Steering humanity\'s growth by John C 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

John,

I agree in all general terms with your viewpoints and ideas. It's also an interesting solution you propose. I believe your score should be higher so will assist. You may also like my short review of the touchy but critical subject of eugenics, but conclusion that changing our way of thinking, which needs different educations, is the key.

Judy

Dear John,

I noted that we have similar background. We are realist and pragmatist with dreams and rational optimist outlook. We may not agree in method and solution but we seem to agree with our goal. Similarly, I hate wars. I hate violent conflicts. I like discussion of ideas and peaceful and compromised solution. I share deeply your mission: "Only survival and ending violent war are the goals." I also believe that if we do about without violent wars, we are already in Heaven on earth. Life is Leibnitz's best of all possible worlds. I also like Friedman's "Free To Choose" book. I agreed with his No-free lunch economic system when I was in college, but now I learned KQID theory and I learned that our universe is the product of the "ultimate free-lunch" as Allan Guth famously concluded. Thus as you cited Karl Poppers which I also subscribe as the scientific method of falsification. Since our universe is the free-lunch system, thus no-free-lunch system is falsified. Yes, before we didn't know yet how to build a free-lunch system, but now I believe we can. Not long ago, we had no electricity, no phone, no TV, no cars, no airplanes, no rockets, ect, now we have them in abundance and cause for environmental problems. I propose the Scuentific Outlook Rule if Law and Principle and the Scientific Outlook Free-Lunch Economic System powered by KQID's free-lunch engine. Yes, we can do it now. I plan to write a book this free-lunch system. If we want a peaceful world without violent wars, we must fight for life, knowledge, abundance, tolerance and wisdoms and we must fight together against dead, ignorance, scarcity, intolerance and evil.

I am not just talking about it but I am doing it the best I can. I am not a politician but a scientist by choice who is seeking and working for the truth. Let us work together...let us united together...let us bring all together in harmonious unity with all rainbows of thought, lifestyles, cultures and civilizations.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Leo@shi.com

Dear John,

I noted that we have similar background. We are realist and pragmatist with dreams and rational optimist outlook. We may not agree in method and solution but we seem to agree with our goal. Similarly, I hate wars. I hate violent conflicts. I like discussion of ideas and peaceful and compromised solution. I share deeply your mission: "Only survival and ending violent war are the goals." I also believe that if we do about without violent wars, we are already in Heaven on earth. Life is Leibnitz's best of all possible worlds. I also like Friedman's "Free To Choose" book. I agreed with his No-free lunch economic system when I was in college, but now I learned KQID theory and I learned that our universe is the product of the "ultimate free-lunch" as Allan Guth famously concluded. Thus as you cited Karl Poppers which I also subscribe as the scientific method of falsification. Since our universe is the free-lunch system, thus no-free-lunch system is falsified. Yes, before we didn't know yet how to build a free-lunch system, but now I believe we can. Not long ago, we had no electricity, no phone, no TV, no cars, no airplanes, no rockets, ect, now we have them in abundance and cause for environmental problems. I propose the Scuentific Outlook Rule if Law and Principle and the Scientific Outlook Free-Lunch Economic System powered by KQID's free-lunch engine. Yes, we can do it now. I plan to write a book this free-lunch system. If we want a peaceful world without violent wars, we must fight for life, knowledge, abundance, tolerance and wisdoms and we must fight together against dead, ignorance, scarcity, intolerance and evil.

I am not just talking about it but I am doing it the best I can. I am not a politician but a scientist by choice who is seeking and working for the truth. Let us work together...let us united together...let us bring all together in harmonious unity with all rainbows of thought, lifestyles, cultures and civilizations.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Leo@shi.com

Hi John,

I had your essay on my "to-read" list for some time but am only now getting to some of the essays I promised to read and also wanted to read.

From my reading of your essay I think we agree broadly on the idea that adopting a "trial-and-error method" as you phrase it (or in terms of the path integral metaphor that I use in my essay). Also you use several of Jared Diamond books to amplify or illustrate your points. I also admire Diamond's books.

Anyway I liked your essay very much. Best of luck.

Doug