I visited Athens a while ago and stayed for a few days. After visiting the temples, I wanted to see where Socrates was, so I followed an imprecise local navigation system and ended up on a remote hill. After several trips up and down, I finally found the secluded prison where Socrates was held before his death. It was a dark, small cave prison. In front of the rusty iron window were two long benches. I sat there for a long time, watching the sunlight gently shine on the stones with the cool mountain breeze.
What kind of courage did it take for him to admit his ignorance? And what kind of bravery led him to challenge this ignorance? Moreover, with what strength did he face this ultimately ignorant outcome so peacefully?
Today, let's discuss a newly generated concept, called "体" (”Ti”, translated as "body" or "substance" but these translations may lose some of the original meaning). Although it cannot be found in Wiki, we can consider it as a thought experiment. Its success remains uncertain, but if it provides some inspiration, that would be great.
"体" is essentially a three-dimensional system or thought model. Simply put, it incorporates the X, Y, Z axes as a highly simplified model, providing a more precise simulation of complex systems. The concept of "体" can be translated as "Pyramid" in English, as translating it as "Body" or "Substance" might miss out on a lot of its information. Linear logical deduction frameworks, two-dimensional analytical frameworks, or evolving system frameworks can be used to model it, enriching its versatility.
Firstly, "体" can maintain multi-dimensional openness and computability when simplifying certain categorization systems. Objectively, it can be simplified into dimensions like time, space, and rhythm. Subjectively, it can be boiled down to faith, cognition, and ability. Relationally, it translates to interest, emotion, and spiritual exchange. Whether from our cognitive models, social relationship models, or simulations of the objective world, "体" offers simplification and operational advantages.
For instance, take the word "creation". From the X-axis, it can mean creating a physical system. From the Y-axis, it means establishing an economic entity. And from the Z-axis, it's about forming an organization with shared consensus. By calculating these three dimensions at different time points, we can holistically evaluate the energy consumed by the "体", the robustness of the produced system, the value of the economic entity, etc.
The second point is that "体" balances the conflicts of divergence and convergence in an evolutionary construction process, offering a sense of direction. In decentralized system constructions, a major challenge is that minimizing trust inherently increases system divergence. However, unchecked divergence may compromise efficiency. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Cosmos protocols illustrate this. While decentralization is crucial in the long run, its disorganized nature can hinder protocol expansion in the short to medium term.
In simple terms, "体" provides flexibility for the growth of protocols at various layers, from the trust-minimized base layer to the interaction-focused middle layer, to the application-oriented top layer. It offers ample space for modular design, plug-and-play components, hierarchical structuring, and even anthropomorphic and metaphorical designs. All the while, it ensures the system grows in a clear direction.
The third point is that in terms of structure, "体" can be more robust. Allowing protocols with depth and thickness to become the middle supporting structure of the "体" can enhance the system's stability and security to a certain extent. Essentially, at the initial stage of the system design of "体 0.1", it can somewhat follow Satoshi Nakamoto's principle of minimizing trust, meaning that whether it's the iteration of the protocol itself or the expansion protocols, they can be developed within a certain established but flexible framework. Due to this structure, which may consist of several substantial protocols, it does not completely restrict the development of other protocols' depth and thickness. In different aspects, this often gives rise to various pillars. These pillars together form a structure to resist external attacks.
In other words, this structure counters attacks from multiple dimensions in a collective way, unlike the individual resistance approach of Bitcoin's system design. This is a different kind of structure from day one. These protocols share not only the principle of minimizing trust but also the principles of interoperability and growth direction, making this structure more robust. From this point of view, it is somewhat like a Lego set full of logical convergence from day one. Regardless of what kind of developer or on which day they join, they can follow certain rules for construction within the "体". The fourth point is that this three-dimensional cognitive model, "体", while being simplified, actually increases presence – making us more immersed in our interaction with the system, rather than being confined to diagrams on a blackboard or cells in an Excel spreadsheet.
It's evident that compared to many linear or framework models, "体" makes our approach more systematic. The perspective could be from top to bottom, bottom to top, inside out, analyzing systems not just statically but evolutionarily. For example, when developing a certain protocol, we consider not only the physical changes in the system but also the reform of economic models, changes in community legal and cultural aspects, etc. The advantage of this is that it pulls us away from a purely objective rational perspective and makes us consider our relationship with the protocols and the relationships within the protocols.
We've discussed the unity of knowledge and action before, where knowledge and action are inseparable. Often, there is a lack of effort in knowledge and wasted effort in action. For instance, if there is a glass of water on the table, is it poisoned or not? If it is indeed poisoned, we definitely won't drink it, but if it's not, will we really drink it? This is very straightforward. If we're not sure whether it's poisoned, there are ways to find out, like using a test strip, asking a friend to check, or putting on clearer glasses. Of course, this is a simple way of thinking, but if we use the "体" mindset, would we drink this water? We might consider additional dimensions of presence – like if we just finished exercising and are extremely thirsty, even a little poison might save our life. Or if something is stuck in our throat, we might need to drink it. Or if a friend hands us this water, it might be rude not to drink it. So, the "体" mindset sketches out a more holistic common field in the mind and simplifies the increase in presence.
It enriches the multiple dimensions of our knowledge, thus enhancing our sense of presence. From this perspective, "体" can certainly increase dimensions. The three-dimensional term is just for simplification and better conceptual and theoretical modeling.
Of course, the concept of "体" undoubtedly increases the complexity of the system. In some urgent and simple issues, it may be ineffective because such issues often require less computation rather than complex simulation.
In short, "体" is a very simple analysis model. Using this method, we can more popularly simplify a system into a model that can be remembered, cognized, calculated, and evolved. It can be used not only to create concepts but also to design frameworks and promote the construction of theoretical systems. If your brain has enough computing power, like Nikola Tesla, you might also be able to envision a running dam in your mind.