In the dimly lit corridors of consciousness,    Where shadows dance with echoes of existence, Lies the elusive essence of value,    A specter haunting the realm of perception.

Is value a coin minted by consensus,    Or a gem forged in the fires of experience? Does it dwell in the depths of material wealth,    Or in the rarefied air of spiritual health?

Behold, the alchemy of perception,    Transforming leaden moments into golden memories, Elevating the mundane to the sacred,    In the crucible of human consciousness.

Yet value, like a trickster, eludes grasp,    Slipping through fingers like grains of sand, For what is prized by one is scorned by another,    And what is cherished today may fade tomorrow.

In the tapestry of existence, value weaves its thread,    Binding souls in the dance of desire, Yet in its capricious embrace, we find liberation,    For to know value is to know the boundless depths of self.

Strictly speaking, this is not a post about Bitcoin per se (even though it is mentioned), but I have nonetheless chosen this territory as it represents the common ground of value that brings together all of us stackers on this platform.
The purpose of this is to conduct an inquiry into what value really is and what forms it can take.

The concept of value is one that philosophers have pondered for centuries, and it is also a central figure in other disciplines such as economics and psychology. Regardless of the various fields of knowledge, the definition of value converges towards something akin to "The degree of importance of some thing or action". In my mind, this definition is somewhat recursive because "value" and "importance" are synonyms, leaving us with the same question: how do we measure the degrees of importance of something?

One of the fundamental inquiries in the theory of value pertains to the existence of objective value and whether multiple such values can coexist. Monists say “no”, and pluralists say “yes”.
Answering the above question is not simple, partly because value encompasses various subjective and circumstantial gradients.
However, humans have found an (almost) universal answer: money.

This technology must therefore be as objective as possible to preserve its utility and to be subsequently converted into subjective value as desired.
By studying the history of monetary systems, a trend can be observed, the convergence towards means that exhibit the following properties:

This is why gold has been adopted for over 5000 years by different populations as a Schelling point for money. This fact tells us that the debate over whether or not objective values exist has at least a partial positive answer...at least concerning the physical realm, governed by the laws of thermodynamics.

Consider the following scenario:
In one of the infinite possible worlds, people have decided to adopt bananas as a form of currency because their taste is personally adored by everyone (subjective value). This does not change the fact that that particular and peculiar form of currency would be subject to hyperinflation: bananas rot within a few days.

Therefore, even for people in this world, it would make more sense to use Au-197 as a means to store value and convert it into bananas as needed. In fact, both theory and empirical/historical observations tell us that, in a free market regime of money, this convergence towards the objective properties of gold is exactly what we should expect.

Anders Sandberg and David Manheim, in their paper WHAT IS THE UPPER LIMIT OF VALUE?, argue that, within certain constraints and considering our current understanding of physical laws, value must have an upper limit. The paper is highly interesting and I strongly recommend everyone to read it, but I believe it sheds too materialistic and limiting a light on the nature of value. We often repeat the saying "everything has a price" and in most cases, I believe it to be true.
However, there are some examples of things that are "priceless". For those of you who have children, how much money (the universal standard of value) would you be willing to accept to sell them? I believe (and hope) that the vast majority of people would say they would never do it, for any amount of value. These are instances where the objective and the subjective truly merge, creating singularities in the theory of value, much like black holes in the theory of general relativity.

Value systems are not static but evolve over time in response to changing circumstances and experiences. What held value in one stage of life may lose significance in another. As individuals grow, learn, and adapt, so too does their perception of value, leading to shifts in priorities and pursuits. Nevertheless, as we have observed above, there will always be beacons of objectivity to guide us in this vast landscape we call value.

Platforms like Stacker News are very important as they serve as a decentralized snapshot of the value of shared knowledge: Rarely have I encountered a post that has received significantly more satoshis than average and yet yielded no discernible value for me.

"One could argue that even when we get up to move from one room to another to fetch a glass of water, we do so because the value of that glass of water is greater than that of our current state. It could be claimed that it is value that moves the entire world, manipulating us like puppets"

In conclusion, the exploration of value traverses a labyrinth of perspectives, from the material to the ethereal, from the objective to the subjective. Through the lens of currency, we discern a convergence towards objectivity, yet subjectivity remains an indelible force, shaping our perceptions and experiences. As we confront the enigma of value, we encounter moments that defy quantification, reminding us of its transcendental nature. Amidst the flux of life, our value systems evolve, guided by the constancy of certain principles. Ultimately, value emerges as a potent force, imbuing each moment with significance and orchestrating the symphony of human existence.