your principles. It operationalizes them at the level of individual dignity.


Right 2. Education

Primarily about adaptability and agency

  • Human Agency → empowerment through learning
  • Adaptability → lifelong learning in AI-shaped labor markets
  • Fairness → equitable access to infrastructure and tools

🧭 Interpretation:
Education is the human adaptation layer required for your principles not to become elitist or exclusionary.


Right 3. Health and Well-being

Reliability + Safety dominate

  • Reliability → clinical accuracy and robustness
  • Safety → “do no harm” in physical and mental health
  • Accountability → liability for harm or negligence

🧭 Interpretation:
Healthcare is where your principles become non-negotiable, because failure has immediate human cost.


Right 4. Economic Security & Meaningful Work

Human agency + fairness + adaptability

  • Human Agency → meaningful work vs. automation domination
  • Fairness → equitable distribution of AI-generated value
  • Adaptability → redefining work and income models

🧭 Interpretation:
This right extends your principles into political economy. The principles constrain AI behavior; this right constrains AI-driven capitalism.


Right 5. Climate Stability

Safety + accountability at planetary scale

  • Safety → ecological harm prevention
  • Accountability → responsibility for environmental impact
  • Adaptability → climate-responsive systems

🧭 Interpretation:
This right introduces non-human stakeholders (future generations, ecosystems), which your principles imply but do not explicitly name.


Right 6. Peace and Security

Safety and accountability dominate

  • Safety → prohibition of autonomous violence
  • Accountability → attribution of harm in warfare
  • Fairness → prevention of asymmetric technological domination

🧭 Interpretation:
This is the hard boundary case: where your principles become geopolitical norms, not just business ethics.


Right 7. Institutional Accountability

Near-perfect overlap

  • Transparency → auditable governance
  • Accountability → enforceability, redress, legitimacy

🧭 Interpretation:
This right is almost a direct restatement of your Accountability + Transparency principles, elevated to constitutional scale.


What Do Rights Add That Principles Do Not

The Manifesto extends the principles in three critical ways:

1. Explicit Human Entitlements

  • Principles say what systems must do
  • Rights say what people can demand

2. Macroeconomic Redistribution

  • Universal Fabulous Income
  • Data ownership and monetization
    These are policy commitments, not system properties.

3. Intergenerational & Planetary Scope

  • Climate
  • Peace
  • Future generations
    Your principles imply responsibility, but the rights name the beneficiaries.

Bottom Line

  • High correlation: Every right maps to multiple principles.
  • No contradictions: The two frameworks are coherent.
  • Complementary roles:
    • Principles = engineering + governance constraints
    • Rights = societal goals + moral claims

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Code Discontinuous Transformation Problem 0.2

Create your own magic with Web 7.0™ / TDW AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
Web 7.0™, TDW™, and TDW AgenticOS™ are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

The Discontinuous Code Transformation Problem 0.2

Coding is a process of Discontinuous Transformation. When is the coding process discontinuous? Whenever there is a human in the middle. [Michael Herman. December 21, 2025.]

Orthogonal Categories

Coding is a process of Discontinuous Transformation. The following is the list of 61 items from The Discontinuous Code Transformation Problem 0.1 (the original with item numbers preserved), organized into 6 orthogonal, spanning set categories:

  1. Abstract ⇄ Formal Code (Intent and conceptual to executable code)
  2. Code Representation & Structure (Different internal/code structures without altering fundamental semantics)
  3. Code Quality & Behavioural Transformation (Improvements or regressions in code behaviour, performance, structure)
  4. Code ↔ Data, Formats & External Artefacts
  5. Execution Context, Platforms & Environment
  6. Human-Cognitive & Sensory Interfaces with Code

1. Abstract ⇄ Formal Code (Intent and conceptual to executable code)

These transformations involve moving between ideas, designs, algorithms, pseudocode, prompts and formal code.


2. Code Representation & Structure (Different internal/code structures without altering fundamental semantics)


3. Code Quality & Behavioral Transformation (Improvements or regressions in code behavior, performance, structure)


4. Code ↔ Data, Formats & External Artefacts

These involve mapping code to data formats, document formats, hardware descriptions, or structured data.


5. Execution Context, Platforms & Environment

Transformations where code moves across platforms, repositories or execution environments.


6. Human-Cognitive & Sensory Interfaces with Code

These map between human behaviours/perceptions, neural codes, gesture codes, and symbolic codes.


Recap of Categories with Item Count

CategoryDescriptionRangeItems
1. Abstract ⇄ Formal CodeFrom intent/design/ideas → formal code and back1–8, 21, 27, 37-38, 50, 53, 5515 items
2. Code Representation & StructureFormal structure transformations11–17, 25–269 items
3. Quality/BehaviorPerformance/restructuring changes9–10, 22–245 items
4. Code ↔ Data & FormatsCode as data & alternative formats28–32, 43–45, 48–4910 items
5. Execution & EnvironmentContext/platform conversions19–20, 33–36, 41–42, 46–47, 51–5212 items
6. Human-Cognitive InterfacesHuman signals ↔ machine code39-40, 54, 56–6210 items

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Democracy: A Regressive Hybrid of Decentralization and Centralization

Create your own magic with Web 7.0 / TDW AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License

A Democracy can be viewed as a hybrid between Decentralization and Centralization, and considering it in this way helps clarify both its strengths and tensions. Using the framing and language from the article on Hyperonomy Digital Identity Lab™ (on decentralization/centralization) helps ground the idea. (hyperonomy.com)

Figure 1. Decentralization and Centralization: Locus of Control (Chokepoints)

What does Hyperonomy says about Decentralization

  • According to Hyperonomy, decentralization refers to shifting control (identity, data, decisions, etc.) away from a single central authority toward a distributed ecosystem — where trust and coordination emerge from autonomous agents, shared governance, or open protocols rather than top-down institutions. (hyperonomy.com)
  • The decentralization ideal emphasizes resilience, interoperability, autonomy, and giving individuals or smaller units more control over their own domain (e.g. identity or decisions), rather than placing everything under a monolithic centralized authority. (hyperonomy.com)

The broader literature on decentralization (in political science, public administration, etc.) elaborates that decentralization often aims to increase participation, local responsiveness, diversity in decision-making, efficiency in delivering services, and greater relevance to local conditions rather than one-size-fits-all centralized control. (Wikipedia)


Democracy is inherently a mix of Decentralization and Centralization

A democracy — especially representative democracies in modern states — naturally combines elements of both decentralization and centralization.

Decentralization in a Democracy

  • Local representation and decision-making: Democracies often allow (and sometimes require) that decisions be made at local or regional levels (municipalities, provinces/states, counties, districts), giving those sub-national units meaningful authority over many social, economic, or cultural issues.
  • Participation and diversity: By empowering individuals (or local communities) to elect their representatives, democracy channels a plurality of voices and interests, giving local context and grassroots concerns a say in governance — consistent with the decentralization ideal of distributing power rather than concentrating it.
  • Accountability and responsiveness: Local or regional governments that are closer to constituents are often better informed about local conditions; this promotes responsiveness and accountability, aligning with the benefits of decentralization described by governance scholarship. (ScienceDirect)

Centralization in a Democracy

  • Central institutions for broad coordination: Democracies typically rely on national (or higher-level) institutions — parliaments/congresses, courts, central banks, or executive branches — to make decisions that affect the whole polity (defense, trade, national infrastructure, monetary policy, etc.). Those central institutions enable coordination across diverse regions and populations.
  • Standardization, rule of law, and equal treatment: Centralization helps ensure common standards (laws, rights, regulatory frameworks) that apply across the country. Without a central authority, such coherence is hard to maintain.
  • Ability to manage large-scale, cross-regional issues: Some problems (e.g. national security, economic macro-policy, environmental regulation, pandemics) require centralized capacity and coordination across many localities — something that decentralized fragments alone may struggle to handle effectively.

Democracy as a “Hybrid” — a Delicate Balance

Given the above, Democracy functions as a hybrid system:

  • It decentralizes by distributing political power — giving individuals/communities representation, local governance, and a role in decision-making, enabling diversity, participation, and local responsiveness.
  • It centralizes by maintaining institutions that coordinate across the whole polity, ensure uniform rights and laws, manage shared resources, and handle collective action challenges that require unity.

That hybrid nature can be seen as a strength: it combines the flexibility, resilience, and responsiveness of decentralization with the coherence, scale, and coordination of centralization.

But it also introduces tensions:

  • Over-centralization can suppress local autonomy, reduce diversity, and disconnect decision-makers from local needs.
  • Over-decentralization (fragmentation) can lead to coordination failures, inequalities between regions, and difficulties in addressing problems that span local boundaries.

The “sweet spot” for a democracy — in this view — is finding a balance: enough decentralization to empower local voices and contexts; enough centralization to deliver unity, fairness, and capacity for collective action.


What does Democracy gain from using Hyperonomy’s Framing

Using the lens from Hyperonomy (originally articulated in the context of digital systems, identity, and governance architectures) helps generalize the decentralization–centralization tradeoff beyond institutions:

  • It shows that whether power, control, identity, or decision-making is central or distributed is not a binary choice — real systems (whether digital networks or democratic polities) often mix features depending on context, purpose, scale.
  • It highlights that decentralization is always “good” (nor centralization “bad”): what matters is architecture — how responsibilities, trust, and governance are designed and distributed.
  • It underscores resilience, interoperability, and autonomy as design goals — which map well onto democratic ideals like political participation, civil liberties, accountability, and adapting to diverse local conditions.

Conclusion: Democracy is a Regressive Decentralization-Centralization Hybrid

In short: democracy very often is a hybrid between centralization and decentralization. It draws on decentralizing impulses (local decision-making, representation, citizen participation) to ensure diversity and responsiveness, while relying on centralized structures to ensure coherence, rule of law, collective capacity, and fairness across the whole polity.

Using the conceptual framing from the Hyperonomy article helps emphasise that this isn’t a flaw or anomaly — but a necessary but regressive balancing act that shapes how democratic societies function, just as decentralized digital systems must balance autonomy and coordination.

Appendix A – Social Evolution: From Wanderer to Digital Nation State

The democratic principles discussed in this article apply to every stage of societal development, as illustrated in Figure 2. In hindsight, the left side of the diagram is decentralization leaning, while the right side is centralization leaning. The middle is a hybrid.

Figure 2. Social Evolution: Creation of a Nation State

Appendix B – Resources

  1. Voting-based Decision Making based on General Patterns for using VCs to represent n-way relationships (VRC-N)
  2. Change Adoption Models: A Comprehensive Guide
  3. Definitions for Decentralization vs Centralization vs Hyper-Centralization
  4. Decentralization, Centralization, Hyper-decentralization, and Circular Hype-Decentralization
  5. Circular Hyper-centralization, et al.
  6. Democracy: A Progressive Hybrid of Decentralization and Centralization (this article)
  7. User Control & Consent (SSI) and Decentralization

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dunbar’s Number – Explained

Create your own magic with Web 7.0™ / TDW AgenticOS™. Imagine the possibilities.

Copyright © 2019-2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
Web 7.0, TDW AgenticOS™ and Hyperonomy are trademarks of the Web 7.0 Foundation. All Rights Reserved.


Dunbar’s Number refers to the cognitive limit on the number of stable, meaningful social relationships a person can maintain — typically around 150.

Proposed by anthropologist Robin Dunbar in the early 1990s, it’s based on research linking neocortex size to social group size in primates, then extrapolated to humans.

The key idea: our brains can only manage a limited number of people whose relationships with us (and with each other) we can track in any depth.


📊 Dunbar’s Social Layers

Dunbar found that human relationships form nested circles of intimacy, each layer roughly three times larger than the one before it — but with decreasing emotional closeness and interaction frequency.

LayerApprox. SizeRelationship TypeTypical Frequency of Contact / Emotional Closeness
0th Circle (#Wanderer)1An individualN/A
1st Circle (Party of Explorers)2-5Closest friends & family — your “support clique”Daily or near-daily contact; deepest emotional ties
2nd Circle (Family Unit)5-20Good friends you confide in and rely onWeekly contact; high emotional closeness
3rd Circle (Band)20-50Friends you might invite to a big personal event (e.g. wedding)Monthly contact; moderate closeness
4th Circle (Clan)50-500Meaningful relationships — people you know personally and would help if neededA few times per year; recognize and understand social context
5th Circle (Tribe)1000-2000Acquaintances — people whose names and faces you recognizeOccasional interaction or recognition
6th Circle (Nation State)2000-150,000+People you can place a name to (the limit of facial recognition memory)Rare interaction; mostly recognition only

📱 Modern & Practical Implications

Even in the digital era:

  • People still maintain about 100–200 active online relationships despite thousands of “followers.”
  • Teams, villages, and companies often stabilize near this size before naturally splitting or losing cohesion.
  • Some organizations (like W. L. Gore, maker of Gore-Tex) deliberately limit unit size to ~150 to preserve strong internal culture and trust.

Figure 1. Dunbar’s Number
Figure 2. Dunbar number passage from The Cold Start Problem.
Figure 3. Social Evolution: Defining Principles. Michael Herman. 2019

Copyright © 2025 Michael Herman (Bindloss, Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized