Thank you so much for writing and sharing this thought-provoking essay. Your comments on my essay were very thought-provoking.
"...humanity is not ready to face its stormy future,...". Life is not for the squeamish. We must face the storms or find peace in the cemetery.
I suggest for all my positivism, I think we are at "life" stage, not even "thought". And maybe not we are not there yet either. As you probably guessed from my suggestion of fractal universe, complexity in the fractal sense is the measure of consciousness. Therefore, a rock has a consciousness and a life or spirit (level of relation between entities). Can thought/spirit/relationship exist without the entities in the relation?
OK. You got into math and physics. The following was posted to Fisher's essay:
Math shows only 2 things in reality. Math is really basically simple. We use it all the time. I wonder if the very fundamental idea that math works to help us define observations also describe our reality.
Math consists of 2 types of consideration - discrete (counting) and continuous (geometry).
The number system was created to count things. One thing plus one thing is 2 things, etc. When we talk of a thing in our scale (0.1 mm to 1000 km), we can say the thing is at that point or not. We could cahnge3 scale and still talk of integer things. For instance, 0.1 (mm) could be 100 (micrometers). Hence, a thing has a boundary.
Geometry talks of extended objects. A point can exist in the extended object. Descartes considered the continuous as infinitely divisible. Division presents a quandary in both maths. We can take 1 ft. and multiply by 3 and make a yard. But we cannot always take a thing and make 1/3 of the thing by a scale change. Where on a line is the point of 1/3? There is no such point. Is 1/3 real or is division an improper operation in physics?
Perhaps this discrete and continuous categorization of math is actually describing the reality of physics.
Consider Newton's idea for light. Light is a particle (discrete corpuscle) traveling and making waves in Descartes medium (called a continuous plenum). The particle causes waves in the plenum. The waves travel faster than the particle that then direct the particle. (Sounds like general relativity - matter distorts space which then influences mass motion.) Quantum entanglement is the result of the wave action on particles. If the frequency of the wave is related to the particle, resonance produces the entanglement.
If the reality were different, perhaps we'd be using a different math.
We a approaching some common ground in the introduction of self-reproduction.
"...there is no way to predict trajectories, nor the next steps of the human
species...". I like the Bohm interpretaion of QM. The universe is deterministic (my opinion) and trajectories are predictable if we know enough. We don't know enough. How can we observe cause and effect at all levels is the trajectories aren't predictable. Therefore, "no way" is inaccurate.
Do you suggest the "how" in the challenge is to gain the knowledge to predict and, then to cause the future of humanity? Or are you saying we can't do this (pessimistic)? It looks like your fig.2 is fractal. How does the suggested program account for the climate change, for example, or any other universe impact that appears deterministic without being in our model?
The goals of your characters seem vague and, perhaps, unachievable to me. I'll reread your essay again in a few days.
Your putting these things together triggers some examination. Thanks.