Web 3.0 Considered Harmful. The Web Incompleteness Theorem.
As predicted by Plato in the Parmenides.
Web 3.0 has a branding issue; there’s no question about that. This article will argue that it also has a fundamental flaw, an internal inconsistency that could crumble the existing infrastructure unless the community takes immediate radical action.
This article contains a lot of Web 3.0 lingo. If you never surfed in the NTF dark waves and never day-traded quantum futures, this will be a lot to take. I’ll try to explain it in a way that makes sense to people still living in Web 2.0.
Sorry if I sound too aggressive, but the future is harsh. If you are not ready for it, you will remain as a pitiful dweller of the physical world. Sit down, be humble, and listen.
The basics.
Web 3.0 is to Web 2.0 what Web 2.0 is to Web 1.0 (source).
We are already balancing a lot of concepts. To keep our thoughts organized, I’ll represent them graphically:
Careful readers might have noticed some similarities. Let’s take Web 2.0 as an example, and break it down:
What initially looked inseparable is made of atomic parts.
As an analogy with the real world, we can think of webs as “molecules” made out of “atoms”. There are two flavors: “web-like atoms” and “decimal atoms”.
Before going any deeper, let’s draw the complete topology:
Has the word “web” lost its meaning already? Good, you are starting to believe.
The Webiverse is the topic of study of webinology. It’s an emerging science; there are still many complex phenomena that dumbfound researchers, but this much we know:
There’s only one Web-like atom, the “Web”. That’s why researchers call it the “web singleton”.
Some models completely discard the “Web-like atoms” category. However, we are still open to the theoretical possibility of another web-like atom: the “Web Singularity”.
As we can see, there are troubling inconsistencies. Math is a harsh mistress, and the web is a sphere of unforgiving circularity. Yet, it is possible to build a consistent model that can predict the future of the web. But for that, we need to prove some theorems:
1.0: There are infinitely many decimal atoms in the webiverse.
As a number, three has some unique properties:
- Three is the first number bigger than two.
- We can interpret three as “one more than two”.
In 370 BC, Plato’s Parmenides may have contained an early example of an implicit inductive proof. You can read a complete analysis here.
Such beauty, such ingenuity! Let’s apply Plato’s inductive principle to the web:
- If there is Web X.0, there is Web X+1.0
- There is Web 1.0 and Web 1+1.0 (aka Web 2.0)
- From (1) and (2), we prove that there is Web X.0 for every X.0 decimal atom.
- From (2) and (3), we prove that there are infinitely many decimal atoms.
A corollary is that there is an “Infinity” decimal atom and a “Web Infinity” web. The proof is left to the reader as an exercise.
2.0: The grand web unification theorem.
Brace yourself, we are about to prove that “Web Infinity”, “Web 3.0", and “Web Singularity” are the same thing.
By traditional methods, this proposition would be absurd; It clashes with our topology. However, if we take a small leap of faith, we can appreciate a structure that satisfies all our observations. Behold.
Did you notice that? Yes, the church is behind it all. Dan Brown, you have condemned us!
Our revised webiverse is virtually identical to the Shield of the Trinity. The Second Vatican Council created ARPANET, and Pope Francis is overseeing the birth of Web 3.0.
3.0: The Web Laws.
- All the webs are equal.
- There is only one true Web.
- The Web is love.
Everything is everything
What is meant to be, will be
– Lauryn Hill
Thanks for reading! If you enjoy humorous tech stories like these and want to support me to keep writing forever, consider signing up to become a Medium member. It’s $5 a month, giving you unlimited access to stories on Medium. If you sign up using my link, I’ll earn a small commission. You can also follow me on Medium and Twitter.
