Ideal Organizational Theory 2.0
+ +Jason L. Lind, USAF (Sep.)
+ +7 Sept 2020
+ +Ideal organization theory formulates a methodology for not +only what it takes to create artificial intelligence but also what that concept +really means. The answers are very surprising: according to this thesis +artificial intelligence simply emerges from highly optimized structure.
+ +Thesis
+ +In the unwavering and literal terms of set theory, economic +theory and information theory; for all sets, under all conditions where the players +have self-determination the author poses:
+ +Artificial Intelligence = Finite interaction is optimized +through oligopical competition, whereas non-finite processes are optimized by +the free marketplace. Formal organizational group structure therefore must be +oligopical, but their interaction must be free. The individual is a monopoly. +Q.E.D.
+ +Artificial Intelligence
+ +“A computer would deserve to be called intelligent if it could +deceive a human into believing it was human”
+ +- Alan Turing, Founder, Computer Science
+ +What is Artificial Intelligence? This question has +transcended human history as it really posits: “how does one create +intelligence.” Modern computer science / philosophy contends that the next +“singularity” will indeed be a computer system(s) achieving intelligence – +eventually that greater of the sum collection of humanity.
+ +But what-if super intelligence can naturally rise from carefully +and highly organized structure? The Q.E.D. at the end of the “equation” remains +controversial, however the author contends that with an understanding off these +terms at their deepest meaning it is clear that this proposition is indeed true +– that the greatest intelligence is humans and computers competing together in +harmony.
+ ++ + +
Equation
+ +“No matter how correct a mathematical theorem may appear to be, +one ought to never be satisfied that there was not something imperfect about it +until it also gives the impression of being beautiful”
+ +- George Boole, Founder, Boolean Logic
+ +While the thesis is in words and not symbols it is none the +less a Boolean equation, and therefore mathematical. It is the author’s +contention that the left hand side naturally equates to the right – that is +with a deep and broad understanding of the terms and how they interact directly +results a “true” statement – and someone with even a cursory knowledge of all these +terms should find this statement so obvious that no further proof is actually +necessary. The proceeding pages will further define the variables primarily by +plugging in relevant quotes by the giants in their fields.
+ +Elegance is a concept universally appreciated yet seen as +much more art than science, when in fact the achievement of true elegance takes +a very scientific understanding of the presentation medium. Beauty and elegance +are complementary and the author contends that his thesis is akin to a living +organism – that simply jumps off the page.
+ +Interaction
+ +“All the world’s a stage,
+ +And all the men and women merely players;
+ +They have their exits and their entrances,
+ +And one man in his time plays many parts,
+ +His acts being seven ages”
+ +- +William Shakespeare
+ +Players that have self-determination have at least some +choice in the roles they play in that while one cannot directly be force to act +against their utility – they can be manipulated into doing so. Ideal +Organizational Theory takes this a step further and proposes a marketplace +structure where that kind of manipulation is reduced to near-zero occurrence.
+ +“For a good book has this quality, that it is not merely a +petrification of its author, but that once it has been tossed behind, like +Deucalion’s little stone, it acquires a separate and vivid life of its own”
+ +- Johann Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet, Founder, Dirichlet +Distribution Functions
+ +Mathematically players’ presence will transcend time and
+space – their exits from each stage is not the end of their influence in that
+space; their memory leaving a lasting legacy.
+
Finite versus Non-Finite
+ +“The fear of infinity is a form of myopia that destroys the +possibility of seeing the actual infinite, even though in its highest form has +created and sustains us, and in its secondary transfinite forms occurs all +around us and even inhabits our minds”
+ +- Georg Cantor, Founder, Set Theory
+ +The thesis notes that there are two types of marketplaces, +one with finite interaction and one with non-finite processes. While a poor +definition of finite would be “bounded or limited in magnitude or spatial or +temporal extent” the mathematical definition the author uses is closer to “an +amount fully comprehendible by a player.” Marketplaces with limited players can +be formalized but more often than not are informal – as formalization in +non-finite marketplaces exist to deal with that the amount of players and +moves, both potential and realized, are impossible for any one player to +comprehend within that dynamic.
+ +Collaboration is only possible in a finite marketplace thus, +as proposed in “A System for Goal Oriented Governance” [Lind 2009], informal +organizations that formalize whilst remaining finite have a significant +competitive advantage over those that do, or can, not.
+ +In Lindian Differential Set +Notation (“A Treatise on Reality” [Lind 2020]) an arbitrary set is defined as +having finiteness for a given player if the union of all of a set’s elements +into the comprehension function with respect to the player has a computational +complexity less than that of the original set. At first glance this may appear +to be a problematic definition of finiteness as a very complex set could +possibly only have a slightly less complex comprehension, however for our +purposes if the “comprehension” of a set by a player is less than that of the +set itself it would imply the player would be able to digest that set – the +complexity itself means nothing without comparison.
+ +Optimization
+ +“The final test of a theory is its capacity to solve the problems +which originated it”
+ +- George Danzig, Founder, Linear Programming
+ +Leveraging the duality of market forces – oligopoly for
+finite interaction and non-finite processes leveraging the free marketplace –
+provides eventual optimization of the system in general.
+
Oligpical
+ +“For mixed strategies, which are probability distributions over +the pure strategies, the pay-off functions are the expectations of players, +thus becoming polylinear forms in the probabilities with which the various +players player their various pure strategies”
+ +- John Forbes Nash, Jr., Founder, Modern Game Theory
+ +It is simply reality that a fixed set of players will use +their understanding of each other to alter the dynamics of the very game they +are playing. While the term oligopoly obviously has negative connotations since +it is traditionally used to refer to a small group of players on the supply +side that can affect pricing through collusion with the other suppliers, however +have the demand side is finite as well this collusion becomes collaboration.
+ +In addition to being finite to be oligopical the +comprehensive complexity of the game itself must be less than or equal to that +of the complexity of the intersection of the moves by game of i.
+ +“Prisoner of War guard +companies, or an equivalent organization, should be as far forward as possible +in action to take over prisoners of war, because troops heated with battle are +not safe custodians. Any attempt to rob or loot prisoners of war by escorts +must be strictly dealt with”
+ +- General George S. Patton, USA
+ +It seems obvious potentially more positive than negative +consequences of oligopical markets.
+ +Competition
+ +“… the effort of two or more parties acting independently to +secure the business of a third party by offering them most favorable terms”
+ +- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
+ +Competition is another word with negative connotations, when +really it is just referring to multi-party bargaining. The negativity tends to +resolve or around information deception where parties are untruthful about +their true motivations – or even worse capabilities.
+ +In a formalized organization finite size these issues tend +not to exist – otherwise the organization would disintegrate. A free +marketplace also has no room for this kind of disinformation as the contracts +being exchanged are commoditized so that the buyer and seller do not directly +interact.
+ +Clearly both of these market structures exists in nature,
+but so do others that are less desirable thus this is a failure of structure of
+the system and not of nature.
+
Process
+ +“… a set of linked activities that take an input and transform it +to create an output. Ideally, the transformation that occurs in the process +should add value to the input and create an output that is more useful and +effective to the recipient either upstream or downstream”
+ +Henry J. Johansson et al, Business Process Reengineering
+ +Business processes used by automated marketplace, which +certainly do streamline objectives, do not allow for collaboration due to the +non-finite nature of the players and activities involved. Even a simple +activity from the perspective of a deterministic actor is lively extremely +complex and touches unknown players.
+ +This type of automation often leads to market failure, the +greatest of which is speculation. By abstracting the information the extent +needed for automation in today’s system the madness of crowds takes over and +people tend to chase castles in the sky, as Burton Malkiel put it.
+ +Structure
+ +“A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, +and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But +what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of the bees is this, that +the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in +reality”
+ +- Karl Marx, Founder, Soviet Union
+ +The hierarchy of an organization may look great in theory, +but also match reality. Idealism is dangerous since changing the nature of +players, which not impossible, is a very costly operation that is generally not +sustainable.
+ +“… a group is an algebraic structure consisting of a set together +with an operation that combines any two of its elements to form a third element”
+ +- Wikipedia
+ +Ideal Organizational Theory contends that through this +organization structure people will behave the way the always have but their +behavior be optimized and collectively more intelligent.
+ +“Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing +elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, +for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain +basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but +not provable in the theory”
+ +- Kurt Gödel, On formally undecidable positions of Principia Mathematica +and related systems
+ +When dealing with complex problems it is impossible to prove +to all players which direction is correct, even when the concertive +utility of a move may be obviously maximized for all according to one +perspective. Players can often only agree to the process for making decisions +and not the decisions themselves. Formal organizational structure therefore +should not go beyond what is agreeable to the players involved.
+ ++ + +
Freedom
+ +“In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. +Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own +individual judgements, convictions and interests dictate”
+ +- Ayn Rand, Author
+ +“Subjects who have discontent, for any reason, cannot be expected +to act in the best interests of the organization. In order for a subject to be +truly effective they must understand the goals of the organization and decide +to join of their own free will”
+ +-Jason L. Lind, “A System for Goal Oriented Government”
+ +Whilst free marketplaces enable all transactions it is +actually oligopical marketplaces that allow subjects to join onto organizations +that they believe in. Unfortunately in today’s economy subjects are forced into +undesirable business relationships by market forces such as lack of +opportunity. Ironically this is a result of players’ true preferences not being +recognized by the marketplace’s highest levels of abstraction.
+ +“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though +the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful +must be reasonable; that the minority possesses their equal rights, which equal +law must protect, and to violate would be oppression”
+ +- Thomas Jefferson, Founder, United States of America
+ +“All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of +the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often +make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.”
+ +- Benjamin Franklin, Founder, United States of America
+ +Free interaction must be moderated by rights and law which protect +the minority from the majority. These must be as limited in nature as possible +and only change under extraordinary circumstances.
+ +“Even the striving for equality by means of a directed economy +can result only in an officially enforced inequality – an authoritarian +determination of the status of each individual in the new hierarchical order”
+ +- Friedrich von Hayek, Founder, Austrian Economics
+ +The players and sets of players cannot be directed +centrally: only though self-organization will the system be fully optimal. The +marketplace, at both the finite and non-finite levels, must allow these to +happen without impedance.
+ ++ + +
Q.E.D.
+ +“Be not astonished at new ideas; for it is well known to you that +a thing does not therefore cease to be true because it is not accepted by many”
+ +- Baruch Spinoza, Author of “Ethics”
+ +There are three types of marketplace dynamics in nature: +monopoly, oligopoly and the free marketplace. These all have a role to play +when developing a marketplace free of failure. Sets of players organize +themselves in an oligopical form, where they can collaborate. Individual +players are by definition monopolies and their interaction must be free in a +free marketplace.
+ +With this kind of organization the marketplace itself will +behave as if it was intelligent – and in fact becomes intelligent: that highly +optimized structures according to the thesis simply give rise to intelligence +greater than the sum of its parts when non-optimized structures often result in +the opposite.
+ +“And thus it’s proved”
+ +Latin translation of: quod erat demonstradum
+ +Reflection
+ +“Further, the dignity of science itself seems to require that +every possible means be explored for the solution of a problem so elegant and +so celebrated”
+ +- Carl Fredrich Gauss, Mathematics Prodigy
+ +When I first wrote IOT in 2010 I promoted it as a solution +to P=NP which did not go over well. This paper has found greater acceptance as +a pure philosophy paper and while I have let the marketplace promote it as such +I quietly have maintained a deep connection to P=NP.
+ +The Polynomial Time versus Non-Polynomial Time problem discuses the relationship between mathematical problems +that are hard to prove to be easy to solve and problems that are hard to solve +but easy to prove – and if the sets of these problems are non-equal then some +problems that have known algorithms that are easy to solve (P-Complete) can +never have algorithms providing easy proof, and conversely some problems that +are easy to prove (NP-Complete) can never have an easy solution. Easy in this +context means computational complexity – the concept of how many operations it +takes to solve/prove a problem.
+ +So how does P=NP extend to intelligence?
+ +“If P were to be NP than anyone who could
+ +appreciate a Mozart symphony could compose one”
+ +- Famous MIT Professor
+ +And what this paper explicitly argues is that superior +intelligence is manifested from the relatively inferior and that, while people +like this MIT professor might find this ridiculous, in the proper structure one +can do anything they put their minds to. Therefore this does seem to be proof +of P=NP as attacking the consequences of a theorem is a legitimate attack on +the theorem itself.
+ +