uncorrellated asymmetry & incongruent counterparts

"Let it be imagined that the first created thing were a human hand, then it must necessarily be either a right hand or a left hand." 


Arnd Wedemeyer earned his doctorate from the Humanities Center at Johns Hopkins University and has held teaching positions in the German departments of Princeton and Duke Universities. His first monograph, “Expanses of Thought: Space Among Kant Husserl Heidegger,” shows how Kant’s worry about incongruent counterparts became the driving force for a progressively radicalized exteriorization of thought

I suppose, in Game theory, incongruent counterparts such as those which give rise to Wu chirality, are uncorellated asymmetries.

If Concepts are intuitions with an algorithmic description and cognitive resources are scarce, we could think of them as costly signals in a Public Justification context.

If so, the use of a concept in Discourse ought to give rise to a separating equilibrium as there is an uncorrelated asymmetry based on the agent's knowledge of whether of not she emitted a costly signal.


However, if there is a superior intuition too complex to have an algorithmic definition, then Public Justification loses its Alethic status. The separating equilibrium distinguishes worthless gobshites merely

What if, the concept requires us to posit a correlated asymmetry as normative? An example is Harsanyi's notion that moral questions should be analysed as if no agent knew what 'type' they are as if behind Rawls's 'veil of ignorance'.

In this case, some argue that we'd get a 'pooling equilibrium'- e.g. everybody gets paid the same regardless of their contribution- and that might be what God wants.

This is fine if we live in an instantaneous 'kshanikavada' world or else a steady state obtains. However, if so, Public Justification would not be linked to improving collective choice.

The menu on offer, to be feasible, must be incentive compatible. If it isn't, it would be allocative inefficient and so potential for subsequent Welfare improving private trading would arise.

Thus, we would need to know every agents' bid and offer price for every good or service and the 'spread' would reintroduce uncorrelated asymmetry and a separating equilibrium without, however, any need for 'costly signals'. But that's only because we assumed the mechanism had costless information acquisition and processing. In other words, it's a pile of shite.

This raises the question, why is it gobshites we always have with us? Why is Discourse dominated by shite Concepts when, as outlined above, there is an alethic algorithmic process to show Concepts, as applied to any complex matter, are ab ovo shite?

The answer, obviously, is that maintaining an army of blathershites is itself a costly signal. Since such signals give rise to aposematism- i.e cheap talk mimicry- an initial uncorrelated asymmetry just found a way to reinforce itself dynamically.

One physical corollary to this is the emergence of chirality or 'incongruent counterparts' if complexity grows in a Time exponential to those of Physical processes.