Essay Abstract

The present essay brings forth some considerations related to the future of humanity that are not strategic in nature, but foundational. The focus will not be on providing practical suggestions or solutions, but on revaluing our sense of inclusivity to foster next generations towards novel opportunites and growth. A set of definitions and (unproven) propositions is presented, where the pivot concept --- novelty --- is ontologically outlined. The fundamental role of the scientific worldview as a provider of lighthouses for inclusivity efforts is proposed. The main conclusion derived from the propositions is: instead of steering humanity through rigid (and inevitably incomplete and/or unsafe) solutions, we should empower the individual's mind by taking advantage of its truthful representation of novelty.

Author Bio

Christine C. Dantas has an undergraduate degree in Data Processing Technology (1991), BS in Astronomy (1993), MSc in Astrophysics (1996) and PhD in Astrophysics (2001). She is interested in all areas of science and philosophy.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Doctor Dantas,

I found your superbly written essay to be truly engrossing. With a great deal of hesitation and trepidation, I humbly suggest that your essay may have something in common with my essay, REALITY, ONCE, except where I use the word unique, you use the word novelty. Your essay is far better written though, so neutral readers of both of our essays are likely to favor yours because of its exquisite styling, and rightfully so. I feel the same way, even though it is my own essay.

With the highest of regards,

Joe Fisher

    Anselm Smidt:

    Please, read the "Appropriate Content Rules" on the FQXi Forum guidelines page concerning comments.

    Best,

    Christine

    Dear Joe Fisher:

    Thanks for taking your time to read my essay, and thanks also for your positive review.

    I read your essay and, yes, maybe there is a room for some analogy between uniqueness and novelty, although I feel it would turn out to differ from what you envision. That is something that I need to think about, so thanks for pointing it out.

    Concerning religious points of view, which are mentioned in your essay, I would rather not comment on them, I hope you understand my position.

    Good luck with your essay!

    Best,

    Christine

    Christine,

    Our viewpoints are bound to differ for viewpoints are like everything else in the real Universe, they have to be unique. You left a comment at my site about particles. I repeat my answer here:

    all of the so-called physics particles are abstract. I contend that all of space must be jam-packed with trillions and trillions of real particles. A considerable number of these real particles must be millions of times smaller than the postulated abstract Higgs Boson. All of these particles must have an infinitesimally small surface and a sub-surface. Because they have a surface, they all travel at the constant "speed" of light. Their sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent speed that is less than the constant "speed" of light. This is why each of these real particles is in a different place. This is why no two real particles could ever be identical.

    Religion utterly confounds me. I only included it in my essay because I was trying for a socko finish to it.

    Joe

    Dear Joe Fisher,

    Yes, for sure there are no problems in different points of view. In any case, your explanation does not make sense to me. Perhaps I will get back to that later, over at your post entry.

    For now, I kindly ask you to leave comments here concerning my own essay only? This is to avoid people getting confused as to the content of my own essay, which at this point I find no relation to yours, except for what I strictly mentioned in my earlier comment, namely : "maybe there is a room for some analogy between uniqueness and novelty". I was not particularly endorsing your point of view in a strict sense, but leaving it open for discussion at your essay post entry, which is more appropriate. I hope you understand. I reinforce my best of luck to you.

    Kind regards,

    Christine

    Hi Christine --

    I was very interested reading your essay, since your dialectic of Measure and Novelty has a lot of resonance for me. Unfortunately my attempt to follow your argument broke down in Prop. V, because I couldn't be sure of what you meant by "inclusivity pressure". So while I feel in sympathy with your conclusion, I wasn't really clear about your argument from that point on. But I know how difficult it is to develop this kind of foundational perspective in a few pages.

    What I think I understand is your distinction between the structure of given fact that can be determined by scientific intelligence -- a structure of relations between "isolable structures" -- and a deeper "interconnected texture of processes" that we also need to keep in mind to appreciate the open-ended creativity of both mind and nature. Whenever we measure something or conceptualize it, we necessarily focus on the actual, given structure, but to see more deeply what's going on we need to include also the dynamic element of possibility.

    I've tried to work out a similar idea in a somewhat different way. In the second section of my current essay on communications, I distinguish between the information-content of a communications system and the web of real-time interconnections that carry this information between different points of view. The basic point is that this web also has to provide the contexts in which the data-content becomes measurable and meaningful.

    You relate Measure to comparison -- but for things to be compared they must first be able to appear; there has to be a context that makes them observable. I think your Novelty refers to the underlying "texture" of the world that creates such contexts everywhere, in the real-time interaction between things. Likewise human communication works to the extent we're always trying to make contexts for understanding each other.

    In classical physics, change itself is reduced to essentially changeless process. It operates only at the level of given fact. At a deeper level, quantum theory says facts come into being unpredictably, to the extent there are contexts that let them make a definite difference to something else. So the world is both a structure of ascertainable fact and also a source of ever-new determinations.

    I hope I haven't misunderstood you too badly -- but I think these ideas are very much worth wrestling with.

    Thanks -- Conrad

    Dear Conrad:

    Thanks for taking your time to read my essay and to place your comment here.

    Yes, perhaps I should have defined the term "inclusivity pressure" more clearly, so thanks for pointing this out. But it is not as mysterious as it might seem at first (or maybe it *could" be... well, for now, the explanation below might serve).

    First, concerning pressure by itself. A differential pressure is generally regarded, in physical terms, as the difference between two separate but related force-per-unit-area measures in, say, a fluid.

    In an *abstract* sense, we could regard members of a society as a "fluid". I am not saying that people can be modeled as a fluid in such a strict sense! I am referring to all human members as a whole "body" of very diverse worldviews. So, abstractly, I am regarding it as a "fluid of worldviews".

    So, connecting above with what I wrote on my essay. On page 5, I stated that human problems are, essentially, a result of "local and global differential measures" that are "regarded as important" to us (and basically, created by us), humans (nature is neutral). From Def. III, I wrote on inclusivity: "It is the act of not excluding members through measure". Therefore, the "local and global differential measures" that I refer to "come in the form of an inclusivity pressure": you can think of a kind of human, worldview fluid with an intrinsic necessity for involvement and association, which, if suppressed, prevent the dissemination and amplification of the richness of our "worldview body". Hence, it's a kind of pressure, which "can only be alleviated through (...) an exhaustive participation of empowered individuals in our process-based, interconnected world." (pages 5-6).

    Hope this clarifies at least a bit.

    Best,

    Christine

    PS_ I'll be reading your essay with great interest opportunely.

      • [deleted]

      Thank You Christine!

      I greatly enjoyed your essay. You have my gratitude for sharing your viewpoint in this year's competition. You will find a non-trivial degree of overlap with my own essay, which I invite you to read and comment on. I find myself in strong agreement with your points almost to an item, but I also have caveats and exceptions to point out, or generalizations showing your propositions to be subsumed in a larger pattern. You see; I have been exploring the nearby territory for a number of years now, but from a slightly different angle.

      Let's start with 'isolable structures' and work outward from there. In his "NCG Year 2000," arXiv:math/0011193, Connes talks about the three categories Smooth, Topological, and Measurable, forms and spaces, and he points out that there is a hierarchy.

      S > T > M

      Topological forms are a subset of smooth ones, and these are your 'isolable structures' (things that have a surface and can be separable), but measurable objects and spaces are a subset of topological ones. This has deep implications. I focus extensively on the role of measurement in forming cognition, in my own essay, but I find your conclusion about a probabilistic measure to be problematic.

      Instead; I prefer to explore unifying principles that reveal the far shore of chaos and complexity. Here I would mention Perelman's proof of the Poincare conjecture, showing how a whole host of things are actually the same thing. This is a right-brained alternative to your left-brained approach of increasingly refined measures. So in conclusion; I think we have a lot to talk about.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        My apologies..

        That was my post above, and the server must have logged me out for inactivity, while I was composing my message. Naughty machine! But I wanted to take responsibility for my own words.

        Regards,

        Jonathan

        Dear Jonathan:

        I am glad that you enjoyed my essay, thanks a lot for your comments. Yours is already on my reading list... I will certainly read it with interest opportunely. And it's very nice to learn that some people have found connections to their own works and thoughts, or even if not, that they have something relevant to add to my essay and found the time to comment here. This can only enrich the discussions and expand our own understanding on such a deep and multifaceted subject.

        As you have noticed, I have not formalized in mathematical sense my ideas, which are quite initial really. But thanks for pointing out a way of formalization through category theory. This is something that I am interested in for some time. For the moment, I have been studying topological methods in group theory, specially with the idea of understanding group structures seen "at large", mostly from Gromov's works. There's a few things that I have been working on about this, but nothing publishable, it's all quite preliminary for now.

        Best,

        Christine

        Yes, that does help, and connects more clearly with your theme -- I'll reread the essay with this in mind. Thanks!

        Conrad

        Christine, I appreciated the message of your essay. I believe that our innate talents in life, as human beings, is to create multi-dimensional information packages (art, science, cultures, philosophy, etc.) and so novelty is a large part of that, and obviously, supporting/improving our mental health (brain function) is a key to us being able to achieve what we're born to achieve. My own essay tackles the more organizational processes for us doing this successfully, through redirecting our resource allocation (our work efforts, as well as material resources) to taking better care of ourselves, and making policies that serve our needs better (rather than forcing us to compete against ourselves!). We all deserve to have the things we need for our brains (and the bodies that move the brains around) to be exceptionally healthy!

          Dear Turil,

          I am glad that you appreciated the message of my essay. I will soon read yours as well. Thanks for taking your time to read my essay and to place an interesting comment here.

          Best,

          Christine

          4 days later

          Christine,

          Consider the concepts of energy and information. How they manifest and how they relate.

          Essentially energy is what manifests information and information is what defines energy. They are like two sides of a coin in this regard, yet they are fundamentally different in the sense that energy is inherently dynamic and information is necessarily static. (Remember also that the root of information is form, so this isn't just a mental function, as mass is energy as form.)

          So there is a profound tension here, since energy, being dynamic, is constantly changing form and thus creating new information and dissolving old information. Meanwhile form, being static, is consequently resistant to change. So the energy is pushing and breaking down form where it is weakest and or most vulnerable to the available energy, while the form effectively resists where it is most solid.

          This creates the effect of time, as these configurations are in a constant state of flux, but also consider that galaxies, the most prominent features of the universe, are constantly radiating out energy and drawing in form and structure. You might say the arrow of time for the energy is outward and on to new forms and thus toward the future, while the arrow of time for the structure and form is being contracted inward and steadily radiating away energy, thus falling into the past.

          Now as a more nuanced effect of this relationship, consider that novelty is that which is unpredictable. So what does the prediction? The information. And being stable and static, what does it predict? Usually more of the same, whatever that might be. Now yes, we can predict out current trends and often they are the ones with the momentum and thus energy, so they do tend to continue along their current trajectory. Yet often energy is accumulating in areas which are not yet structured and formed and any resulting information is then necessarily chaotic and it is difficult to effectively predict which direction it might go, or even if it all goes in any one direction, since this energy is probing and pushing against the structure, necessarily propelling it onward, but also will exploit weaknesses found and since this is likely to be some overlooked aspect and thus un-reenforced, it is therefore unpredictable by the established models.

          Consider how this manifests in the political world, where control and exploitation of resources is the basic agenda, resulting in a state of punctuated equilibria, when you situations where chronic abuse creates enormous social pressures that then are released by seemingly trivial events that serve as a lit match to gasoline.

          Even the act of propelling the form can elicit unpredictability, like a rocket spinning out of control, if some small deviation isn't corrected.

          So the issue is not just the resulting novelty, but the inherent limits of information, since by its very nature, definition is limitation, as limitation is definition.

          One could also describe our primal sense of awareness as an energy pushing outward, like a child exploring its world. While information is the form of the thought patterns which result and become ever more complex and dense, as ever more forms get incorporated into the store of knowledge of that elemental awareness. Now we only focus on those thoughts because they are static and thus storable. We are certainly quite aware as infants, yet we have no solid memories of this stage, because those forms haven't sufficiently stabilized. Yet like energy manifesting form, it is our awareness which manifests our thoughts, so simply reproducing the patterns of those ideas, doesn't then make them aware. So until they start manufacturing computers out of living cells, I doubt we will make truly aware devices.

          Just an observation in passing.

          Regards,

          John Merryman

            Dear John,

            Thanks for you comment. It is clear that you have been thinking about the intertwining of energy and information for a while, this is something that interests me as well, and there is a lot to cover. You bring some new ideas and that is enriching; I have just read your essay, but I should think a bit more before commenting.

            In any case, my essay is not focused on your points (energy/information), it's at a different ontological level. Also, I do not get why you mention "aware devices", there is no connection with my essay. But I appreciate your thoughts, thanks for bringing them here.

            Best wishes, and good luck.

            Christine

            Christine,

            I just added that last comment because the nature of this contest and the resulting entries are so broad that it is impossible to even begin to address many of the issues involved, that I'm just trying to weave some of the disparate parts of the puzzle together, so there is some broad foundation to which we all add parts. I do feel there is a certain science fiction aspect to some of these entries that totally ignore practical realities, so it was a bit of a spillover.

            Regards,

            John

            Christine,

            I see us as the stuff of stars,and as such we must build on tomorrow being our own supernovas. Your concepts are thus similar to my own. Cultivating all possible forms of human capital is a sustainable framework. A cooperative effort of us at its center. Rather than building material things for consumption, we must empower the human mind and pursue a substance of building rather than using.

            Jim

              Dear John,

              Yes, trying to draw a panorama of the ideas proposed in this contest is a nice idea. I also agree that some essays look like SF tales. I hope that you are not including mine in this list. My attempt was philosophical, and although I do enjoy and even write SF novels, I hope there are no SF elements in my essay, at least that was not my intention at all.

              Best,

              Christine

              Dear James,

              Yes, I agree with you, and I am glad that you saw those key points in my essay, and a frame of agreement.

              Best,

              Christine