"... 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
Doug,
You do lay out a good description of how what amounts to 'swarm intelligence' goes about solving problems and many of the pitfalls involved. A point I would make is that reality is fundamentally bottom up and as society expands, along with human knowledge, there is no one specific goal to which we are seeking. Different solutions have different advantages and weaknesses, so we do use them in different contexts, as we grow. If we are then to turn around and try to extract a foundational goal of life,my view is that it would be simply to hand off to the next generation a viable society and environment. Many of these entries do offer up ideas of how to deal with many issues of paramount importance, from over-population, to resource depletion, to climate issues, to economic inequalities, to broken infrastructure problems, etc. Now if you were to devise a path that might ameliorate some of these issues, would you seek to find it, even if it did not directly address many of them?
My view is that we have built a conceptual flaw into our monetary circulation system which does overtax both society and the environment and results in an enormous debt bubble that a few currently profit enormously from, but eventually will pop and then we all will regret.
It is my contention that we treat money as a commodity, when in fact it is a contract and if we were to fully recognize it as such, it would change economic incentives considerably.
For example, national currencies are often derided as 'fiat' because they are no longer backed by precious metals, but they are in fact backed by the debt of the issuing country. Which means their value is ultimately directly dependent on the health, wealth and productivity of that country, so any actions which impair said health, wealth and productivity consequently impair the value of the currency. This then places a large obligation on those dealing in this currency to strengthen the resources of said country, or be in effective violation of the contract. Much as a marriage contract requires both parties to honor it.
For one thing, it would inspire average people to be far more careful what value they extract from social relations and other resources, to convert into this currency, since it would no longer be viewed as personal property, but as a public contract or medium. Much like a road system is a medium which is viewed as public property.
Secondly, as an effective contract between a community and its members, there would be flexibility built into the system for emergencies and other forms of stress. This would serve to reduce the need and desire to hoard these obligations. Conversely, those caught hoarding, or otherwise abusing the system could well have their store of obligations penalized and this would further encourage people to treat social relations and a healthy environment as stores of value and so strengthen them, rather then treat them as sources to be mined.
The fact is that money functions like blood in the economy and the current system results in what amounts to various forms of tumors, cancers and blood clotting. So, from my perspective, this is what our generation must focus on. The path we must climb.
Regards,
John Merryman
Dear Professor Singleton,
Your abstractions filled essay is superbly written and I do hope that it does well in the contest. I only have one minor quibble that I hope you will not mind me mentioning.
Reality is unique. Quantum Physics is not unique.
INERT LIGHT THEORY
Based on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at a constant speed. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent speed that has to be less than the constant speed the surface travels at. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract. Surfaces and sub-surfaces can be exchanged by the application of natural or fabricated force. The surfaces of the sub-sub-microscopic can never be altered. This is why matter cannot be destroyed. This is why anti-matter can never be created. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Although scientists insist that light can be absorbed, or reflected, or refracted, this is additional proof that light cannot have a surface. It would be physically impossible for a surface to absorb another surface, or reflect another surface, or refract another surface.
Abstract theory cannot ever have unification because it is perfect.. Only reality is unified because there is only one unique reality.
Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the "speed" of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the "speed" of light because all surfaces can only travel at the constant "speed" of light. When a light radiant strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed mingled sub-sub and sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.
In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.
Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers "see" abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug's bottom.
Very novel, Doug! I especially like the classical application of quantum theory embodied in eqn 2, a function that maps completely to itself given an infinity of paths.
Though our approaches are different, I think we agree that the inexhaustible variety of paths and combinations of paths always available, is requisite to a robust sustainable system.
All best,
Tom
Hi James,
Sorry for the delay in reply. I was out of town to give a talk at Cal Poly SLO and one of the people who came to my talk was a professor from the economics department (my talk had nothing remotely to do with economics but he was one of those people who have very broad interests). Anyway he told me over lunch that there are algorithms for markets, governments, economies. etc. Very interesting stuff. But as you mentioned the simple algorithms often didn't work so well and the more complex/realistic ones were computationally prohibitive.
Anyway I also agree with you that my proposal while not perfect (it is far from perfect) is something that could be tried.
Also I will try to have a look over your essay soon,but the trip put me behind on my "day job" requirements.
Best,
Doug
Hi Cristi,
Thanks for having a look at my essay (and as well congratulations to you on your essay from last year). Also I will definitely read your essay since I agree with the general statement that people should be given the freedom to try different ways of doing "things" (organize a society, find a way to cleanly and efficiently supply power to people, make clean drinking water available, make and educational system, make a medical system, etc.) Anyway this is exactly the idea -- let people, on a small scale, try solutions to societal issues to see what works; what is "classical". The point from Jared Diamond's argument in Guns, Germs and Steel, was that in Europe people were forced by geographic boundaries to split up into smaller groups with each group/nation-state trying different approaches to things. In contrast China of the same period was ruled by a single or few people, and if these few people or single emperor had a bad idea (like the sea ban) they could make it happen without any pressure from competing nation-states as was the case in Europe. Of course as you say it would be better if people would be allowed to try their small scale solutions without being "forced" by geographic boundaries (and today these geographic boundaries do not provide a natural splitting of of peoples).
Anyway in the next few days I will have a look at your essay.
Best regards,
Doug
Hi John,
Thanks for reading my essay and your thoughtful comments. I also agree that often/usually bottom up approaches are best - especially of the question is "How does one organize a society?". For example, I spent some time in Cambodia and Pol Pot had a top down (strange/alternative) idea of how communism should work. This has had such catastrophic consequences for Cambodia and its people to the extent that they are still trying to recover today. During the Khmer Rouge period the idea was that an agrarian communist society was the way to go so no need for engineers, scientists, doctors, teachers etc. Everyone was going to be a farmer. As a result today Cambodia desperately needs people with these backgrounds (engineer, scientists, doctors, etc.)
I also agree (I think) with your assessment of the state of how the current economic systems allocate money is not good/not fair. In this sense the try different paths approach might be useful. For example, look at different countries with different economic systems and see in which ones the wealth/resources are most equally distributed. In fact there is an measure of this -- the Gini index. The Gini index measures (or is supposed to measure -- there is some debate at how well it does this) how equally distributed the income or wealth of a given country is. If you look at the Gini index the US is pretty "unfair" compared to European countries or even Nicaragua or Venezuela (Nicaragua is much poorer over all than the US, but what wealth there is, is more fairly distributed at least according to the Gini index). Anyway if one were to follow the "path integral" proposal one should look at how wealth is distributed in countries that have a low Gini index (which means more fair wealth distribution) and then see if those systems could be adopted in the US. This of courses assuming that the people in the US who are benefiting from a relatively high Gini index would allow these changes.
I will have a look at your essay in the next few days.
Best,
Doug
Dear Professor Singleton,
Am not an expert but it seems to me, theoretically at least, that if "The classical path is given the most weight..." then a particle almost always will follow the classical path. Does not this beg the question?
Or perhaps, as you point out, it is a bit tricky deciding what we should mean by "classical path"
Another question is: ordinarily is this so-called path integral approach not already how societies run? Think of the small scale "experiments" as being run by start-ups/entrepreneurs; same as has been the google case, for instance.
Meanwhile, to think of a Kardashev scale and us yet at the base! It is interesting. I found your essay educating.
Best Regard,
