A pragmatic strategy for catalyzing self-sustained progress by Peter Gluck

Dear Peter Gluck,

I can only agree with you that we live in the most interesting of all possible worlds. Pangloss should have been more specific!

Also interesting is your statement that it "was built deliberately" while contrasting this with Freeman Dyson's religious basis for the same conclusion. Like you, I believe that science and spirituality are converging.

As for "Perfection (ideal) even if we ignore that it cannot exist in the objective world is less interesting than imperfection", my essay, the Thermodynamics of Freedom, essentially explores the implications of this sentence. I also quote you in my essay.

Your focus on 'negative' is very interesting, as well as your statement that "it is difficult to accept that it is more important what you should not do than what you do." As a chemist you surely realize that quantum mechanics is based more on "forbidden" rules (those transitions that are extremely unlikely) not on "approved" rules. The 14th century mystic, Meister Eckhart, said "Love God, and do what you will." I think he meant that if you love God you will know what NOT to do.

Anyway, I very much enjoyed your fine essay, and I hope you find mine interesting.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter,

You are truly a man after my own heart. I could have written most of that myself (and did some last year!) but nothing like as well or as complete. The fact you have only 3.7 is all the proof needed of the greatest problem of all; man's stupidity. That has been a recurring theme in my discussions this year. My last 3 essays witness that advancing understanding of nature is not the problem, it's infinite complexity is all before us. Advancing it's assimilation into man's embedded "physics" is the mountain to climb. I'm an enabler, am accomplished pragmatic implementer (see my post to Sabine) like you, (and part retired) but against academia I'm entirely powerless.

I've been discussing with Judy Nabb how to fundamentally improve the way we use the incredible on-board computers we were born with by better teaching. I try to show how escaping Earth-centric thinking helps, and applying what Wittgenstein learnt of how a Architects are re-taught to think but to all at a young age. All your rules are quite brilliant.

I hope you read my 2013 essay rationalising infinite recursive gauges to a new law of physics. This year I show the power of natures non-linearity by describing (geometrically/dynamically) a classical mechanism reproducing so called 'quantum correlations', allowing convergence of classical and quantum science. It is logically self apparent, but most fear QM, and those who learned it are indoctrinated with voodoo. I hope you may advise; How can we ever advance?

I was wonderful and inspiring to read your words. I'm now a fan of Yves! I do hope to meet you on my essay blog to discuss further. My own essay has even a hint of romance so I hope you'll enjoy it and think it of value.

Very best wishes

Peter

P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

6 - slightly favorable indifference

5 - unfavorable indifference

4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

The following is a general observation:

Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

Peter Gluck,

Your essay is enlightening and objective. It is very much needed in this contest. I could list several quotes, but your essay speaks best for itself. Your list of 'Nots' should be hung on the walls of scientist's rooms. It could be hung on many walls because its application is broad. Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge. You receive a high rating.

James Putnam

Hi Peter,

I am so glad to have read your marvelous essay that was full of surprises and pleasure to read. Truth shattered to pieces that we must find and fit together is lovely. I have taken the liberty of copying your list of NOTS, which I will put on my wall as as inspiration for myself and my children. The pragmatic attitude that everything can be improved is a really good way to steer the world. Not acting out of fear or despair or striving for unobtainable perfection.

Good luck, your essay deserves to do well, Georgina

Hi Gluck,

A most practical essay you have. Properly addressed to We, humans "hungry matter that thinks it is thinking".

These set of rules are worth posting somewhere on the wall. However I do not quite understand rule 14.

14. NOT the solutions worked out by us, but those borrowed. bought or

stolen from others are more easily accepted and implemented.

If all of us get busy buying, borrowing and stealing solutions NO ONE will be putting resources working out any solutions. Or you are saying that really useful solutions happen only one little step at a time? Or may be you are just more concerned about societal inertia.

I generalize rule number 20 thus:

NOT the wise application of rules but finding of the specific exceptions to them, is the real high art of problem solving."

A most rewarding essay, and am scoring it high right away. It is baffling how such important things remain often obscure.

I invite you to read and comment on my own approach to this problem of "hungry matter that thinks it is thinking".

Regards,

Chidi

Hello Mr. Gluck,

My name is Margarita Iudin. I read your essay without rating it. I feel confused about how the authors rate each other.

This is what I think about your essay.

1. You were not right to give your personal information (oppressed, second class, dictatorship, and so on).

2. Your references like blogosphere, wikipedia and other open sources are anonymous and not thoughtful

3. The great scientist Freeman Dyson? Why Freeman Dyson?

4. If something is not improved, it decays

When something will improve significantly, its quality or essence will change, it will stop to be the same something, Hegelian dialectics

In temporal world everything is temporal , Ecclesiastes would be a good reference source

I guess you should be more specific about this something of yours

5. Technology game This is good, technoscience game

Technoscience is the word invented by Stanislaw Lem, the philosopher, futurist and guru of science fiction)

6. The great logician Kurt Gödel

Heisenberg and Neumann share their admiration for Gödel

Einstein in his late years in Princeton would have daily walk-and-talk with Gödel

Einstein said these walks were the best thing he had in Princeton

Many people who use Gödel name and refer to Gödel's work do not understand what it is about; the Incompleteness theorem is catchy

6. You appeal to very specific cultural memos. There is a strong impression that you wrote your essay for your friends most of whom are Romanian Jews. Psalms is great literature work, the reading Psalms helps people to go through the miseries of human life.

However, I believe that ultimate truth (Truth) is beyond our understanding

7. The rules of real-life problem solving agreeable

This is the best part of your essay clear and reasonable

8. Teflon which is not found in nature?

Not so sure, there are many things there but people miss to see them.

What properties of Teflon and what technology do you refer to?

9. to steer the future with control over technological progress, transfer and transformation of energy-matter-information utopia

Obviously, people are not able to control themselves

Triplet energy-matter-information very good

Please read my essay on your convenience and share your opinion.

Imagining the future humanity by Margarita Iudin

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2096 It is mostly, but not only about the analogous imagining and its usage in nature and engineering

Good luck,

M Iudin

Dear Margarita,

First please call me Peter- Netiquette is human, democratic and friendly. Plus I like your writing have already remarked and it and made my notes- will send them

in organized form ASAP. Now I will answer to your evaluation/critics- I am grateful for them perhaps with the exception of some re. technology. If somebody has no direct hands on, brain in experience in Development of technologies, he/she has problems with details. The way of Nature and the way of Man actually differ sometimes. We are just creating myriadssmart materials- that are absolutely new.

So your question re Teflon is a bit of symptomatic; please excuse an unpolite

grumpy old man.

I also don't like to evaluate competitor essays- and I hope both community scores and public scores will not be taken very very seriously- each significant author has both friends and enemies out side and inside this group; there are many rivalising ideas and concepts, happy people and depressed people, utopists and distopists etc., etc.

In context, this contest is about an essentially unsolvable problem- what should humanity do to be happier and live better- there are many partial, incomplete

transitory solutions and many now unanswerable questions. So I think the essays

should be as personal as possible to be very unique. This is the reason I am using my very personal experience; to be oppressed is an evolutionary advantage

You are probably much too young and I have no idea where were you raised, for example Galina Nikolaeva "Bitva v Puti" tells you something- just an example? Actually it is fine that yur essay is also based on your very personal professional experience.

Ergo, my references are mainly about my own ideas I have openly stated that what

i say is at my personal Blog EGO OUT dedicated to new energy and problem solving

mainly but not exclusively. it is an ego out philosophy, in part isnpired by my

mentor, Arthur C Clarke (EGOGRAMS)

What's the problem with freeman Dyson? He is a great thinker and he is also deeply religious. I am not and despite this we both came to the idea of interestingness of our Universe.

Godel's theorem goes so far and deep beyond mathematics- it is in the structure of our Universe. I have learned a lot from Hofstadter's book about Godel, Escher, Bach illo tempore.

The Biblic story says nothing special to Romanian Jews- it is by an American Jew

Nobelist chemist and poet, Roald Hoffman (I have translated his play coauthored with Carl Djerassi "Oxygen" in Romanian and Roald has sent me his literary opuses)

I was very much inspired by this story- have not found a better illustration

of the fragmentation of Truth. Why I call them Pareto truths is explained in a reference. Due to human obsession to certainties, Pareto truth will not be easily accepted but they are everywhere.

We simply have no better way than trying to use technological progress to improve our life. The really traic problems are described is the "stop Koalemos" reference

The recent europarlamemntarian votes have demonstrated that the situation is bad

and the perspective dim.

see you at your essay,

Best wishes

Peter

Excuse typos, please i am in hurry and have bad vision problems