"""
I'm thinking along the lines of your side note that propositions have
many proofs (polyphenism) and agents have many identities (robustness).
"""
Thank you for that connection, I hadn't thought about it. It is the
polyphenism that I typically find most exciting about proofs, the way
proof of a
"""
I know these are supposed to be not-very-serious examples, but to take
them at least somewhat seriously would you elaborate a bit? Let's focus
on the bucket filling with water. Are you saying that this can be cast
as a stigmergic interaction? How so?
"""
Sure, though perhaps stigmergic-adjacen
Ah, thanks. So you were talking about robustness in both cases. Sorry for my
confusion.
I suppose there's also some ambiguity in "global". Sometimes I use "non-local"
to indicate information bound to the context, but where there are still
encapsulated/opaque regions. And then "global" means *ev
"""
Could the verifier be allowed a global understanding using something
akin to homomorphic encryption, though?
"""
In some sense I would suppose yes for FHE, but the method of verification
in ZKP seems not to be. Again, you mentioned playing fast and loose with
the bindings. It would be great to
Could the verifier be allowed a global understanding using something akin to
homomorphic encryption, though?
I'm thinking along the lines of your side note that propositions have many
proofs (polyphenism) and agents have many identities (robustness). I worry that
I've missed your point, though,
