Essay Abstract

We are at a critical time in the evolution of our understanding of the physics of the universe and the evolution of the growth of humanity. Humans lack sufficient knowledge to predict outcomes of their actions. The long-term growth of science and humanity has been by trial-and-error. Life observations are applied to determine new science principles and the process and practice of science is applied to suggest how humanity can grow. New fundamental principles of science are proposed. The human species is at such a level that it must reorganize the national and international structure to allow competition and change. Inhibiting change is not an option. Nature's law is grow or die. The measure of success in nature is survival. The national military authority must obey and enforce nature's laws. Competition must be allowed between religions, between approaches to technology, between approaches to society, and between approaches to the environment. Humanity should steer the future by creating a true nation organization. The best state that humanity can achieve is to be able to adapt to changes without the destruction of war or of national collapse.

Author Bio

I sold my electronics company in 1991 (I was 49); retired; retired from retiring; and became an inventor and amateur astronomer. My interest in cosmology developed. I conceived a radical new cosmology model in 2002 and started publishing papers and instructing at Blue Ridge Community College. After writing "Theory of Everything; scalar potential model of the big and the small", my interest turned to philosophy.

Download Essay PDF File

John,

Welcome to the contest.

It is an interesting, well thought out and reasonable proposal. I do see problems though.

For one thing, I would make the argument that knowledge is inherently subjective. To define is to limit and to limit is to define. So when we make models, we necessarily exclude whatever is not pertinent and there is no such thing as an overall model. The absolute is basis, not apex, so we and our models, rise up from the elemental, not having fallen from the ideal. The consequence is that often, when there is no readily apparent compromise, competition is terminal. So making states sovereign will eventually negate any larger confederacy. As you say, nature rules and nature doesn't give many fairy godmothers. So while the US is reaching a point of stagnation, breaking the union will create a situation that will not be neat. There would be no getting that genie back in the bottle.

Another major point I see that you do not develop are the economic forces which are pulling all these political strings in the first place. Politics is prescriptions and proscriptions, which are weak soup to the incentives of economics. As I see it, models generally follow an arc, where they are first effective and useful, but then the functionaries take over and it becomes mindless momentum and the system marches itself off a cliff. That is what is happening with the financial system. Originally capitalism was about the efficient allocation of resources, with the 'invisible hand of the market.' Now it is about the blind accumulation of wealth and the production of increasingly nebulous capital to satisfy this appetite. Since finance is the economic circulatory system, the result will amount to a massive coronary, as this 'high blood pressure' takes its toll. We had what amounted to massive doses of electroshock therapy to save the system in 08, but it didn't change any of the behaviors and only created the impression of invulnerability by the banks.

As I see it, what we need to do is to start treating money as the contract which it is, not the commodity we prefer to think of it as. I go into this somewhat in my own entry.

Regards,

John Merryman

    Hi John C Hodge,

    Born in the same year 1942 as you but in Berlin which was the center of terror and subsequent ideological struggle, I appreciate you and Alan Kadin dealing with the growth of population. You wrote: "Nature's law is grow or die" and "the barons are organizing". My essay will advocate a different view.

    Regards,

    Eckard

      Dear JM

      Thanks for your comments.

      Most of the comments you make have already been addressed in the paper. The limit of space means that some significant points must be summarized. Therefore, your call for either more data or a fleshing out of a point requires much more data. You are also introducing new terms or definitions the paper doesn't use.

      "For one thing, I would make the argument that knowledge is inherently subjective."

      I think you need to define "knowledge" a bit more. The paper addressed "understanding" and suggested understanding is concerned with prediction. Understanding is present to the degree that prediction of observations or events is realized. A model's predictions either occur or not. A subtlety is that science requirement that a "model" must be falsifiable. If your "knowledge" includes suggestions that are not falsifiable, then your "knowledge" is not my "understanding".

      "To define is to limit and to limit is to define." Of course. But such action has a purpose in the survival game.

      "So when we make models, we necessarily exclude whatever is not pertinent...". How do we exclude whatever is not pertinent? The paper suggested all models that are falsifiable have areas of applicability that implies there is likely some data that falsifies the model. "pertinent" is your idea.

      "...and there is no such thing as an overall model." Of course not. We cannot create a universe today and, therefore, we do not understand an "overall model". But it may be an interesting topic for a debate of whether an overall model is possible.

      "The absolute is basis, not apex, so we and our models, rise up from the elemental, not having fallen from the ideal." You need to define your terms better so a conversation can begin. Of course, the paper sugggested models develop and improve predictiblity for our survival.

      "The consequence is that often, when there is no readily apparent compromise, competition is terminal." No. There is war and war may result in a competitor's death. The paper did mention cooperation is the best competition. Your compromise need not be a part of cooperation. Nature has had competition and developed increased complexity.

      "So making states sovereign will eventually negate any larger confederacy. As you say, nature rules and nature doesn't give many fairy godmothers. So while the US is reaching a point of stagnation, breaking the union will create a situation that will not be neat. There would be no getting that genie back in the bottle." The goal in the paper was to make a nation that consists of states. What do you include in "sovereign"? I did not include a national military in the state authority. Therefore, I did not suggest a confederacy of sovereign states.

      "Another major point I see that you do not develop are the economic forces which are pulling all these political strings in the first place. Politics is prescriptions and proscriptions, which are weak soup to the incentives of economics. As I see it, models generally follow an arc, where they are first effective and useful, but then the functionaries take over and it becomes mindless momentum and the system marches itself off a cliff. That is what is happening with the financial system. Originally capitalism was about the efficient allocation of resources, with the 'invisible hand of the market.' Now it is about the blind accumulation of wealth and the production of increasingly nebulous capital to satisfy this appetite. Since finance is the economic circulatory system, the result will amount to a massive coronary, as this 'high blood pressure' takes its toll. We had what amounted to massive doses of electroshock therapy to save the system in 08, but it didn't change any of the behaviors and only created the impression of invulnerability by the banks." This is not in the paper. Indeed, I would argue that your view is very slanted and incorrect. What is in the paper (briefly) is that a new system is created. If it satisfies nature, it grows and thrives. Then it changes to a condition that fails nature. This results in decline and death. The US used capitalism (It may be worth another paper to dispute this - but not here.) to grow. The people and the political authority perverted the economic system that resulted in the decline now. "Decline" not massive coronary. I do not agree with your view of the events of the last 5 decades.

      Hodge (rather than "John" to distinguish all the Johns)

      Dear HT

      Did you write some papers on redshift and alternant views of universe expansion?

      Hodge

      JH,

      You are right there are way too many angles to the various issues to cover adequately.

      In the first part of my critique, I was basically offering a similar view of how different views/models can lead to conflict, but making the argument there is no ultimate model, so in the condition that different views are fundamentally incompatible, the degree of competition will be terminal. Now in many, if not most situations, there is room for different views. I'm sorry if it is difficult to really express all the permutations and am not trying to start an argument, but feel in such a discussion as this, the extremes need to not be overlooked.

      As I read your paper, it lays out how states can be the incubators of various social and political models, in a grand scientific experiment. While I agree this is a noble plan, there isn't the space for an objective process and impartial observers, so things might get quite messy. Personally I think it could well happen, but that will be a topic for future historians to debate.

      To the extent I see it being framed out, it would be based on the break down of the dollar and the states starting local currencies out of necessity. This would be a bottom up process.

      Regards,

      JM

      JM

      I suppose you can rebut my arguments in my comments on your paper. I am beginning to think we differ less than I had originally thought.

      Perhaps you missed one of my points that was not really overtly stated. Different views have always been in conflict, therefore, in competition. Often this leads to war. Your observation that such competition has been terminal is correct. The problem for humanity is that the destruction of war is what must be avoided. The advance of humanity depends on such conflict to not be terminal for humanity, but terminal for the poor moral.

      The condition of sameness has proven to self-destruct. The paper stated there is not room for different views. The competition will ultimately choose one from two. The room for different views may be had if the views include tolerance for other views (as the rise from tribes to chiefdoms suggests) and include the cooperation with the different views. Many states and many different views being is competition at the same time would serve humanity by faster growth.

      I think the particulars of some of the possible views are outside the discussion herein. I can wish that at least one of the states be organized for any set of morals or views. Nature will decide. I'm sure we both have suggestions for some state vector. Our knowledge of nature is too puny for an objective process or impartial human observers.

      Based on your comment on the dollar, the suggested process would start with a nation constitution that outlines the duties of the nation government. You have noticed that I omitted the establishment of a national currency as is currently done in the US. I think the creation of a national currency leads to abuse by the federal authority. Yet, it seems the original colonies did have their own currency and opted for a national currency. Further, each of the regions of each of the states had a type of currency. It was a bottom up process. Was their implementation flawed or was the idea of a national, federally issued currency flawed? As I noted Friedman had many objections to the implementation of the federal currency but supported the existence of such a system.

      Hodge

      JH,

      In my entry I start off with a brief observation about the dichotomy of energy and information; That energy manifests information, while information defines energy and while energy is inherently dynamic, information is necessarily static, as well as the creation of new information requires the dissolution of old information. As I pointed out, information is a function of distinction and limitation, so anything so informed is subject to context. What this means is there is no ideal form. What might be suitable in one situation will not be suitable for all situations. So while a national currency might have advantages over local currencies in some conditions and for some people and businesses, the opposite would also be true for other situations and what you have is a fluctuating state, where those in the middle will switch back and forth depending on their own needs. This creates a natural flux and wave action.

      Now some forms, such as the dollar as a global currency, could well be advantageous for lots of people for a long time, but like all waves, the bigger they get, the harder they crash. Right now we have exposed ourselves as having limited influence on the Eurasian continent and there are an increasing number of countries, resident to that landmass, who are considering other mediums of exchange, which might make significant numbers of dollar units superfluous. Which means they could start returning home in bulk.

      So yes, nature does pick winners, but never forever and as the old Greek saying goes, "Those whom the gods wish to destroy, first they make lucky."

      People can create small waves, but they can only ride the big ones. What we want to do here is create a small wave that might grow bigger, after some of the current big ones crash.

      Regards,

      John M

      JH,

      Posted this in response;

      To a certain extent, my argument is that by viewing money as a contract, rather than a commodity, it would be viewed in fundamentally moral terms, as a force that holds society together and makes the parts function as a whole. Which is what the essence of morality is, the principles by which society can function. Essentially it is the economic blood flowing through the system. As it is, treating it as a commodity makes it morally neutral. Rather than a broad public contract which is dependent on its economic fungibility, it is treated as personal property. While the average person likes this principle of freedom, it also applies to those who run the system and feel it their right to be able to skim off as much as they possibly can. Many people get quite offended when I make this point, as though I am trying to socialize their wealth, but I try pointing out that it is in the interest of the government and the banks for people to think of it as personal property, because then it insinuates itself into every possible exchange and this allows the banks and the government to control and tax society to a much deeper level, because they control the flow and value of this medium. So if it was thought of a medium, similar to a road system, then people would much better understand its uses and limitations and hopefully better appreciate far more organic relationships, than ones processed through and dependent on these global systems.

      Yes, few people will be willing to really see this now, because it is radically different than what we are taught to believe, but at some point in the not too distant future, that particular belief system is going to implode on a massive scale and every current effort to prevent that will only make the eventual crash that much bigger.

      Both gold and bitcoin are commodities. They are morally neutral. Should the market forces controlling supply to demand break down, so does their value. A national currency is a reflection of faith in the durability and integrity of a particular nationstate. That is not personal property.

      Regards,

      John M

      My Dear Mr. Hodge,

      I was utterly fascinated reading your superbly written essay, and I do hope that the judges of this competition think likewise. I do have a minor quibble about your abstract assertions.

      You wrote: "We are ready for the next evolutionary step in understanding the universe. This future model has already been named the "Theory of Everything."

      Based only on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. All material surfaces must travel at the constant "speed" of light. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent "speed" that is less than the "speed" of light. Einstein was completely wrong. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

      The real Universe is unique, once. All information is not unique.

      With all of my best regards,

      Joe Fisher

        John H,

        "You seem to agree that currency by government is morally evil. The result is inflation or the low interest rates fostered by government in an attempt to have their cake and eat it without tax.

        How would you change the system to have currency or money be viewed as a social contract that government could not abuse?"

        I made a few comments to this on my own page, but it requires substantial thought to really answer, so I'm putting a few more observations up here.

        For one thing, any form of notational currency, as a promise of value, will have the potential for abuse. Government backed or issued currencies simply have the advantage, for better or worse, of being more broadly accepted.

        The issue here, is not how to construct a currency in which faith in the larger system is eliminated, such as with an actual commodity, which gold is, even if the majority of its value is due to belief rather than need, but to understand and appreciate that trust is an elemental factor in a functioning society and that it needs to be safeguarded from those who would abuse it, both from the top and the bottom of society. That is why I really am not concerned with who issues, or how the currency is issued, but that it be understood that it is a contract, not a commodity. That it is a force which holds society together and is a moral good. Not simply some value to be mined out of the pockets of one's fellow beings. This then would be a function of our system of education and values. Rather than people obsessing over their bank accounts and retirement fund, this sense of wealth as a medium would go towards forming a shared sense of community. What we loose sight of in our social structures, is the bottom up feedback that is so important for a healthy organism. How often do those at the top listen to those at the bottom, but think how your body functions. How long would you live, if your brain ignored what your feet told it? What we need is that sort of feedback loop within society.

        Regards,

        John M

          JM

          RE: contract money

          This is not physics, but is interesting. Perhaps physics principles may apply.

          I have only a few incomplete thoughts on the money subject. Maintaining anything other than the Friedman type approach or hard money is difficult for me to conceive. The government is not doing either today I think that is why this economic downturn is so sever and long lasting.

          Friedman predicted accurately. Therefore, his model understands. The government is acting contrary to his model. Trouble has followed and will follow.

          I would suggest any plan that requires humans to change their nature will fail - it's a poor plan. The organization can change but not human nature. This applies to the subject of this contest, also.

          Any hard currency under government control is subject to debasement as has been done by many governments is the last few millennia. But I see no way around it that isn't worse or more easily manipulated. I think the easier manipulation is a primary factor in the government dropping the gold standard. Friedman showed that the government's manipulation caused the severity of the Great Depression. (The government blames others.) The inflation and later stagflation were government manipulation also (printing more currency). I think the severity of the economic problem today is because the low interest rate stimulation and subsequent bailouts did not allow a recovery of the money supply to balance the GDP. Low interest rates increase the velocity of money (remember how the politician wanted us to buy more houses - this is the sector that initially collapsed) that has the same effect as inflation (remember the '60s and '70s).

          Friedman's solution is to have currency supply follow the GDP or the gross amount of goods in the economic system. The issue to me is the negative feedback principle (another application of the physics concept to society). That is, some automatic mechanism tied to the amount of goods in the system adjusts the currency supply without government's ability to manipulate. But I do think it has to be a national currency despite my omission from the national level tasks in the essay.

          Dear Joe:

          Thanks very much for your comment. But, please, my modesty.

          I am to comment on some interesting comments you made in your essay as a comment to your essay.

          I have also been struck with the thought that light could not be a speed limit that satisfies the Lorentz equations if it presented some surface to the direction of movement. Therefore, the photon itself must present zero cross-section to the direction of movement. The photon is a surface not a 3-D object. Structures of photons say with the surfaces perpendicular to each other would present a surface to any direction of movement and would be impeded (travel less than the speed of light). If particles were composed of photons, then many energy equations may be satisfied. OK this is radically new physics, but it's fun to think about. Yet, it seems a common sense solution to the problem. The papers photon diffration of light and STOE correspondence to general relativity and quantum mechanics develop this idea a little. There is a long way to go.

          JH,

          I am pretty much in agreement with your views and don't feel this is introducing something new, but removing a delusion which has developed within the process. Even a gold backed currency, as opposed to using gold directly, is a contract. As in 'IOU an ounce of gold.' If it was hard, ie, the value directly tied to the amount of gold in reserve, it would not be stable, because there would have to be a constant adjustment of prices, relative to the size of the economy, versus the amount of gold. So on the other hand, a stable currency would mean it would not, in principle, be hard, because there would have to be shock absorbers and only in the event of a severe crisis would the amount of gold be relevant. Then the powers that be will find it necessary to deal with the discrepancy, which was the situation in the 30's.

          The problem in the system as it is, is that everyone thinks they need as much money as they can get their hands on and since it is a commodity, this isn't a problem for the functioning of the system, since we all have our bank accounts, but it doesn't work that way. This mostly serves to empower the financial services industry and requires them to create massive wealth storing devices, ie. 'derivatives, securities, options, etc.' which further empower those with the most wealth, in a feedback loop that essentially drains value out of other parts of the economy and amounts to a large tumor on it. Think of it in terms of blood supply; The brain needs and gets much more than the feet, but it doesn't get more than it needs, or you have a stroke. Similarly, if the feet got significantly less then they need, you would lose them. Now, rather than people thinking of money as some material property which can be harmlessly stored, if they really understood it to be a contract, a bookkeeping entry, where one's asset is another's debt, there would be a much greater appreciation for how the larger economy is fundamentally tied together and harming one part unnecessarily creates negative blowback for the entire system, etc.

          So it's not like things are going to change before they all blow up, but after that happens, this might just be one of those hard lessons we need to 'take to the bank,' if we want to build back up a viable world economy on the significantly less resources remaining, then we had to build the current one.

          And I am back out to work....

          Regards,

          John M

          JM

          I'm unsure I understood your comment about gold in the 30's. I think Friedman (I talk about him a lot, don't I) in "Free to Choose" describes the events that lead to the severity of the downturn. Economic downturn occurred before the 30's. Generally, previous downturns lasted only 2-3 years. The 30's saw government interference in the flow of gold which made the depression last much longer and be much more severe.

          Stability in the currency supply requires the amount of currency IN CIRCULATION to balance the assets in the country. If an economy is growing, the currency must grow or the economy stops such as in the 30's. Putting currency (or gold) in the mattress takes money out of circulation.

          "Now, rather than people thinking of money as some material property which can be harmlessly stored, if they really understood it to be a contract, a bookkeeping entry, where one's asset is another's debt, there would be a much greater appreciation for how the larger economy is fundamentally tied together and harming one part unnecessarily creates negative blowback for the entire system, etc."

          I think your talking about something other than money. Money has always been about trading assets. A farmer with lots of chickens trades chickens for pigs with a farmer with lots of pigs. No debt here. But modern times have produced a situation where money is exchanged for debt. As I noted, this has the effect of fooling the system into acting as if there is more money in the system than there really is. Like debasing the currency, inflation, bad stuff. Hence, when the homeowner cannot pay the mortgage, the system collapses. The interest rate controls this flow in a free market., a great negative feedback system. The problem the government kept the interest rate artificially low. I would think the problem you are addressing is really too much debt.

          Are you thinking the system is a zero sum game (one wins at the expense of another)? That the economy grows and humanity advances shows a positive sum game. Actually it may be more like prisoners dilemma.

          Well, such is my understanding. But I don't study this enough and could be way off base.

          Dear John,

          Please accept my admiration for your style and for the presentation of the problem. In my opinion, there are actually 3 Fundamental sciences- those of existence, of life and of thinking. In 1953 when I still thought everything is

          possible and I will have a chance to become a physicist even in a communist country, I wrote a letter to "Albert Einstein, Princeton USA) telling him about my theory of the isotach space and about a super-Einstein created by me FIBIEGO from physics-biology-egology, as I thought the three great sciences have to be called. (Egology was in a sense used by Arthur C Clarke; I have received his EGOGRAMS in his sunset years. Beyond cosmology and elementary particles we have to solve myriads of problems reagarding evolution of life and developing superior modes of intellectual and ethical modes of thinking- fpr individual and

          collective egos.

          I still have to meditate about your solution part. Have to confess sincerely thta from my geographically specific cultural heritage if kings could receive a 5, barons are totally negative- less than 1 (aristocratic gangsters, mainly)

          The involvement of military is good if they receive the lions share of the GDP

          I have to recognize that I am very positively impressed by your ideas even if I do not agree with them all.

          Peter

            JH,

            I haven't read Friedman on it, but the story of the 30's was mostly blowback from the 20's. Which was the first real consumer credit bubble, with all those cars, radios, washing machines, Sears even selling houses through their catalog, etc. Then stocks could be bought on 10 percent margin, creating an enormous bubble there, with lots of the small banks were playing in it with deposits. Leading to runs when they lost it. Then the dust bowl hit and a lot of farmers fell further into debt and started losing farms and eventually the whole bubble popped. Not to mention all the chaos and machinations going on in Europe and the rest of the world.

            I also suspect Roosevelt's New Deal likely served to soak up a lot of the under-employed capital and used it to put the under-employed workers back to work, so was not nearly as anti-capital as some like to paint him.

            I have to admit I should read more economics than I do, but I tend to be more of a history buff and see how all the parts fit together. Economists tend to have a political agenda and my view of politics is that the opposing sides are generally complimentary and through the force of opposition, support their opposite. Being of the old country farmer sort, I'm probably far more conservative than I would admit, but like to have a very close perspective on what nature is up to, which makes me something of an ecological liberal, but I don't get worked up about it because to nature, we are just a little pet on a string. She likes to push the reset button frequently.

            Regards,

            JM

            Peter,

            Thank you and I'll finish reading your entry and comment there. Between limited time and powers of concentration, it's difficult for me to absorb many of the entries in this contest.

            Regards,

            JM