Crucial Phenomena by Daniel Dewey

Daniel,

Quite important ideas are simply proposed. Many of us say the same, but not as purposely and emphatically. I like "aiming for a large future" and pursuing "crucial phenomena." Your anecdote at the beginning represents choices we make or don't make during our careers, settling for mundane but insignificant studies rather than pushing for "crucial phenomena."

My essay is similar in my prospect of looking beyond the mundane and within the microcosm of the universe, our brain.

Good job,

Jim

Excellent essay, Daniel. In my opinion, one of the best. You frame the issues extremely well. I'm almost in complete agreement with you, although I would add that we need need to improve not just our knowledge, but also what we collectively do with our knowledge; that we need better institutions as well as better science.

Thanks for your comment on my essay, by the way. I responded on my own page, but the short version is that I think I did make a mistake. If I could go back I would change or get rid of that sentence. I really appreciate your pointing it out to me.

Good luck in the contest--your essay deserves to do well!

Best,

Robert

Daniel,

Great job, I think your article perfectly matches the theme of this competition! Although science (like other cultural achievements) mostly progresses through small, incremental steps, it is crucial to keep an eye on the long-term consequences and risks. You very clearly identify two potentially critical fields of research.

Would you agree that the notion of biological instability must be extended to encompass our biological ecosystem? One can argue that major disruption of our natural environment caused by artificial agents would be just as harmful as one that only affects humans themselves.

Good luck!

Jens

Dan,

Nice essay identifying the importance of scientific advancement and the prioritisation of attention and funding. I consider it very well written, argued and organised, and should be better placed. I also agree your two identified areas, but believe there's also a strong case for targeting a great leap in understanding of nature by unification of classical and quantum physics and demystification of QM. You may feel that's already being done, but my essay shows current views have the opposite effect, keeping us in a deepening 'rut'. I show that QM an be classically derived, comprehensibly.

My previous successful essays showed how the same mechanism allows SR to converge. But of course nobody is looking and journals won't will risk suggesting such advancement! I agree 'big' and don't think any other single success could give such broad advancement. I subtly suggest that we need to improve our way of thinking to enable the right focus. I look forward to any views on mine.

Very well done for yours, and best of luck in the results.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Daniel Dewey,

I very much like your idea of "crucial phenomena". In particular you choose bio-engineering hazards and misuse of AI. I agree with the first, and, while I do not foresee AI becoming conscious, I see its use by Google or by the NSA as potentially destroying privacy, a very negative outcome. And I can envision other serious misuse that does not require super intelligence.

I would suggest that another crucial phenomena is growth of government based on AI and communication techniques. It may be a less forgiving disaster than some physical disasters. I analyze this problem in my essay which I hope you will read and comment on.

I enjoyed your Hamming anecdotes. I talked with him a few times in the 80s and found him full of interesting opinions.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Daniel,

It's not 'just QM' at all, it's about unification of all of physics. A current main barrier is QM, but the same interaction mechanism also allows SR to converge. (scattering is at c in the electron rest frame). ALL main physics questions are then answered at once. Most eminent physicists seem to agree unification is the key. Do you not? Perhaps you'd need to study my last 3 essays to understand the full picture (all top 7 community scorers). I've also answered in detail in my blog including in the post below.

Thanks. I'm a practical guy and recognise that all significant advancement is led by advances in science and technology. See my post to John above. I consider most essays here are either stating the obvious, give some ideal, or discuss a specialisation. Few actually point and steer a negotiable path with real chance of big progress. The 'quantum leap' I cite. I'm disappointed that didn't come across to all, but then current confusion means all have different views of the problem.

Have you noticed the propensity for unintended and even 'reverse' outcomes? That's because people take the obvious view and don't think through cause and effect. As an 'enabler' that's my job. I see most wandering around lost with no tangible way of making real progress or understanding of where to start. Clearly no one thing can improve our understanding better and more widely than unification of physics. I thought your essay showed you understood the importance of identifying and focussing on the right things. Was I wrong?

Best wishes

Peter

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for reading my paper and commenting on my page a while ago. I found your article to be exceptional, and I'm glad so many others here agree. Let's all think and work hard so our descendants will have a nice Large future!

I am about to rate your essay and I will rate it highly. All the best!

Warmly,

Aaron

Hi Daniel,

Important essay on steering away from danger. I liked Georgina's input on genetically modified plants and their danger.

Kurzweil seems to see AI technology as approaching a singularity. I have my doubts. Groups of humans using AI as "augmentation" still beat any computer without human augmentation at chess. But who knows what the future brings.

Nice work,

Don Limuti

Daniel,

Clearly your proposition is correct, but without identifying the key areas which will enable consequential advancements across the board I confess I struggle to see it's uniqueness or value in giving a direction to steer. Even identifying our actual critical failures, wrong directions or the dangers facing us would be a step in that direction.

I think you're correct in that there are always fundamental advancements which would save vast resources on less widely effective, but the skill is in identifying them. For instance a few posts above you effectively query the importance of the unification of the classical and quantum descriptions and understandings of the universe. Bringing together the 'two great pillar' of physics that remain entirely incompatible due to our ignorance.

I see you haven't answered the question asked there. Yet it seems clear that closing this massive and fundamental divide, described as the holy grail of physics, would clearly have the widest of effects, yet you seem to see it as equal to all other areas, surely contradicting your approach?

My own subject, eugenics, is slightly different in that it can represent as much of a danger as advancement if not reigned in, yet with all such areas a fundamentally better understanding of how nature works would help avoid the most serious mistakes. Another fundamental is the way we employ our brains, badly needing far better teaching methods as eugenics can't help.

I'm really asking if the value is not in identifying the area where the greatest fundamental 'leaps' are possible. There does seem to be a lot of 'stating the obvious' in the essays without fulfilling the practical specifics of the scoring criteria. Do you not think your view falls into that category? I needed the commitment of a short list of suggested focuses at the end.

But good writing, organisation and presentation of course.

Judith

It is probably the case that what is called a crucial phenomenon is determined so by politics. The orientation of scientific and technological progress has a fair amount to do with policy.

I make an assessment of these ideas about hyper-advanced intelligent life and the Kardashev scale. I think it is unlikely that any IGUS (information gathering and utilizing system) can achieve these levels. For this reason I think our universe is a natural system and not something generated as a "matrix" on an enormous computer system.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2010

Cheers LC

A thoughtful and nicely-written essay, Daniel. In contrast to those who think you didn't do enough to identify crucial phenomena, the message I take away is the importance of theoretical guidance as primary to crucial choices. In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "If you don't know where you're going, you might end up somewhere else."

To break the grip of pragmatic and whimsical politics over scientific policy, my own preferred framework is a robust and redundant communications and supply network of laterally-linked resources.

High marks from me, and all best to you in the competition.

Tom

Dear Daniel,

Your Hamming window seems to have not much overlap to what I selected as my aim: peace. While I appreciate your courage to deal with future AI and its consequences, I am an old engineer who hesitates to measure the result of discoveries, inventions, and other contributions to progress in terms of "the size of humanity's future".

I agree with you on that Peter Jackson's claims are perhaps far fetched if they are correct at all.

I am trying to understand your separation between crucial (= important natural if I understood you correctly) phenomena and artificial i.e. man-made facts (e.g. birth control). Does this separation matter much?

You are also using terms like "biological instability" or "robustness" in possibly mistakable manner. My command of English is shaky. For that reason, I would like you to explain to me how you meant humility in your last sentence:

°"So much the worse for our collective humility" seems, to me, the only acceptable response." Did you quote something in the first part of this sentence? You gave no reference. What you quoted from Hamming is easily understandable to me.

Best,

Eckard

Daniel,

I appreciate you didn't call my hypothesis "far fetched" as Eckard suggests but asked why would such a; "leap forward in quantum mechanics make a significant difference to humanity's future? Is it more, less, or equally important relative to other major scientific questions, in your opinion?"

I answered, noting that the unification of classical (relativity) and quantum physics it enabled was far more important than and other major scientific question as it advanced understanding in ALL areas, particularly ecological, as Judy also recognises. I asked for a suggestion of the most unlikely area by someone asking a similar question. I was given the 'expansion of the sun'.

Firstly; precise ideas of IF and WHEN would emerge (the odds are ~15:1 we'd be accreted to the AGN first) and then also methods to escape the fate(s) earlier, i.e. apparent FTL space travel, via the logical solution to the common apparent superluminal AGN (quasar) jet outflows at up to 46c (in the AGN frame), which is if the mechanism is correct, is all about collimation (flows within flows with shear planes between). Links to the PR papers on that are available if you're interested.

It really is fundamental to all matter based science. Judy sees the great biological implications but also the failure to RECOGNISE it's importance, and to challenge assumptions and current doctrine. All other hypotheses are judged against the fundamental doctrines, so correct solutions will be rejected until we correct the foundations.

The solution itself is geometrically self apparent, but again it's dismissed as it's 'different' to current doctrine. I hope you can see the universal relevance. Do pick a topic yourself if you wish, which you think may NOT benefit from the fundamental understanding of classical 'QM' - (but note my prev essays covered many already).

I'm happy if I've helped the well deserved rise of your own. Now as Judy says we just need specifics!

Best wishes

Peter