Blockchain Papers

Annette Zgoll

Who created literary texts in ancient Mesopotamia, and did the Mesopotamians have a concept of “literature” (→ 1)? A core witness is the song Innana B / nin me šara (NMS → 2). New translations and an inductive analysis of references to text, addressee, and speaker reveals NMS to be created by a priestess for a war ritual (→ 3). Instead of staking a claim to authorship, however, the song stresses a claim for priesthood (→ 4). New evidence shows why: the creators of ritual songs are gods, and En-ḫedu-ana is only allowed to create such a song when she herself acts as a priestess embodying a deity (→ 5 and 6). The last section will offer proof that NMS belongs to the category of literature, from both ancient and modern perspectives, and explain why it is also to be regarded as both a mythic and ritual text (→ 7).The analysis demonstrates the birth of literature through the goddess Nin-gal, embodied in En-ḫedu-ana.

Carlos Fraenkel

Maimonides, Averroes, and Samuel Ibn Tibbon on a Skandalon of Medieval Science Carlos Fraenkel (bio) Joel Kraemer has recently made an interesting contribution to the ongoing debate about Maimonides’ stance in Guide 2:24 on what has been called a skandalon of medieval science:1 the incompatibility of Ptolemy’s astronomy with Aristotle’s celestial physics.2 As I understand it, the main thesis for which Prof. Kraemer argues is twofold: (1) He proposes that it is possible that the emendation suggested by Ibn Tibbon to the crucial passage in 2:24 reflects the correct Arabic original. The absence of textual evidence does not disprove this possibility, because only a fraction of the Arabic manuscripts have been examined. In addition, even if no extant Arabic manuscript contains Ibn Tibbon’s [End Page 195] version, this would not be conclusive proof that his emendation does not reflect the correct Arabic text, since it may depend on a lost branch of the Arabic manuscript tradition. (2) Considerations of content, as well as the interpretative tradition of the Guide, make it likely that Ibn Tibbon’s version is the correct one despite contrary evidence of all known Arabic manuscripts.3 In his paper Prof. Kraemer also discusses a number of alternative interpretations, including the interpretation set forth by Zev Harvey and taken up by myself. In what follows I will defend the interpretation proposed by Harvey and myself. I will first address the philological argument in support of the possibility of Ibn Tibbon’s reading. Then I will briefly discuss the value of the interpretative tradition. Finally, I will turn to the substantive issues at stake. Concerning the substantive issues, let me note from the outset that there may not actually be a fundamental disagreement between us. If I am not mistaken, Prof. Kraemer agrees that Maimonides did not consider Aristotle’s physical proof of God a demonstrative proof according to the conditions stipulated by Aristotle in the Posterior Analytics.4 Harvey and I think that this is the conclusion of Maimonides’ argument in 2:24: because of the incompatibility of Ptolemy’s astronomy with Aristotle’s celestial physics, the crucial premise of the eternal motion of the celestial spheres cannot be taken to be necessarily true. As a consequence, the physical proof of God is not a demonstrative proof. Prof. Kraemer, on the other hand, thinks that the “general proof [al-istidlāl al-ʿāmm]” mentioned in the controversial passage means “dialectical proof.”5 Without Ibn Tibbon’s emendation, Maimonides would thus be denying that the heavens provide a dialectical proof of God. If this were the case Prof. Kraemer would be right: the argument of 2:24 does not support such a conclusion. Hence Ibn Tibbon’s emendation would be plausible, since for a dialectical proof the premise of the eternal motion of the celestial spheres does not need to be necessarily true. It is sufficient for it to be likely true. And there are [End Page 196] good reasons to think that according to Maimonides’ esoteric position Aristotle’s view is more likely than the view that the world was created in time, i.e., the view for which he argues exoterically. If Maimonides had written what Ibn Tibbon and Prof. Kraemer—albeit for different reasons—think he should have, I would be happy to accept Prof. Kraemer’s interpretation that in the controversial passage Maimonides is referring to a dialectical proof. Indeed, in my view this would be the only philosophically tenable interpretation. I will argue, however, that Maimonides does not deny that the heavens provide a dialectical proof of God and that this is not what Ibn Tibbon took him to be denying. According to the interpretation maintained by Harvey and myself, in the controversial passage Maimonides denies that the physical proof is a demonstrative proof, thus implicitly acknowledging that it has only dialectical status. While the conclusion—that for Maimonides the proof is not demonstrative but dialectical—does not seem to conflict with Prof. Kraemer’s view, the interpretation itself has the advantage of not depending on an unnecessary emendation of the text. 1. Ibn Tibbon’s Reading and the Interpretative Tradition I agree with Prof. Kraemer...

Usman Khalil, Owais Ahmed Malik, Wee-Hong Ong, Mueen Uddin

The concept of smart city architecture requires a comprehensive solution that can combine real-time response applications for cyber-physical systems. However, the architecture faces challenges that can obstruct the operations in terms of systems, processes, and data flow as far as the breach risk is concerned. Though the field has been researched with the existence of centralized and distributed architectures to support smart cities. Research gaps regarding security concerns, platform assistance, and resource management continue to persist. This research article presents a novel blockchain-based architecture that proposes expansion in the non-fungible tokens (NFTs) to cater to the expansion of IoT-enabled smart assets. It enables NFTs to employ fog computing for all users and smart devices connected to a fog node in a cyber-physical system. The proposed expansion suggested in Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) for IoT assets representation in a cyber-physical system, provides devices and user identification and authentication functionality. The proposed NFT architecture has been designed to provide a smart city solution for cyber-physical systems that ensures robust security features (such as CIA) by introducing new attributes and functions for Owner, User, Fog, and IoT device/s authentication. The validation and rigor of the security services, efficiency, and latency have been achieved by deployments on private and public ledgers. The efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of the suggested functions and components have been evaluated in terms of evaluation cost and time complexity which resulted in promising results, obtained and validated on a testnet. The evaluation cost for the devised mint component was approximately 81%, and devised approve() was approximately 23% more efficient than other solutions.

Michael Mann

In this chapter I discuss the emergence and development of the two major decentralized civilizations of the first millennium b.c. , Phoenicia and Greece. I concentrate on Greece because it is considerably better documented: We can distinguish the principal phases of its dialectic of development. I argue that the massive contributions of both peoples to the development of social power is to be attributed to the decentralized, multi-level nature of their civilizations, appropriate for taking advantage of the geopolitical, military, and economic legacy of their region, especially that bequeathed by the Near Eastern empires of domination. I suggest that two principal dialectics can be discerned in the emergence of Phoenicia and Greece as “leading edges” of contemporary power. The first, discussed briefly and tentatively, concerns the possibility that these civilizations were part of a macro historical process. In this case, decentralized multi power-actor civilizations lying on the marches of established empires of domination exploited the success plus the institutional rigidity of those empires to “emerge interstitially” and establish their own autonomous power organizations. After a long, successful process of power development, however, their own organizations became institutionalized and rigid. Now they become vulnerable in their turn to new empires of domination lying on their marches. Such a process can be traced in the first millennium b.c. The extent to which it was, indeed, part of a macro historical process will be left to the concluding chapter. The second dialectic concerns that “middle period” of developmental success.