Essay Abstract

In the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics a particle moving from point A to point B is pictured as taking every possible path to accomplish this transit. The classical path is given the most weight and thus contributes the most, but every path makes some contribution. However, those paths which deviate more from the classical path contribute progressively less. In this essay I argue that in order to best steer society/humanity one should loosely adopt this quantum mechanical approach of trying "all paths". Those societal "paths" which are judged best/classical would be given the highest weight in steering humanity forward.

Author Bio

Douglas Singleton is a professor of physics at California State University, Fresno working in the areas of gravitational physics and particle physics. He received his undergraduate degree from MIT and his PhD from UVA. Dr. Singleton has held visiting positions at ITB in Indonesia, PFUR in Moscow, Universitat Potsdam in Germany, Universidad de Costa Rica, and Hue University Vietnam. The present essay is inspired by the various academics "paths" encountered at these different universities.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

  • Post #3

Dear Douglas

I read your essay with great interest.I like your quantum analogue to problem resolution. It entails diversity of solutions which String theorists love to tout. However I am not for Kardeshev's categorization of civilization. This idea is based on giving value to consumption or to the greediest. Such a value system is dangerously bad for civilization and in fact does not lead to a civilized society but barbaric societies that rely on excessive plundering from the environment as well as other societies. Overconsumption has led to the demise of many cultures in history. Some of the best examples being the Easter island, ancient Egypt, The great Depression etc. and not to mention environmental disasters.

In my essay I argue that one of the key indicators of an advanced society is its efficient use of green technologies. Since we are not yet aware of any advanced society, let us take examples from nature which most people agree has had millions of years to find solutions. Take the ant hill for example where millions of ants thrive in a well organised society with no conflict. the anthill itself is energy efficient and of course bio-friendly. Architects are now incorporating this marvellous design in eco freindly buildings. The human brain is arguably the most complicated and advanced organic computer we are aware of and is capable of multi tasking as well as being creative all this on less than 20W of power. In other words nature finds elegant and economic solutions as giving the most sustainable results . If energy is the currency of nature shouldn't its efficient use be the most sustainable solution? The key word here is efficiency.

In elementary particle physics particles are able to by pass energy barriers not with lots of energy but through quantum tunnelling which nature found to be the most elegant and economic solution. Likewise to reach for the stars does not require colossal amounts of energy but a simple and elegant solution which I think lies in Quantum Gravity.

Kind regards

Stuart

    Douglas, can you imagine that our brains ever do anything other than what you propose, when you say "Those societal "paths" which are judged best/classical would be given the highest weight in steering humanity forward."? In other words, do you think that humans can ever choose a path that they don't judge to be the best?

      Hi Michael,

      Sure feel free to comment on my essay. AS well I will try to have a look at yours.

      Best,

      Doug

      Hi Stuart,

      Thanks for your reading my essay and your insightful comments.

      In regard to the Kardashev scale -- I also do not find such ways to categorize things (society, science, technology) very deep, but they are useful for a starting point. Also in terms of the implied "greediness" of the Kardashev scale in terms of the emphasis on comsumption -- there is another similar scale based on how much information a society can access which might be a little less objectionable (although one could also say for this other scale "how much information a society can control" which then for me would be equally objectionable as the Kardashev scale). In any case my point in using the Kardashev scale was that it was a well known categorization which helped me make the argument that human society is really a novice society.

      Next you mention the idea of "natural design" i.e. looking at natural systems to get a clue as to how to structure our technology and society. I should have also included in my list of experimental paths those paths that we see tried out in nature. This idea of natural design was recently featured in an article in "Technology Review" where the idea was to look at natural system and how they were designed to try an inform our own engineering designs. I think this is an excellent idea and fits with the approach of try different paths -- whether those paths are tried by humans or by nature.

      Best,

      Doug

      Hi Turil,

      Good question/point! In fact even now humans always think they are taking the "best path" even when afterward it turns out this wasn't the best path. The point of the section of my essay entitled "How to weight each path" was to argue that one should have some objective scientific criteria for choosing which path or paths is/are best. As I mention this is the trickiest, most subjective part of the process. This is essentially the scientific method but applied to social experiments rather than science questions. And there is no guarantee the scientific method will work for social questions with the same efficiency that it works for scientific questions. But the scientific method applied to social questions is my bet guess for what will work.

      Now in regard to the question "assuming society did try many paths would it use something like the scientific method to actually choose a path?" -- to this question it is a lot less clear. First as I pointed out in the caveats section of the essay politicians have a different motivation (to stay in office at any cost) compared to their constituents. Second, as your question implies people often do not act in their own self interest i.e. they do not choose the best path for themselves. For example, if you asked US citizens about the quality of the US health care system, many would say it is "top notch" (although I think the number who would say this is smaller than a few years ago due to the recent discussion). But if you look at some objective ranking based of different health care systems based on quality of treatment, serious illness treatment rates, cost efficiency etc. that US does not even come in the top 20. Yet despite this objective evidence a good percentage of US citizens would still say the US has a top notch system *despite* the evidence. Thus the whole societal path integral proposal does depend on governments and peoples using something like the scientific method to decide on the best path and it is unclear if they would actually do this.

      By the way in regard to health care when I was on my visit in Cost Rica I did see an example of US citizens using an economic version of the scientific method in regard to health care. I encountered a large number of Americans in Costa Rica for dental procedures. The reason for coming to Costa Rica these dental procedures was that in the US they would cost upwards of $10,000 while in Costa Rica the cost (at least circa 2005) was a fraction of this (say $2000 in Cost Rica versus $10,000 in the US). And the Costa Rican dentists were top notch. Thus it was cheaper for the Americans to come to Costa Rica, have the dental procedure, and spend a 2-3 week "recovery vacation" there rather than having the procedure done in the US.

      Best,

      Doug

      "... balkanization of Europe into smaller nation-states..." I think the problem here was each state could war with its neighbor. Suppose a senior authority had the military. Then "...but generally the situation in Western Europe in this period encouraged innovation in all areas of society on a small scale - the scale of the nation-states."

      "And how does one determine which path or paths are "classical" or best?" Let nature choose.

        Hi John,

        In some sense nature will choose regardless. It's like the old Love and Rockets song lyric "You can't go against nature because if you do, well that's nature too". And even though in the first part of my essay I argue that humanity, at present, is not very good at steering a course, nevertheless we do have some limited ability to steer, so we should try to choose those paths which by some objective measure are considered best or classical. In this way nature still decides, but it is nature informed by a scientific or semi-scientific approach.

        Whether people/governments will actually adopt such and approach is another matter and in this case I am less optimistic as is implied in the closing section of the essay.

        Best,

        Doug

        Thanks Doug. Yours is one of the few attempts at a full "how to" solution. You end by anticipating what is perhaps the only serious critique: how to motivate the "people charged with enacting societal change"? The answer, I suggest, is to weigh and integrate the experimental paths within a medium that will motivate those in power.

        To explain, figure PS shows a small sample of the paths (variants) for a would-be issue. Suppose it's a legislative issue. Looking at just one of the components (C) of the would-be law, note that its content is currently filled via the "star-sected" pentagon path (above right). But if the on-going experiment to the left were to succeed, then C might switch its path in that direction, thus changing its content to "interlocking wedges". It will tend to switch to, and tap the content of, whichever upstream path brings it the most weight in the form of public votes (down arrows). Votes from all the paths are cascading and coalescing downstream into an integral, actionable bill (above right of Ab). To understand how their aggregate weight would motivate an elected legislator, I'd refer you to my own essay. But here I just want to emphasize how the motivational medium is itself the medium of path weighing and integration. The crucial thing to understand is that the experimental paths to be weighed (variants) and the weighers themselves (voters and votes) are all exposed to relentless public scrutiny; much like scientific theories and scientists. It's that intersubjective scrutiny (an unappointed, objectifying authority) that ultimately gives weight to the weights. - Mike

        What if the path that you think is not the best path, but which was the one that was chosen as the best path really was the best path? In other words, what if we need to make those "mistakes" to get where we need to go?

        Can we be sure that we don't need dinosaurs to have existed for humans to exist now?

        Hi Mike,

        Yes the question of how one gets those whose job it is to enact policy and changes that are data driven rather than driven by naked self interest or some other subjective criteria of some small group, companies or even of a few individuals is one of the things I don't really address except to say that this is an open question. Maybe the way suggested by the diagram you included above is a potential solution. Anyway I tend to be on the pessimistic side when it comes to giving credit to politicians. administrators, bureaucrats, etc. in regard to doing reasonable, logical things. However there are some good counter examples to this. I recently spent six months at Universitat Potsdam and I noticed that Germany has made a concerted effort to generate power for wind, solar and other renewables with the support of government and industry. It seems to be working. There are caveats that they have to supplement at some times by buying energy from their neighbors who still produce power using fossil fuels or nuclear, but still it seems an overall plus and a good thing to try. Here in California in contrast where it's much sunnier than in Germany, and thus solar would make more sense, there is no such large scale move but rather people tend to highlight the problems with the German experiment (that is when they even mention it which is almost never).

        Anyway I will find time in the next few days to have a look at your essay since what you wrote above is of interest to me.

        Best,

        Doug

        Hi Turil,

        Again a good question. I could have easily made the caveats section of my essay much longer. The "try every/many paths" approach that I advocate in the essay means that in fact most of the paths will not be classical or good and will thus be "mistakes". This is the down side of the scientific method when practiced in the trial and error mode.

        In regard to the question "Did we need dinosaurs for humans to exist?" the answer to this is "yes" at least in the evolution "experiment" that was run on our planet. Until the appearance of Homo Sapiens the course of "progress" on this planet was essentially driven by random forces -- there was no steering. And also now I believe *most* of the progress is driven by forces that are not in the control of humanity, but we do (I believe) have some crude ability to being to decide what direction to go in. And my suggestion (based on the fact that I make my living such as it is as a scientist) is that in moving humanity forward we should use something *like* the scientific method to do this. As I mentioned in another post a lawyer might suggest humanity move forward according to legal principles, an athlete might suggest we move forward through conditioning exercises, an artist might suggest moving forward through the power of art, etc. Everyone loves what they do. But science has been the most objectively successful endeavor (so far) of humanity so in some sense this is the "safe bet" as to how to move forward.

        I will try to have a look at your essay in in the next few days.

        Best,

        Doug

        Hi Doug,

        thanks for the comment. At first I was (of course positively) suprised to find you at the contest. I also had a look into your interesting essay but later.

        You point to the most interesting point: mathematical models of this simple kind can be only used for large enough populations. Otherwise the individual interaction is to large and on cannot predict something.

        More interestingly my model parallels to your model. The solution of the evolution equation is a path integral but now with statistical factor exp(-S) instead of your factor exp(iS). Also I agree with your conclusion (also implicitly included into my essay): the humanity should steer its future by probing different ways or in my case different technologies. You are right again the interaction term in the co-evolution is controlled by the factor g.

        For positive g>0 one obtains a repulsive interaction (it is forbidden to use this technology) and for g

        Something went wrong in publishing the post. Here is the complete one:

        Hi Doug,

        thanks for the comment. At first I was (of course positively) suprised to find you at the contest. I also had a look into your interesting essay but later.

        You point to the most interesting point: mathematical models of this simple kind can be only used for large enough populations. Otherwise the individual interaction is to large and on cannot predict something.

        More interestingly my model parallels to your model. The solution of the evolution equation is a path integral but now with statistical factor exp(-S) instead of your factor exp(iS). Also I agree with your conclusion (also implicitly included into my essay): the humanity should steer its future by probing different ways or in my case different technologies. You are right again the interaction term in the co-evolution is controlled by the factor g.

        For positive g>0 one obtains a repulsive interaction (it is forbidden to use this technology) and for g smaller than 0 one has an attractive interaction(the iphone effect: anybody likes it). The factor can be choosen according to this.

        Thanks for the link, I like it.

        Good luck for the contest too

        Torsten

        PS: I rated your essay high, I like it!

        Corruption is a very real aspect that must be eliminated, controlled, or be accounted for in your proposed system of control.

        Corruption = unethical allocation of resources and/or opportunities

        in legal systems

        Corruption = illegal allocation of resources and/or opportunities

        My proposal to eliminate all corruption:

        http://eliminate-all-corruption.pbworks.com

        How do you propose to model corruption in support of your essay?

        I rated your essay an 8 mostly because it is potentially implementable and not only rhetoric.

        The purpose of including the classical pathway is to provide continuity, a continuous function of sorts; is this correct?

        Musing

        In quantum entanglement, this would mean two vast similar systems of causality that differ by one or a few causal states. The observation seeming instantaneous is because of shared connections not directly related to both space and time, but connected through non-relativistic causal connections. If it were observable, it would be relativistic and limited to the speed of light.

        So how can systems of non-relativistic causality be influenced to warp space-time?

        Back to your essay

        So how would you propose inclusion of non-relativistic space in a path integral?

        Abstractions that seem unrelated in observable space, due to their small contributions and interference pattern-like superposition with final results.

        From one point in time to the next, different systems create influences of different potentials driving diverse pathways, new pathways, and destroying or abandoning old pathways.

        So modeling resources and opportunities seems to have the nature of quantum potentials or a form of magnitude assertions.

        Hmmm, do you have related work published somewhere, even offline?

          Hi James,

          Thanks for reading my essay and your 2 comments above.

          In regard to the first point -- how does one deal with corruption? This is an important question and one not addressed in my essay. One might say that when a societal "path" is found that is so clearly "good" it will be implemented despite corruption. For example, modern sewage systems are marvels of efficiency when compared to the first sewage systems people invented (basically throw your trash far away from your camp sight). No amount of corruption would make people willing go back and start using older sewage systems. However in terms of political and social systems where answers are often not so clearly "good" corruption is a problem. For example, I recently spent 6-7 months on a research visit at ITB in Bandung, Indonesia. It was a great experience, but governmental/societal corruption is rampant. However, the younger generation in Indonesia realize that corruption (especially in the government) is not good and hinders the advancement of the country as a whole (although a very select few practicing the corruption do benefit greatly, but then this is not the point of a decent society). What the young students/people do is to have rallies, music festivals, events designed to inform and shine a light on corruption. And I think this is working. Any that would be my suggestion as to how to fight corruption -- publicize it as the young people/students in Indonesia are doing. Another option -- following the advice of my essay -- would be to look at those countries which have low corruption indexes (the Nordic countries lead this pack usually) and see if there are things that they do to deter corruption. Then try to implement these measures on a small scale in ones own country.

          In regard to the quantum path integral question let me just say that I am using the path integral as a loose metaphor that my suggestion for how to progress in a social/political context is to try different societal paths. But one should not push the metaphor too far. As a scientist one always needs to be careful about applying scientific or semi-scientific analysis to things (like the structure of society and politics) which are outside the realm of science proper. And certainly this "try as many different paths as possible" approach has worked in terms of scientific/technological progress, so my suggestion is -- given the absence of any more successful approach -- why not try such an approach to "steering" humanity. But in this regard one should be more of an experimentalist rather than a theorist in that if a social experiment has failed don't stick with the theory that gave rise to it but realize that probably the theory is wrong. Even in regular science there is a tendency of theorist to fall in love with their own theories and overlook any experimental evidence to the contrary.

          Anyway thanks for reading and I'll try to have a look at your essay in the next few days.

          Best,

          Doug

          Predictive algorithms are commonly used in economics. They are also used by government agencies to anticipate international political activities.

          I am hazarding to say that a predictive algorithm is feasible for an entire society; similar to finite element analysis or systems of path integrals. Though the number of interacting variables would likely be impractical computationally for real-time assessments. Perhaps a use for quantum computing and related parallel processing.

          I still think you have expressed an implementable method of steering the future of humanity. Maybe not perfect, but the bases of something useful.

            Dear Doug,

            I think your essay contains deep connections, and I particularly like the path-integral approach to the evolution of humanity. I think this can be a very fruitful approach, and you pointed it with many concrete examples. Perhaps one idea I have for a while is compatible with yours (which I touch in my essay): I think it should be more freedom in allowing people to organize themselves without being coerced by the geographical boundaries and laws and political systems decided by the others (even if the others are the majority). Perhaps more freedom in allowing people try various solutions is in agreement with your societal path integral, and also with Nature's way of evolution, in which organisms tried various solutions, dictated by the environment, and the fittest solution was selected. Very nice work!

            Best regards,

            Cristi