Peter,

Thanks for you generous comments regarding my essay. I have read, greatly enjoyed and scored your piece. Alas, it seems difficult to move someone's aggregate score I was hoping to get you the attention of proper physicists, unlike myself, you deserve.

If I understand your project, you are trying to find a way to return physics to the way it was understood before quantum weirdness appeared Einstein's "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

I would align that with my own essay in this way: human beings desire not only that the world be physically comprehensible but that it be morally comprehensible as well. We used to articulate this desire for comprehensibility through Utopian thought, that is, we used Utopia to both imagine what features a

morally comprehensible world would have or as a kind of contrast to the ways our own society failed to match our desire for comprehensibility. I'd like to see a revival of the tradition minus its former hubris and other flaws.

I wish you best of luck here and in getting your ideas across to the rest of the physics community. If you have not already done so your grading of my essay would be greatly appreciated.

Rick Searle

Rick,

I'm delighted I was able to positively affect your score. I like your description, but in a nutshell I'd say man can't really have a "sense of freedom" over the future all the time we believe we're incapable of rationalising how nature works.

I show we are. The only problem then seems to be the embedded belief that we aren't! Thanks for your support of my work in trying to overcome that.

Best wishes

Peter

    Peter,

    Much, much appreciated.

    Again all the best in the contest and your endeavors.

    Rick

    5 days later

    Hi Rick,

    Thoughtful essay on utopia.

    Your comment at the end: "I would say that How to Steer the Future has no definitive and final answer but begins with the rediscovery that it is us with our hands behind the wheel."

    I would add "and with high aims for humanity".

    Don Limuti

      • [deleted]

      • Post #61

      Dear Rick,

      Great philosophical essay! Remarkable conclusion and deep concepts:«No human society will ever truly be a Utopia, but, as Oscar Wilde knew, the Utopian imagination has continually expanded our moral horizon. Recovering it might help restore our sense of being creatures embedded in time where our agency is directed in the present towards a future whose shape in not yet determined. The future is neither completely ours to shape nor something we are subject to without room for maneuver. For, continuing to think that our world cannot be made to better conform to our ideals is one of the surest ways to insure that what lies in our future is the farthest thing from Utopia. And so, if I were to answer the question that inspired this essay "how should humanity steer the future" directly, I would say that the question has no definitive and final answer but begins with the rediscovery that it is us with our hands behind the wheel." My high rating. We need a Great Dream and Great Common Cause to save Peace, Nature and Humanity. Great Dream always go alond with Freedom without fear, Hope, Love, Justice. New Generation says: We start the path. In the concept u-topia deep ontological meaning "turn to topos». Here is a very deep philosophy and cartography. Humanity needs turning consciousness. I'm starting to read your site... Please see on the journey Protogeometer and some u-topian ideas.

      Sincerely,

      Vladimir

      Dear Rick,

      interesting ideas, exposed quite brilliantly. I found that in most passages you appear more concerned about illustrating concepts or opinions from various people, from the past or the present, than to express directly your position about the question at hand - manifesting an interest and talent especially for analysis. But your own message, one of recovering a new form of utopia by trying to steer technology, is eventually delivered, and sounds attractive (although, as usual, the devil is in the details . . .).

      One observation. You contrast determinism (taken in very broad sense) with the openness of the future. I tend to believe that there`s no necessary conflict between the two concepts (and the research I`ve been doing in the last few years is based on this assumption). In particular, a deterministic (algorithmic) behaviour at the ultimate discrete fabric of the physical universe does not prevent creativity to pop up at upper levels of emergence, as now widely demonstrated and accepted.

      But your dealing with determinism mostly relates to a different level - that of technology. You observe that a deterministic view at the progress of technology has somehow reduced our faith in the possibility to steer it, and that we should rather change this attitude because there is no guarantee that `un-steered` progress will lead us to a good place. I agree that the power we have to effectively steer this progress - one with aspects that remind us of darwinian evolution - is limited.

      What I find harder to accept is the view (Billings`?) that the current exponential technological growth be a peak, a historical exception. The physical universe expands at an accelerated rate, and it would be . . . a disappointing waste of space if this process were not accompanied by a growth in the complexity of its contents, somewhere. Currently, and from our point of observation, maximum complexity is achieved by the phenomenon of life, humanity, our brains, and our technology. This is where we should expect further growth. Of course, given the openness of our future, we are in the realm of pure speculations. But if openness also means creativity, there is room for optimism. I found reasons for optimism, in this respect, in the surprisingly prophetic visions by Teilhard de Chardin, as partly discussed in my essay. (Last hours for rating: if interested, please take a look at it.)

      Best regards

      Tommaso

        Tommaso,

        Thank you for your comment. In answer to:

        "What I find harder to accept is the view (Billings`?) that the current exponential technological growth be a peak, a historical exception. The physical universe expands at an accelerated rate, and it would be . . . a disappointing waste of space if this process were not accompanied by a growth in the complexity of its contents, somewhere."

        I find Billing's argument at the very least very interesting. Given that we are the only technological civilization we know of we simply have nothing but our own experience on which to base any of our extrapolations. What intrigues me about his argument is just how high the energy requirements become within short time frames if we merely want to continue on the growth path we have been on since the industrial revolution. There are multiple and perhaps equally probable scenarios one of which is that we simply plateau as or plateau for a very extended period having run into hard ceilings in the form of energy and environmental constraints.

        I really enjoyed your essay, and have given you my vote. You paint a very attractive picture, but I myself do not think the universe follows any necessary telos, its emergent properties - life, sentience etc more lucky miracles than a sign of an unfolding higher purpose. Or perhaps I would say that the universe is simply prolific and cares not whether its prolific beings come in a form that possesses technology such as ourselves or not. We should therefore not write our particularity into the fabric of its future but work to ensure we have a place there.

        Best of luck in the contest, and in all your endeavors!

        Rick

        Hi Rick,

        thanks for the clarifications. I suspect that, while some plateau period may indeed happen, based on energy availability/demand, it will appear vanishingly small when we look at the grand evolution picture. I do not believe in a `telos` driving this evolution either; in spite of what Teilhard de Chardin suggest - that the evolution is pulled from above - I believe that the creativity of the computational universe is fueled, strictly speaking, only from below, although this does not exclude the `illusion` that some final purpose is at work.

        Ciao

        Tommaso

        Hi Rick,

        I liked very much your essay, which went in a realistic manner through various utopian ideas, presented good parts without ignoring bad sides, and proposes an utopian mean to steer the technological progress. Your essay is well written, well documented, and it is clear that you gave serious thoughts to the ideas you presented. Good luck!

        Best regards,

        Cristi

          Thanks, Cristi

          I enjoyed your essay as well. Glad to see you made it into the top rankings.

          6 days later

          Hello Wihelmus,

          Agreed that the conversation should continue. Responded under your post.

          Rick