Dear Cristi,

Let me say congratulations on your last outing. As for differentiating between the "I" and the robot I agree with you that:

"Until we will have an explanation of what we are, let's just accept our existence as an axiom, and see where this takes us."

So here is the core axiom/thesis I present:

an "I" is an elementary quantum of action or (more generally) a natural unit, and vice versa. In classical or intuitive terms this would be what we mean by an "observer" or "reference frame" (in GR it's perhaps a "space-time", in the Standard Model of particle physics it is probably the "virtual exchange" between observables/particles).

This goes to say that we are each our own "universal constant" (think, "invariance"; "conservation law"; "phase space").

So at last, quantum gravity is a fractal landscape, some will say it is "foamy".

I invite your esteemed critique.

It is well said: "No ideology, no religion, no science or technology can help you be free, if you let others think for yourself. The antidote is critical thinking." - Stoica.

Best Regard,

Chidi Idika

    Dear Chidi Idika,

    Thank you for the interesting comments. You say "an 'I' is an elementary quantum of action or (more generally) a natural unit, and vice versa." Indeed, the question is whether the "I" is reducible to something else, or if it is irreducible, perhaps similar to the quantum of action.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    Hi Cristi,

    I finally read in more detail your essay and like it very much. First it was a good touch to leave a disclaimer under the abstract (something I should have done). This is not my area (but then again no one is really an expert in this i.e. how to structure humanity) and one of the bad features of physicists/scientists is they tend to think they know more than what they do once they step outside their area. What I have found is that sometimes physicist/scientists can bring a new perspective to some non-science question, but also often times they can fail badly to understand some aspect of this other area/field since it is not their area/field. Anyway it's always a good policy to be cautious when beginning to look into another area hence the disclaimer is a good idea.

    Second you make statements against fixed ideologies (this is in the section "What humans need most?"). This I strongly agree with. People commit to some ideology to such a degree that when evidence arises to the contrary they ignore this. In addition to the examples you gave (Nazism, antisemitism, communism, racism, etc.) there is the example of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. Pol Pot believed so strongly in some alternative form of agrarian communism/socialism that he damaged Cambodia and its people to such an extent that they are still recovering today. And their was ample evidence that as he was turning Cambodia into a "farmer/proletariat paradise" this was absolutely the wrong thing to do. But he was so invested in this path that any evidence to the contrary had not impact on his thinking (such as it was).

    In the section "Education without manipulation" you make the important point (and again one which I agree with) that education, especially critical thinking skills, are important if we are to have a good, robust society. However, this may be difficult to achieve in practice or rather it m ay take a long time and require that one learn critical thinking skills from different teachers. The example I have in mind is a colleague of mine at the university who teaches our critical thinking course (he takes the students through why one should be skeptical of Big Foot, Dragons, bogus medical treatments, money scams, etc.) And I think he does a good job at this (although all the examples he uses are so obviously and easily refuted it doesn't really push the students. But recently he wanted our department to adopt a math remediation program (our intro students are often very weak in their math skills) for all introductory calculus based classes. He had some vested interest in the particular program he was advocating. After running this program for two semesters and then comparing the final grades to the three semesters beforehand but without the math remediation program he claimed incontrovertible proof that this program worked and we should adopt it (at a cost of $30 to each student). However in looking at his data there shift in grades for the two semesters with vs. three semesters without was less that half a standard deviation -- so as far as I could tell this "effect" was just noise. Further there was one semester without the math program where for some unknown reason the grades were low. If one took out this semester there was no effect. Or if one ran this one semester without the program against the two "regular" semesters without the program the effect (such as it was re-appeared). Anyway teaching critical thinking is important even for (or maybe better *especially* for) professors/teachers, since once some kind of self interest comes into the picture people start to lose objectivity.

    Finally I like the quote by Buckminster Fuller on work/making a living.

    Anyway great essay. I enjoyed it very much. Best of luck,

    Doug

      Hi Doug,

      Thank you very much for your kind and helpful comments. I agree with all of them, and I find particularly important what you pointed out about critical thinking. I agree that, for some reason, it is not well mastered even by some of those teaching it, or those claiming they rely on it. One can hear people using critical thinking to support any kinds of ideas, from young earth creationism to any political orientation to any sort of paranormal ideas and conspiracy theories. In the example you gave, there was a misunderstanding of how statistics works, which someone who is more prepared in this area can see easily. Maybe in most cases the mistake is visible for someone who knows better, but, as in the case of the common fallacies, a wrong argument can be accepted too easy by many. In math and logic, it is more rare to find people misusing arguments, because we can verify them anytime anywhere, with just pen and paper. But even in math and logic people may misuse arguments once in a while, so I would expect that in the case of critical thinking this happens more often. However, I would expect that if it spreads more, and people become more aware of its tools, they will become more and more immune to fallacious arguments. At this point, I would expect that if the majority would know even the basics of critical thinking, the improvement would be significant, but perhaps I am too optimistic. Another downside may be that people will become more heated in debates, because they may think that if they know a bit of critical thinking they are always right. Thanks again for your comments. I liked your essay very much, and I wish you good luck with the contest.

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      • [deleted]

      • Post #45

      Hi Cristinel.

      lots of great thoughts, what is it to be human?, the importance of man, consciousness and happiness. You have written "Our evolution continues, and everyone should be free to find and follow their own path, while happily allowing others to follow theirs." It sounds really good but isn't there a problem when different ideologies or lifestyles are mutually incompatible.Can cyborg supermen live at peace with neo-feral humanity and/or Borg-like hive mind post humans and/or ordinary un enhanced people? Can neo nazis live peacefully with socialists and/or with anarchists? It may be that we are moving from old kinds of division to new kinds, that will not bring tolerance.

      If "I" is just a program run on the brains wetware does it make a difference to the value of mankind? Can synthetic intelligence in human form have have human rights, what if it isn't in human form but is a simulation of a human mind? Cristinel, I find it all bewildering and a bit frightening.

      Quote"You have brains in your head.You have feet in your shoes You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You're on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU are the guy who'll decide where to go.You'll look up and down streets. Look 'em over with care.About some you will say, "I don't choose to go there."With your head full of brains and your shoes full of feet, you're too smart to go down any not-so-good street." Dr.Suess

      Yes its great to have the freedom to decide where to go but I'm afraid history shows people have often gone down the not so good streets.

      Good luck, Georgina

        Hi Georgina,

        Thank you for the comments. You said "You have written 'Our evolution continues, and everyone should be free to find and follow their own path, while happily allowing others to follow theirs.' It sounds really good but isn't there a problem when different ideologies or lifestyles are mutually incompatible." I share your worries, but I don't understand your point. Are you saying that tolerance is a problem, because there is intolerance? I don't understand.

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        Hi Cristinel,

        Great essay! It is well argued, and beautifully written. Good luck in the contest.

        Best regards,

        Mohammed

          Hi Mohammed,

          Thank you for the nice comment. I look forward to read your essay. Good luck in the contest!

          Best regards,

          Cristi

          As an author, I scored you a 10.

          Concurrently Maximizing Freedom while also Maximizing Security is essential if we are going to pursue and use space/time manipulation tools. Any secret will be available, anyone anywhere can be remotely killed ...

          DARPA QUEST currently is making many billions of dollars available for the development of quantum physics related tools.

          I only know of one method of two systems that together provide a system that supports both Freedom and Security without having to give up one to have the other.

          Top/Down ethical monitoring and enforcement

          (ethical qualified doctors of science and philosopy elected as Representatives of their State's Constitution to build NSA monitoring systems and monitor that the information collected is consistently applied to all peoples and corporations):

          http://eliminate-all-corruption.pbworks.com

          Bottom/Up broad ethical consideration "capacity"

          (teaching Common Sense):

          http://www.ua-kits.com

          Common Sense =

          Self-esteem (social group skills) Logic Predicting Consequences

          If someone has an equally viable alternative to eliminate all corruption, I would like to hear your perspectives.

          Corruption = unethical allocation of resources and/or opportunities

          in a legal system that enforces ethics

          Corruption = illegal allocation of resources and/or opportunities

          Treason = intentional weakening of security to promote unethical allocation of resources and/or opportunities

          Racketeering = any coalition that intentionally promotes illegal allocation of resources and/or opportunities

            Regarding the Domain of Science:

            Based upon my attempt to relate quantum entanglement to relativity:

            Axiom of Choice extended to include Relativity:

            http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0041v1.pdf

            Axiom of Choice provides a limit for mathematics to be expressed.

            My version attempts to provide a limit of mathematics related to physics.

            The effort is to produce a common framework where all physics observations, including instantaneous features, have an intuitive set of relationships; duality, QE, time, space, GR, sub-atomic particles, en-route photons, fringe patterns ...

            The intent is to provide a model that can potentially be implemented in a quantum computer (parallel processor).

            Then use this system and QE to sympathetically couple features of our universe to a detection device that does not measure the observed properties, but observes the related adjacent systems of connections. Like QE, one or a few states change, not entire systems.

            Relativity floating on vast systems of quantum causality connections.So there is much more that we do not see, than what we observe. But in relativity there is no such thing as nothing.

            Just my efforts

            Hi James,

            Thank you for the interesting comments, regarding the need for elimination of corruption, and the importance of education, and other interesting things you say. It is good you defined the term "common sense", because perhaps it seems to me it is commonly used with a different meaning. Indeed, the prerequisite of any communication and common effort is the existence of a common ground of knowledge and thinking tools.

            Best regards,

            Cristi

            The problem is how to attain or maintain tolerance when there are mutually incompatible ideologies and lifestyles. Everyone should be free to follow their path sounds good but what if it is detrimental to the lives of others? What if doing that prevents others from following their own path? I'm questioning whether the noble sentiment is too idealistic to be practical. There is a TV programme called "Neighbours at War", which shows how even minor disagreements, or differences in lifestyle, can cause prolonged hostility and conflict.

            Hi Georgina. It is true that there are people with mutually incompatible lifestyles and ideologies, and this is rather the rule, than the exception. But I don't get the argument that tolerance is useless, because there is intolerance in the world. You mentioned "neighbors at war", isn't the reason they are at war precisely the lack of understanding or at least of trying to understand one another? Intolerance causes more intolerance, so fighting it back doesn't solve the problem, it amplifies it. In the history, there are examples of "neighbors", at larger scales, who were at war for generations, and neither of them know how it started, both sides only know some of their side who were killed, and just want to avenge them. Now, I don't claim that if someone attacks you, you should stay "tolerant" and wait it to pass, to avoid amplifying the conflict. I never said to tolerate intolerance, and tolerance doesn't mean to accept others as they are even if they are intolerant.

            You asked "how to attain or maintain tolerance". The answer is "simple", by promoting tolerance. I mentioned education, critical thinking (even its introduction in schools), promoting acceptance of those different so that we can understand them and they can understand us, and see that we are not a threat to one another. A large number of conflicts, perhaps most of them, are due to misunderstanding.

            There are indeed violent actions done with the purpose of gaining or conquering. In general, even people doing such violent acts invent justifications for them, such as "I will rob this guy, rich guys deserve to be robbed, they rob us all the time", or "I will rape this b***h, she asked for it", or "they are a threat to our traditions/way of life/etc". Most of these justifications can be washed away by a real understanding of the other person/side, and by critical thinking. But this requires a specific form of education, which is based on tolerance. The possibility that they will go to prison/be bombarded is not enough to stop them, the best way is to reach their mind and heart. But first, let's make ourselves non-violent and able to understand others, otherwise this will not work.

            Some may thing that life is a jungle, and you have to be aggressive in order to survive and do something good for yourself and the loved ones. It is precisely this way of thinking that creates violence in the world. It is true that in some critical situations this may be needed, but on long term, other kind of action is needed. Think at some martial arts like Aikido, in which violence is the last resort, and is allowed only after trying all non-violent ways.

            Each one has his/her lifestyle or ideology. By adopting it, you also spread it in the world. You adopted it from somewhere, in turn, others will inherit it from you. So, be a member of the society you want to live in. This doesn't ensure that you will change the entire world by this, but this will spread slowly to your family, friends, coworkers. Lifestyle is viral.

            Cristi, I didn't need any salt. Your essay was sweet to my tongue and satisfying to my belly.

            Absolutely I agree that "Freedom to choose one's own destiny is more important than protection against failure."

            And as big a Karl Popper fan as I am (his program of conjectures and refutations directly corresponds to your statement above), I find aside from pure science that I lean more to rational idealism than to critical rationalism.

            This essay deserves to be rated high, and I wish you well with it!

            Best,

            Tom

              Tom,

              Thank you for the comments, you are too kind. Your essay is on my list and I look forward to read it soon, especially since you lean to rational idealism.

              Best regards,

              Cristi

              Thanks, Cristi, good luck to you too! If you do read my paper, please also read my conversations with Michael Allan, Tommy Anderberg, and Robert de Neufville on my page. A great deal of clarification is available in those stimulating conversations.

              Hi Cristi,

              I have just read your intriguing Essay. Here are my comments/questions:

              1) I agree with you that we know very little about life, consciousness, humanity. Humility should have to be the starting point for researchers and scientists.

              2) Your beautiful statements that "It is amazing how the universe works, as governed by laws which ultimately are simple, yet combined give such complex phenomena as those we observe. What can be more wonderful than this regularity, parsimony, symmetry, beauty?" are in agreement with Einstein's famous aphorism that "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible".

              3) I agree that "failure seems to be the way we learn". I add that "experience is the sum of all our failures".

              4) The idea that machine feels like the human is fascination on one hand. On the other hand, it put fear in me.

              5) I like your distinction between subjective science and objective science. What do you think about deterministic science and probabilistic science (Einstein versus Bohr)?

              6) I find intriguing your idea that "God is the one who serves us " and the explanation your give on this issue.

              7) The issue that "seeing those not sharing their ideas as being evil" sadly works also in science. Critical thinking must be introduced also in physics and in science in general.

              8) "For people to be free, they have to be informed" is a key statement. On the other hand, information is often manipulated.

              9) I had in mind to read some book of Asimov before reading your Essay. Now, my desire of such a reading is increased.

              Your Essay enjoyed me a lot. Thus, I am going to give you an high score.

              Best luck in the contest.

              Cheers, Ch.

                Dear Christian,

                Thank you for reading and commenting my essay. I like your comments, and I will address those that are questions, or those where I feel the need to comment.

                > 4) The idea that machine feels like the human is fascination on one hand. On the other hand, it put fear in me.

                I have the same feeling. This may remain forever a mystery: even if we will have evidence that a machine is like a human from behavioral viewpoint, we will never know if it really feels the same. Probably here is the distinction between subjective and objective science.

                > 5) I like your distinction between subjective science and objective science. What do you think about deterministic science and probabilistic science (Einstein versus Bohr)?

                I think that, on the one hand, science in general is not about certainty, but also not probabilities, I mean, even the probabilities are uncertain. Because we don't know the space of all theories which are candidates to describe our universe, and we don't know a measure on this space.

                But related to Bohr vs. Einstein, I agree with both of them, and I don't think there is an actual contradiction here. While their debate involved determinism vs. indeterminism, perhaps the most striking problem was that of reality.

                I agree with Bohr that we can't go beyond the probabilities in predicting the outcomes of measurements. We can't really beat the Born rule and Heisenberg's uncertainty. Even of there are hidden variables predicting the outcomes, they seem to stay hidden. But I also think that hidden variables are not needed, in the sense de Broglie and Bohm and even Einstein wanted. Moreover, reality seems to be manifest only when you look, as Bohr said.

                But I also agree with Einstein, in the sense that I think that there is an order, there is reality, and determinism is not in conflict with the observations.

                Now, where I disagree with both Einstein and Bohr is in the way they choose to implement their ideas. Einstein hoped that there is a more complete description of QM, and the main or perhaps only candidate he considered are hidden variable theories. Bohr considered that we should not ask more questions about reality, the probabilities of the outcomes are everything.

                I think that their positions can be reconciled if we reject the solutions they proposed. Briefly: I think that the wavefunction is real (even if it lives in the Hilbert space), and is governed by the Schrodinger equations, which is not only linear, but also deterministic. I don't think that the wavefunction collapse violates the Schrodinger equation, more precisely, I think that it takes place unitarily. Here is a brief explanation of this idea video. I also wrote a bit about this possibility in 1, 2, 3.

                If I am right, then Einstein is right that the laws are deterministic, but Bohr is right about probabilities too, but in the sense that they are due to the initial conditions. Einstein is right about the reality of the world, but Bohr is right too, in the sense that this reality depends on the observations we make. More details can be found in the links I gave.

                But, to make them both right, I think we should reject Einstein's idea that QM is incomplete 4, and Bohr's idea that clicks are all there is 5.

                > 6) I find intriguing your idea that "God is the one who serves us " and the explanation your give on this issue.

                Thanks. Some may regard is as blasphemy. I don't want to mean that humans are mightier than God, but that if there is an almighty God, He would serve juniors like the humans, rather than asking them to praise Him. He would be more humble than us, because He would not have an inferiority complex to compensate.

                > 7) The issue that "seeing those not sharing their ideas as being evil" sadly works also in science. Critical thinking must be introduced also in physics and in science in general.

                I agree, this is the place to start with introducing critical thinking.

                > 9) I had in mind to read some book of Asimov before reading your Essay. Now, my desire of such a reading is increased.

                I had that book in mind when I wrote the essay :)

                Thanks for the comments. I loved your essay very much when I read it. Good luck in the contest!

                Cristi

                Dear Cristi,

                I enjoyed your essay immensely. While I have well-defined ideas about consciousness, and why an AI 'substitute' will not work, I have discussed these in previous contests on other threads and will forego such discussion here.

                I generally agree with your statements you make about life and consciousness. Recall that the American Declaration of Independence states that "among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted..."

                So I fully agree with your axiom one.

                I also agree that "often ideologies trying to build an utopian world for mankind, failed really badly," invariably leading to repression. Instead "one should always let humans to be what they want." As you note, "the origin of any ideology that pursues an utopian dream relies on some assumptions about what people need most."

                I believe a new ideological push is underway under cover of 'equality' as the utopian ideal. As I expect the same results as the other failed utopian totalitarian schemes, I try to analyze this idea using the tool of statistical thermodynamics. I hope you will read, comment upon, and score my essay. Recently some who do not like the message have knocked my score down pretty low.

                I also end up with a (too brief) proposal for changing the basis of education from pay-to-learn to paid-to-learn.

                It's good to see your essay earning its deserved place in the contest.

                Best wishes,

                Edwin Eugene Klingman