Introduction to the Autonomous World Case Studies of Autonomous World

Exploring the Autonomous World Case Studies of an Emerging Era

Author: Ludens, Aw.Network; Translation: Funblocks

Translator’s Preface: “This article was originally published in August 2022 under the title ‘Autonomous Worlds (LianGuairt 1)’ and is a seminal piece on autonomous worlds and blockchain games that has been frequently referenced in the industry.

Over a year has passed since the planned publication of LianGuairt 2, which still hasn’t been released. However, this article, with minor modifications, has been re-published in ‘Autonomous Worlds N1’ (commonly known as the AW Bible).

In order to help Chinese readers better understand the relatively abstract concept of autonomous worlds, considerable effort has been put into translating this article. We hope that it will be enlightening for everyone.”

• Bastion: Making Moves in the Crypto Custody World
• Project mBridge Unveiling the Inner Workings before the Big Debut!
• The Curious Case of Sam Bankman-Fried’s Testimony: A Roller Coaster Ride in the Courtroom

A world is a container that contains entities and consistent internal rules. When a system that includes entities and rules is operational, it becomes a world.

We live in worlds, whether they exist in a physical sense or only in concepts. We learn how to work and live within them. We differentiate and understand spaces in conceptual worlds and even divide territories. We have a clear understanding of the boundaries and rules of these “worlds.”

“Worlds” also exist in books, games, social groups, and religions. In these “worlds,” we have the world of Narnia, the world of Christianity, and the world of Commonwealth law.

Worlds operate based on alphabets, wikis, bedtime stories, constitutions, databases, and most importantly, our collective intelligence as humans. A world running on X means that X is the reason this world can continue to exist, allowing us to continue experiencing and feeling its vitality.

Sometimes, a world only exists in people’s concepts and retains simple physical forms, such as books or computer memory. However, these physical media are not the reason for the existence of a “world.” Printing a million books will not create a world unless someone starts reading, understanding, and immersing themselves in them.

01. Scope of “Worlds”

When talking about worlds, we need to use the term “diegesis” (narrative consistency). If we say something is diegetic (consistent with the narrative), it belongs to that “world.” If an entity wants to join a “world,” it needs to follow the introduction rules of that “world.”

The concept of diegesis is important for defining the boundaries of a world. Remember, a world is a container.

Let’s use some examples to help you understand more intuitively. We will use the term “entity” to describe any component of a world, including events, characters, rules, facts, etc.

(1) The World of Harry Potter: In the world of Harry Potter, the introduction rules are straightforward: If an entity is written by JK Rowling and published in the Harry Potter series, it belongs to the “Harry Potter world.” Otherwise, it doesn’t.

(2) The World of the Dollar: This world is relatively unfamiliar to ordinary people, and so are its introduction rules. Its entities include authorities, balances, debts, and value. The introduction rules are as follows: if an authority proves the existence of a balance or debt, it exists in this world. Additionally, if enough people accept the “dollar value” of an entity (whether material or non-material), its corresponding value exists in this “dollar world”.

(3) World of Warcraft: In the world of Warcraft, the introduction rules are formalized in the form of computer code. If the game server confirms the existence of an entity to a player, it exists in this world. The introduction of new entities, such as “my character has reached level 60” or “our guild is ranked first on the server,” is determined by C++ code written by Blizzard engineers.

02. Boundaries of “Worlds”

Some worlds do not have clear boundaries, causing certain entities to belong only to a part of that world.

Most “worlds,” however, have relatively clear boundaries. For example, the “dollar world” is so important to our lives that we must spend a considerable amount of time and effort maintaining the introduction rules and boundaries. Bureaucratic institutions and legal systems, like gravity, bring together consistent entities and set clear boundaries for what belongs to and what does not belong to the “dollar world”.

The introduction of rules through “law” and “code” has proven to be crucial for various “worlds” that are omnipresent in our lives. They delineate clearer boundaries for different “worlds”.

Fuzzy “world” boundaries are usually determined by authorities or social consensus as the introduction rules for this “world,” while clear “world” boundaries are enforced through explicit, transparent rules such as law, code, or mathematics. Our highest level physical world – the universe – has a very clear boundary and enforces it through its introduction rules: physics.

Both “clear” boundaries and “fuzzy” boundaries can be advantages for certain specific “worlds.” Fanfiction is a successful example that effectively utilizes the fuzziness of world boundaries, while business activities require a world with clear boundaries. Doubts and debates about the validity of someone’s offer will severely hinder trade activities.

03. The Latest Technology that Carries “Worlds”: Blockchain

Regarding the underlying foundations that can be used to carry worlds, we can draw a technological tree based on their development process, including language, writing, law, and psychology, among others. These are the key inventions that allow many of the most important “worlds” to exist.

In 2008, a discussion through email brought about a major breakthrough in the technology that carries “worlds”: Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a blockchain: a network technology used to create standards. In Bitcoin, network participants reach consensus on the “correctness” of a set of balances. And here, something is considered “correct” if it belongs to the corresponding “world”.

Bitcoin is a “world” just like the “world of dollars,” but it is a unique “world.” Entities in the Bitcoin world are balances and addresses, and the rules are defined by computer code. The basic form is that different addresses correspond to different balances. A portion of the balance can be “spent,” meaning transferred to another address. And most importantly, balances can be increased through “mining,” an expensive computational process.

The blockchain is a foundational layer that carries the “world.” It unambiguously preserves the collection of all entities in its state. Additionally, it formally defines rules through computer code. A world based on blockchain enables its residents to participate in consensus. They run a computer network and reach consensus on the introduction of each new entity into this “world.”

There are two important blockchain concepts from the perspective of defining a “world”:

(1) Blockchain state root: The state root is a compression of all entities in the world. With the state root, people can determine if any entity belongs to this world. Trusting a state root is equivalent to trusting the world itself. 0x411842e02a67ab1ab6d3722949263f06bca20c62e03a99812bcd15dce6daf26e is the Ethereum state root at the time of 19:30:10 UTC on July 21, 2022. All entities in the Ethereum world are included in the process of calculating this state root. It represents what belongs to and what doesn’t belong to this “world” at that specific point in time.

(2) Blockchain state transition function: Every blockchain defines a state transition function. It can be seen as an undisputed introduction rule in the “world.” It defines how the world transitions from a previous state (a set of old entities) to a new state (a set of new entities) triggered by humans or machines. In the case of Bitcoin, the state transition function defines how balances are spent and transferred between addresses.

In a “world” based on blockchain, belief in the introduction rules means complete acceptance of the entities introduced by them. The term “belief” here refers to residents in a world based on blockchain, who can directly trust the introduction rules when the following assumptions are met:

(1) They or people they trust participate in the digital “consensus” of the corresponding blockchain. By participating, they can independently obtain the state root of the blockchain, which, as mentioned earlier, is a compression of all entities in the “world”.

(2) They believe that the consensus algorithm of the corresponding Blockchain is operating normally. Blockchain is not magic: they act as a robust foundation for the “world,” but they are not a free lunch. Every specific implementation of a Blockchain has the potential for various attacks and failures.

Here, I want to emphasize that not every formalized world with introduced rules has this default attribute. For example, a flash crash on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange resulted in almost all traders’ transactions being rolled back and marked as “invalid.” Even though the introduction rules of this “world” – an order matching engine – have been formalized in computer code. “Trust” implies that the default Blockchain consensus algorithm can operate correctly and precludes various uncertain situations that may occur in other worlds with formalized rules.

• Will someone tamper with the introduced rules without telling us (the residents of this “world”)?

• Will the introduced rules be incorrectly interpreted?

• Will some entities be introduced without going through the introduced rules?

Through digital consensus, Blockchain creates the most robust foundation for carrying a “world.”

04. Autonomy

Of course, Blockchain is not the only form to carry a “world.” We need to remember that a “world” can operate on any matrix, from tribal songs to databases.

However, as a foundational form that carries a “world,” Blockchain brings a qualitative improvement to the autonomy of the “world” it operates on.

Different “worlds” vary in their degree of autonomy: some “worlds” require the existence and participation of a licensed individual to introduce new entities (e.g., Harry Potter); some “worlds” rely on a consensus of a group of people to interpret and enforce their introduced rules (e.g., legal systems, the world of the US dollar); some “worlds” require their formalized introduced rules to be run by an untampered computer (e.g., the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, World of Warcraft).

If we increase the autonomy of a “world” to the maximum, it means that this “world” does not need any special individuals or hardware to introduce new entities and can autonomously maintain the boundaries of this “world.”

A “world” built on Blockchain as the underlying foundation has the highest level of autonomy: anyone can execute the introduced rules without compromising their objectivity. The disappearance or betrayal of a specific individual will not harm this world: its boundaries remain as clear as before. Such a “world” is almost comparable to the English system or physics itself.

Of course, autonomy is a characteristic that can only be measured in retrospect. Before a real crisis threatens the “world,” autonomy is often only an appearance. Sometimes, a trustworthy path to autonomy is necessary for the “world” to be perceived as having autonomy.

05. Autonomous Worlds

Since the term “a world based on blockchain as the underlying foundation” is too cumbersome, we will now simply refer to it as “Autonomous Worlds”.

I like to think of Autonomous Worlds as planets in our solar system, except they exist in a digital form rather than a physical one.

Think about Mars. Mars is a “world” with mountains and ancient riverbeds, as well as complex geology and a thin atmosphere. Most of the time, you can’t just look up at the sky and observe Mars. But Mars is still there, a part of our solar system. If you use special instruments, you can gather information about Mars, and that information is the same for another person using the same instruments.

The telescope used to observe Mars can be made by anyone. This makes it easier for us to agree that “yes, there is a giant red sphere there, it truly exists and is not made up.”

Furthermore, even if someone stops believing in this “world”, the rocks and deserts on Mars will continue to exist. No one can “unplug” Mars.

Autonomous Worlds can be created and used by anyone, with telescopes (in blockchain jargon, they are called “full nodes”) for achieving consensus.

As long as there is at least one person participating in digital consensus, the entities within these Autonomous Worlds will remain unified with the “world”. Introducing rules keep things objective and transparent, and anyone with the right “telescope” can observe the state of the world. No one can “unplug” the power of Autonomous Worlds.

Autonomous Worlds have rigid boundaries, formalized introduction rules, and do not require privileged individuals to sustain the vitality of the “world”.

06. From Autonomous Worlds to Objective Reality

Thanks to Hilmar Petursson, Sina Habiban, and Guy Mackinnon-Little for inspiring this section.

In addition to our shared objective reality (the universe and its physical laws) and our individual subjective reality (our own feelings and thoughts), we have also experienced intersubjective realities: intangible concepts shared by multiple humans. Typical examples of intersubjective reality are religion and money. These realities, due to their subjectivity, have subtle different interpretations among different people. Love, an intersubjective reality, is experienced in very different ways. Even though it is shared, it remains intangible and subjective.

Another way to express Autonomous Worlds is “interobjective realities“. Through autonomy and a formalized introduction of objective rules, we can reduce, or even eliminate, the subjectivity of these realities.

We have been participating in intersubjective realities for thousands of years. Now, by utilizing the autonomy and transparency provided by a blockchain-based world, we can impart some of the rigidity and objectivity that our shared physical reality possesses to our intangible shared realities. Allowing us to move from intersubjective reality to interobjective reality.

Although the autonomous worlds provide a new way of creating objective and transparent realities, it is important to recognize that they are not meant to replace subjective realities. In fact, it is the intangible and subjective nature of these shared concepts that makes them so valuable and precious to humans. However, it is also important to understand that subjective realities are anchored in other realities, such as the physical world and shared cultural experiences.

In her book “The Human Condition,” philosopher Hannah Arendt discusses how common sense is like a table around which we gather. She writes, “To live together in the world means essentially that a world of things is between those who have it in common, as a table is located between those who sit around it.” Arendt believes that the shared experiences provided by the same human world enable us to bridge our understanding of subjective realities.

From this perspective, “common sense” may be better referred to as “communal sense,” to distinguish it from what most people think of when they hear the phrase. Understanding implies sharing a world, and it is only through sharing with others who observe this shared human world from different perspectives that we can fully understand reality and generate a sense of community: a kind of guideline.

When we move away from a human world that is based on physics as a social medium, our sense of community is threatened by a lack of objective shared reality. Modern digital realities are becoming increasingly fragile, driven by advertisements, AI-generated, backdoors, and black boxes, and optimized for isolating each other and passive consumption. Building a “table” that people can share and forming a sense of community with others is becoming increasingly difficult because the matrix that supports these fragile “realities” constantly slips away from beneath our feet.

Autonomous worlds, according to their definition, will not slip away from beneath our feet: their digital physics is open and transparent, and no one has the privilege to change them without the collective consent of their residents. When our subjective realities inevitably face greater threats, autonomous worlds can help anchor them in a more enduring and stable realm of objective digital reality. Autonomous worlds can become the digital “table” around which we gather, where we can begin to shape a new form of communal sense.

We will continue to update Blocking; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!