Bohrian Consensus

Here for esoteric reasons we will present a basic framework for what we can call Bohrian consensus which mean to evolve over time (although the nashLinter at this time could probably do this well enough).

A Metaphor For Direct vs Alternating Current

We find the relevant metaphor here in speed skating (or skating straight in general etc.). Isn’t it that each push or stride of the skater's leg pushes out as if almost perpendicular from the forward motion that results?

Then the skater pushes with their OPPOSITE leg and gets the same forward motion energy as a result.

Each pump is in opposite directions with a net zero result side to side, but the angles of the skates allow the energy from each left or right stride to summate into two times the increased forward motion/momentum.

This is in a sense how a sending an electron flow forwards and backwards rapidly (aka alternating current) produces a steady energy flow for our 'electronics'.

On Observation An AC Circuit From a Higher Order

We can think of a chain of humans passing water down a line by each dumping and receiving water from their neighboring humans in the chain. Without tracking the flow of the water the humans look like their net output is zero and oscillating for no net gain etc.

The concept of oscillation here is something we call attention to allow us to map the Bohrian Consensus to our Bohiman hidden variables framework.

On Neutralic Design as a Building Practice

Here we call attention to the practice of wiring electrical circuits using identified conductors as a building code (in Canada for example). In our generalization and transformation of the Byzantine General’s problem we introduced the concepts of competing consensus sides as well as colors.

This intentionally maps well to the concept of neutralic based electrically circuity design and implementation.

Bohrian Consensus

In his Open Letter to the United Nations Niels Bohr forewarned of the double edged nature of mankind achieving the atomic age (in that letter he referenced this part as a previous memorandum):

Indeed, it need hardly be stressed how fortunate in every respect it would be if, at the same time as the world will know of the formidable destructive power which has come into human hands, it could be told that the great scientific and technical advance has been helpful in creating a solid foundation for a future peaceful co-operation between nations.

Bohr is deriving an implicit consensus necessary to securely enter the atomic age which considers the ramifications of both sides of the technological advance. This is quite Nashian in its order:

Here, the crucial point is that any guarantee that the progress of science is used only to the benefit of mankind presupposes the same attitude as is required for co-operation between nations in all domains of culture.

An open world where each nation can assert itself solely by the extent to which it can contribute to the common culture and is able to help others with experience and resources must be the goal to be put above everything else. Still, example in such respects can be effective only if isolation is abandoned and free discussion of cultural and social developments permitted across all boundaries.

Mutual Openness as a Product of Bohmian Dialogue

Bohr calls for mutual openness:

[M]utual openness, which now was obviously necessary for common security, would in itself promote international understanding and pave the way for enduring co-operation.

[F]ree access to information, necessary for common security, should have far-reaching effects in removing obstacles barring mutual knowledge about spiritual and material aspects of life in the various countries, without which respect and goodwill between nations can hardly endure….

Without free access to all information of importance for the interrelations between nations, a real improvement of world affairs seemed hardly imaginable. It is true that some degree of mutual openness was envisaged as an integral part of any international arrangement regarding atomic energy, but it grew ever more apparent that, in order to pave the way for agreement about such arrangements, a decisive initial step towards openness had to be made.

The ideal of an open world, with common knowledge about social conditions and technical enterprises, including military preparations, in every country, might seem a far remote possibility in the prevailing world situation. Still, not only will such relationship between nations obviously be required for genuine co-operation on progress of civilization, but even a common declaration of adherence to such a course would create a most favourable background for concerted efforts to promote universal security. Moreover, it appeared to me that the countries which had pioneered in the new technical development might, due to their possibilities of offering valuable information, be in a special position to take the initiative by a direct proposal of full mutual openness.

We believe our Bohmian Protocol implementation would alleviate the assumptions and cultural restrictions that would otherwise be preventing ‘mutual openness’.

The Bohrian Proposal

The arguments presented suggest that every initiative from any side towards the removal of obstacles for free mutual information and intercourse would be of the greatest importance in breaking the present deadlock and encouraging others to take steps in the same direction. The efforts of all supporters of international co-operation, individuals as well as nations, will be needed to create in all countries an opinion to voice, with ever increasing clarity and strength, the demand for an open world.

Considerations of Consensus of a Neturalic Circuit

The suggestion here is that there could be a tacitly held design implementation where consensus can be joined unilaterally but also in tandem (ie black white), extending the circuit in parallel as to not harm it or drain from it.

On Reverse Engineering Neutralic Design Using Tacit Neutrality as Implicit Design

The considerations of an open neutral are relevant here. Such a junction in a forward design is irrelevant from a building practice standard point however from a reverse order standard point it means something different to junction a neutral pack of wires (whites) than it does for example a set of hots (black).

Without Neturalic design considerations there could be such opportunities missed in organized and ordinating consensus.

On the Consensus Games of Securing the Atomic Age

Recall of the concept of a miracle energy source Nash described:

We can see that times could change, especially if a "miracle energy source" were found, and thus if a good ICPI index is constructed it should not be expected to be valid, as initially defined, into all eternity. It would instead be appropriate for it to be regularly readjusted depending on how the patterns of international trade would actually evolve. Here, evidently, politicians in control of the authority behind standards COULD corrupt the continuity of a good standard, but depending on how things were fundamentally arranged, the probabilities of serious damage through "political corruption" might become as small as the probabilities that the values of the standard meter and kilogram will be corrupted through the actions of politicians.

Bitcoin’s design asymptotically secures the supply rate from this type of energy based shock. The consensus game of securing atomic energy must consider those that stand to gain the most versus those that in a vacuum, without other considerations, would stand to lose the most.

Global Games of Present Day Concern

Global Games and “Globalization”

And in another area there is the global challenge of generally appreciated good value of whatever can be done to minimize the widespread distribution of powerful “nuclear” weapons or of the basic ingredients for their manufacture or construction. The retiring Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, spoke emphatically on this topical theme shortly before the end of his term.

But the problem poses a difficult game for which to seek to find a cooperative solution, with all of the nation-states of the world as Players. It is quite natural for relatively large states without enough of convenient “atomic power” allies to feel that they should not let themselves be “bullied” by the states already having recognized “atomic power” status and to seek for themselves more advanced levels of nuclear technology and partially consequential to this also the recognizable capability of actually using (if only by testing them) some examples of atomic bombs themselves.

Some relatively more fair and more just and non-discriminatory way of limiting and controlling the widespread distribution of atomic weapons and of the resources to make them quickly MIGHT be achievable by means of a new and re-negotiated treaty for the control of the dangerous proliferation.