Dear John,

Now that I have read your paper, I understand your perspective better. I agree with many points that you make in your paper, but there are others where I additional factors that complicate the issues.

Take, for example, your analogy between the laws of physics and the philosophy of life, by which you presumable are referring to certain rules of society. I have the impression that you would like to take the analogy quite literally, but are there not complications arising from the fact new phenomena can emerge whenever a system is sufficiently complex. In fact, one of largest limitations of a purported TOE (if it exists) is that even if we had access to it, it would likely still fail to help us predict the behavior of sufficiently complex systems.

Another issue is that you seem to advocate a kind of confederacy in which the states enjoy a very high degree of autonomy as a replacement of the current political system of the US. While there are undoubtedly advantages to that kind of a structure, there are equally certain disadvantages. For instance, some kind of problems are simply to big for a state to handle on its own, and if each state is a quasi country on its own, problems can arise when one state is in possession of a critical natural resource (say water in the arid west) and has the autonomy to cut off other states, regardless of the consequences. Another situation that comes to my mind is that in which industrial plants in one state cause some kind of pollution (possibly even hazardous to health) but the pollution does not affect citizens of that state but the neighboring one (say because it is located down-river). An impotent federal government and an inability to come to an agreement with each other could lead to collisions between the states including armed conflict.

My point is NOT that your suggestions necessarily won't work, but rather that there may be new kinds of problems that arise from you solution which could have been discussed. Rarely are the solutions complicated problems simple.

All the best,

Armin

    Armin

    I suggest the fundamental principles of life and physics should be the same. They are not now. But, the hope in the essay is to use life, cosmology, and the small (QM) to deduce a single set of fundamental principles. Not analogy, but literally as far as the principles go. The analogy comes when we consider the fractal suggestion. For example, the fractal suggestion concludes that because the wave-particle duality and Schroedinger's cat are not seen in everyday life, they are false for the small as well. New phenomena that do not fit the model such as exists now point to new physics and perhaps new principles.

    Another issue is that you seem to advocate a kind of confederacy in which the states enjoy a very high degree of autonomy as a replacement of the current political system of the US. While there are undoubtedly advantages to that kind of a structure, there are equally certain disadvantages. Another situation that comes to my mind is that in which industrial plants in one state cause some kind of pollution (possibly even hazardous to health) but the pollution does not affect citizens of that state but the neighboring one (say because it is located down-river). An impotent federal government and an inability to come to an agreement with each other could lead to collisions between the states including armed conflict.

    I advocate a confederacy with the nation government providing the adjudication between state arguments.

    "For instance, some kind of problems are simply to big for a state to handle on its own, and if each state is a quasi country on its own, problems can arise when one state is in possession of a critical natural resource (say water in the arid west) and has the autonomy to cut off other states, regardless of the consequences." Exactly. This situation exists now between nations with armies. Canadian rivers are coming into the US with high levels of pollution. If a state wants to cutoff resources from another state - let it. That state will only hurt itself by reduced revenue and some resources it needs may be cutoff. Remember, such states making bad decisions will lead to that state's collapse. I expect states to collapse and that other states will learn from that collapse. The difference is that now the Federal government must get everything right all the time or all states collapse. Will the people be harmed? Only if they also make poor choices. For example, Detroit made bad decisions with corruption. Those who couldn't get adequate support voted with their feet and left.

    I didn't suggest that the nation government should be impotent. Where did you get that idea? I said the nation had the only military and adjudicated disputes. I think it implied that the adjudication has the gun behind it.

    Actually, I think I know how you got that idea. People a so accustomed to running to the federal government for everything; they naturally assume if the federal government doesn't do it, it won't get done. Actually if the Federal government attempts it, it stand a higher chance of failure. I note the example of education.

    I addressed another subtle problem. Suppose the Federal government has evidence with prediction success. The Federal government ignores such solutions if it is contrary to the political agenda of bigger government. This was my example of Friedman. The solution to the economic problem is known and proven. Yet, ......

    There will be new problems. But with 50+states working on them, the solution is more likely to be found than if only one solution is working at the Federal level.

    Peter

    Thanks for the kind words.

    What is your blog address?

    Hodge

    John,

    I don't have a blog, but most papers are webarchived at Academia.edu. Some also on arXiv and viXra. My Email link is at the foot of my end notes. I greatly look forward to discussing with you further.

    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.)

    Dear John

    I read your essay with interest. I indeed agree that some principles of physics can be applied to humanity and viceversa, but I think the language in which physics speaks is quite different from that of humanity.

    At the beginning of your essay you say: science and religion cover a large range of knowledge. I wonder what kind of knowledge religion covers. I understand that there are several kinds of knowledge but I would not say that religion is about knowledge but of belief and faith. Religion is not as rational as science is. May be you have in mind another kind of knowledge for religion. Perhaps you may wish to express some comments about this.

    I would like to clarify something about this statement: Birth is a rearrangement of existing matter to create a new relationship or spirit. Throughout the individual's life, the matter and the spirit change.

    From the point of view of physics, there is no such a thing called spirit. Elementary matter conforms structures, molecules, cells and, ultimately, living organisms but not spirits. For science, there is no duality matter-spirit, there is only matter-energy. A spirit is not part of science. In science, consciousness may play the role of spirit. If this is what you mean to say, please omit what I just said, otherwise, your statement is not well expressed.

    Good luck in the contest!

    Best Regards

    Israel

      IP

      Thanks for allowing me to reference your essay.

      "...the language in which physics speaks is quite different from that of humanity." I agree. But that is part of the problem. For example, the language of QM and Cosmology are quite different. But yet most agree the new model that corresponds to the two can be found. The definition of terms and language (math) must change, also. I suggest the new language may be defined with humanity in mind, also. But where humanity is concerned, the problem of description is much more profound. Science wants words and symbols that other scientists may understand. Humanity has resisted this impulse instead relying on vague terms on which each individual may put their own definition. For example, "good" and "bad" means different actions to different people. Few object to the idea they should do good. The actions of doing "good" differ considerably. I think this confusion is intentional so politicians can appeal to people without getting specific in their intended actions. That is, the vagueness of definition is a propaganda ploy. Look at the vagueness and lack of definition in most of these essays. So the application of science to humanity requires carefully defined words. The faith and belief part is secondary (if not tertiary) and is needed to keep the members in line so the predicted outcome may be measured and new axioms tried. Religions compete with other religions based on their morals like science models compete based on the success of their predictions.

      Another science application I mentioned is the economic model used. The US government (politicians) economic model avoids the Friedman approach. The difference is that Friedman approach has made successful predictions (so there is no confusion - a prediction is a statement about the outcome of a event in the future that does happen. Some use the word to describe a postdiction.) Abuot these same events the competing model has not only failed but the outcomes were opposite to their forcast. So the politicians use the failed model. Humanity and science has knowledge to suggest a better approach but this is ignored in favor of a model more to their liking - a certain recipe for disaster.

      I classify morals and dictates of actions as knowledge. This knowledge has been obtained at great cost. The individual is asked to have belief that the moral dictate will result in his or his progeny's benefit. This is prediction about the outcome of survival. Morals also say "act contrary to the morals (evil?), your DNA line will surely end". I understand your statement about religion is not rational. I think religion is rational. The difference is that religion acts on a time span of centuries to test a moral change. View religion as trying to solve the problem of survival where a prediction requires centuries to evaluate. I think I see rationality in the development of religious thought on this time scale. Knowledge (a term that needs definition in the popular environment) is (here it is) the ability to PREDICT outcomes of actions (it was in the paper called understanding). Wisdom is the ability to CAUSE events. Both science and religion are trying to develop models that allow prediction and causation of events.

      Throughout an individual's life, the individual is continually give birth to new life -baby, child, adolescent, adult, old, dead. The idea of "spirit" is to link the thought to Liebniz thought of a type of force in the universe which could be treated with physics of relationism. For example, (I forget Liebniz's example) a student calls home and for minimum energy spend says "sent money". A bit later a large check arrive that symbolizes and much, much greater expenditure of money (energy). Physics requires that a change of energy require force. What force?

      Of course there is not a "spirit" definition in today's physics. Liebniz tried. ?What is the matter-energy of the student - parent relationship? The energy is certainly way out of balance. Consciousness is part of spirit. But then there is consciousness in molecules and particles. I think this is new science. Liebniz started it with his relationism. If we are to include life (I think that is what Liebniz was really trying), we must understand spirit and conscious. I suggest the inclusion of life in science and the common definition of terms (started in the essay's section 2) is the beginning of a route.

      I was impressed with your essay, also. I rated it a 10 some weeks ago.

      Hodge

      Dear John

      The language of physics is mathematics because this language is the most appropriate for this science. Physics is just starting to try to explain the physics of living organism through biophysics and chemical-physics but we are still in a primitive stage. Some day in the future, perhaps, science will be able to explain life in mathematical language. This is related to your comment:

      I suggest the new language may be defined with humanity in mind..

      JH: the language of QM and Cosmology are quite different.

      I don't understand why you say this. Cosmology is a branch of physics and QM is a physical theory that can be applied to Cosmology. That's all.

      As for the knowledge issue, now I understand what you mean by religious knowledge.

      BTW, it is supposed that rating should not be made public, but thanks a lot for letting me know. I appreciate it.

      Good luck in the contest

      Israel

      IP

      I note your essay lists lots of numbers that are measurements of the current state vector of humanity or, for my essay, the state vector of each state. But the people must measure their well-being and survival potential of each state. If there is a problem, they vote with their feet. Thus, the survival potential measure I'd like must include per capita type measures.

      Let me say it another way. We already are measuring many things about the human condition. We have already used math in the form of probabilities to estimate future outcomes. We are more than just starting this endeavor. We just need a matrix to multiply by the state vector to arrive at a survival potential measure for each state. That is, we need a sociological measure not a biophysics measure to predict outcomes of various policies. This will require a great many trials. More than one at a time can provide in any reasonable time as Bee suggests.

      "JH: the language of QM and Cosmology are quite different." Well, they are both math. But the fundamental principles and the type of math is different. Cosmology is all about gravity (general relativity). Where is gravity in the QM (world of the small)? I am not aware of any model of QM being applied successfully to some of the anomalies of cosmology such as rotation curves, Pioneer anomaly, central mass correlation to galaxy disk parameters, the theoretical temperature of the universe, cooling flows, the difference between elliptical and spiral galaxies, etc. Electromagnetic, strong force, and weak forces are not discussed much in cosmology. But let me plug my model. The idea of matter warping space and being influenced by the warp in space is precisely my thought of an elementary particle (a hod) warping a plenum field (space) and influencing the hod. As far as I know I'm the only one with such a wild thought. There are several difficulties with this. This brings me to section 2 of the essay. These are the fundamental principles in addition to some already in physics to make it work.

      Hodge

      6 days later

      Hi JOhn,

      Time is short, so I'm reviewing past comments for rating. You asked, "What principles unite life with physics?" We must say all in a paradoxical way. Quantum objects are pre足con足di足tions of the pos足si足bility of objects, which occupy space are com足posed of objects that do not occupy space. In my essay I allude to not actually sitting on the couch but somewhat hovering above it. We are captives of a macro and quantum world we do not fully understand, so our solutions to steering the future are at best rough guesses.

      Jim

        JLH

        "We are captives of a macro and quantum world we do not fully understand, so our solutions to steering the future are at best rough guesses."

        This is one of the premises of my essay. You're correct. We don't know and fail to predict the outcome of our actions. That any of the answers to the contest question may result is a positive development for the survival of humanity is totally unknown.

        Hodge

        4 days later

        Hi John,

        You conclusion: "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 collapse."

        Spot on. And so obvious and well presented.

        Thanks,

        Don Limuti

          John,

          I hope you managed to read my essay and perhaps followed up the link you asked for above. You'll find a far more consistent description and interpretation than much of the current incoherent stuff. The key is uniting QM and classical physics, which my essay shows how. I can't remember you commenting yet but apologies if you have.

          I think both ours are undervalued and are worth high scores let me now if you agree, or ask questions. It seems scientists need to learn how to "adapt to change", which is a very sad comment on a subject which is all about 'advancement'!

          Best wishes

          Peter

            I tried before and again now.

            After trying to downloading a paper I get "sorry something went wrong"

            However, I see you are looking at the EPR paradox. My model avoids it because of the nature of the plenum.

            Hodge

            Surprise.

            I finally got registered. I see your photos and papers.

            Which should I read to discover your DFM is a short description?

            I'm currently modeling light (photons) doing diffraction and interference things.

            Hodge

            OOps.

            When I try to view "A CYCLIC MODEL OF GALAXY EVOLUTION WITH BARS" I get "Sorry, this document isn't available for viewing at this time."

            Hodge

            John,

            You're right about claiming natural law to further agenda. Conservatives now claim the "invisible hand" justifies greed while Adam Smith wanted benefits for all through an "invisible hand."

            Time grows short, so I am revisited those I've read to assure I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 5/20. Hope you enjoyed mine.

            Jim

            John,

            I don't blame you for avoiding the EPR paradox. Once you've got your head round my derivation I think you'll find no logical continuum.condensate causes it problems, or vice versa.

            The DFM is all about diffraction, refraction and interference effects. My 2012 essay considers in some detail, also analysing in terms of truth function logic, the only logical system not 'ultimately beset by paradox'. It also derives JM rotation, which is kinetic reverse refraction as well as Stellar Aberration and Minkowski curved space time. Have you looked at birefringence and extinction distances yet?

            Glad you seem to have accessed to cyclic evolution paper. Again it's a bit rich for MS to stomach as it all fits together too neatly. I'm beginning to wonder if aliens may be removing critical brain cells from all professors who come too close to truth. Perhaps it's even for our own good. Perhaps we should just smile and get on with exploring the interesting implications.

            Top marks for yours, well done. Scoring it now. (see also Vaguines).

            Peter

            Thanks for the vote.

            Thanks for the reference to Hodge .

            My reference to EPR was to suggest it is founded on an assumption about the distinction between local and non-local. Suppose the plenum (space of general relativity) wave traveled at 10^7 time the speed of light. Well, at least fast enough so your characters were in local space. Matter still travels at less than $c$, a distinction is the Lorentz version of $c$ (the fastest MATTER can travel). Space (plenum in STOE) directs matter so it can do the entanglement thing.

            Perhaps we should continue on the academia.edu link. Perhaps you would comment on my model as well.

            Hodge