User:CognitiveMMA/sandbox/GCI4WebSci2022/web3.0andfss

Web 3.0 Platforms and Functional State Space

Why should achieving a true web 3.0 require working towards defining functional state spaces for all required domains of behavior? Not a single web 3.0 company is currently focused in this direction. Web 3.0 development is already proceeding quite happily without what might seem like an unnecessary layer of additional complexity.

Assume that the average rate at which technology can be developed by a single company can be characterized as R, how can technology be developed with maximum cooperation by N companies in order to create the capacity to develop at a rate closer to N*R as opposed to being developed at maximum competition at a rate closer to R? And if N is very large can the rate of development be increased through cooperation to RM so that the rate of development increases exponentially? At what rate RM does this cooperative ecosystem gain unbeatable competitive advantage over each individual company competing on their own? When companies can benefit far more by participating in an ecosystem that develops technology at a rate RM that is much greater than the rate at which any individual company can develop technology on their own, then does this cooperative development become on balance the stable reality?

These questions might be very difficult to answer on a theoretical basis, but might have very clear answers on the basis of what we experience every day in the world around us. Nowhere in the natural world do we see any collection of individual cells that is able to evolve collective functionality through competition as individual cells in a way that is able to out-compete cells that evolve collective functionality through cooperation as a single organism. This indicates that the stable balance is for all collective functionality to evolve cooperatively within an organism.

Natural evolution is an adaptive process that has been modeled as a pattern in functional state space. The only known way to enable technology to evolve is to mimic this pattern in functional state space, so that technology can be developed in self-organizing and self-sustaining way at a rate much faster than any single company can develop technology. Replicating this pattern in functional state space requires decoupling all technologies into functional components using a universal modeling framework so they can be assembled in any way required to achieve any functionality within their domain. The only universal modeling framework known today is Human-Centric Functional Modeling, which represents all of the functionality in any domain using functional state spaces.

It is further hypothesized that development of technology that is based on individual competition must eventually converge on a functional state space defined by an individual entity, while technology that is based on collective cooperation must eventually converge on a collective functional state space defined by the group. This convergence of decision-making to a single entity as a consequence of the accelerating advance of technology is another way of stating the “technology gravity well” hypothesis.

Assuming that as predicted the collective functional state space can be far larger than any individual functional state space, this suggests that without collective development some solutions will not be reliably within that functional state space, and therefore that without collective development some problems cannot be reliably solved. This is another way of stating the “solvability of classes of group problems” hypothesis. Furthermore, not only can different types of problems be solved, but the complexity of problems that can be solved is predicted to be significantly higher in a larger and denser functional state space, since complexity is defined by distance through functional state space as well as density. This is another way of stating the “wicked problems” hypothesis.