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

        • [deleted]

        • Post #21

        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,

              Chidi

                Douglas,

                I liked you analogy, which mimics how nature works biologically. Even in science we far too often put all our eggs in one basket, ignoring anything bot the ruling fashion or paradigm of the moment. That habit can dangerously prolong the life of inadequate paradigms.

                As all our paradigms are incomplete or inadequate serious blockages to advancement are inevitable. It seems a logical conclusion that we should have a proportion of universities dedicated to properly testing and falsifying the science outside ruling paradigms currently only rejected and resisted because it is 'outside'.

                More breakthroughs come from 'outside' than within yet we still ignore diversity in principle, when we shouldn't. Do you agree?

                I discuss eugenics, which increasing temps us away from natures diversity down that potentially dangerous narrow path.

                Judy

                  Hi Douglas,

                  well done for relating your answer to physics. It was a pleasure to read. You took us from the immense threats we can not deal with to your international, personal experience of how water is heated, to the disinterest of US politicians in scientific details. While giving good advice on choosing solutions to problems.

                  Re. clean water, I wonder why rainwater tanks are not more popular. They have the great advantage of making one look forward to, and really appreciating, rainy weather. The dry spells, especially when the tank runs dry, make one appreciate how good it is when there is running water on tap.

                  Good luck, Georgina

                    Doug,

                    While I take issue with some consequences of your concept, primarily that it will take us where we are going to go, rather than possibly where we might want to go, this is a reality I find far more intellectually intriguing than simply that we will muddle through to a happy place, if we keep a positive attitude. Given that, I thought I'd offer up something of my own version of a path integral.

                    There is one conceptual cornerstone of this model that is counter to accepted physics, so just think of it as a thought project.

                    In the Nature of Time contest and the Questioning the Foundations contest, I made the argument that we model time backward and this throws off our understanding of physics. As individual points of reference, we experience change as a sequence of events and so think of it as the present moving along a vector from past to future and physics then distills this to measures of particular duration to use in its geometric models, but the underlaying physical reality is it is the changing configuration that turns future into past. For instance, tomorrow becomes yesterday because the world turns, not that we travel/exist along a dimension from yesterday to tomorrow.

                    This then makes time an effect of action, similar to temperature. Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. It is just that with temperature we think in terms of the overall effect, even though it is created by lots of individual velocities/amplitudes. With time we think in terms of the particular actions/rates of change, yet can't seem to find that universal clock which keeps everything synchronized. That is because, like temperature, universal change is the cumulative effect of those many rates. In fact, Julian Barbour won the Nature of Time contest by arguing essentially that; That the only universal measure of time is the path of least action between different configuration states of the universe.

                    So to paths integral:

                    Given the above, time is simply an emergent effect of that fact that each of us amounts to a molecule of water in the big pot and we experience it as a sequence of encounters. So the question is how would one navigate a path across this, when every molecule just keeps bouncing around? Waves. Now that might seem obvious, but it goes to how our brain functions. We have a left, linear processor and a right parallel processor. What we think of as linear logic is when that left side puts all the pieces in a neat narrative row of seeming cause and effect. Even though we know there is lots of other causal input besides the prior event in the sequence.

                    Now what we think of as the right, emotional, intuitive side is more like that wave crossing the water. Those ideas just pop up out of the muddle of knowledge in our minds. This is because it operates more like a scalar, than a vector. It is what bubbles to the surface, like the whistle when the pot boils.

                    Now the vector is fundamental to our reality as single organisms, since plotting a path is what much of life is about, but linear sequence isn't as causal as we perceive. We experience one step leading to the next, but in reality it is energy creating this effect. One rung on a ladder doesn't cause the next, nor does one day cause the next. It is the sun shining on a spinning planet which creates this effect of days and it is the momentum and energy flowing through one step, like waves through the water, which leads to the next. So while the path might be important to us as individuals, for the process of life on this planet, it is about guiding the energy. The thermodynamics.

                    Regards,

                    John Merryman

                      Hi Joe,

                      Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. In regard to the level of abstraction this is an occupational hazard with academics but in my defense I did give or try to give specific examples for all the abstract statements e.g. the discussion of how to heat water.

                      I did not follow exactly the arguments you presented about light. If you mean that light is stationary/does not move in its own rest frame this is true (but also a bit of a tautology) and the rest frame of a light beam is a bit of an odd thing. But light is rather odd in that respect. For example in the rest frame of a light beam is infinitely time dilated with respect to some non-light ray outside observer and thus it takes zero proper time for a light ray to travel any distance. Let's assume Minkowski space-time i.e. no cosmological expansion to complicate things. Thus in some sense one could say a light beam is "everywhere at once" in this Minkowski space-time -- at least in the coordinate direction in which it travels which is infinitesimally length contracted. .However in an outside laboratory frame (say the Earth with the light beam going by it) the light beam definitely moves and it takes finite Earth time for it to travel over a fixed distance (again measured in the Earth frame). Thus what I think you are saying about light may be true in the light's rest frame but certainly not in other frames (at least all experiments up to now do show that light moves if one takes a general frame).

                      I will try to have a look at your essay in the coming week.

                      Best regards,

                      Doug

                      Hi Tom,

                      Thanks and I do think there may be some connection between our approaches. I only now glanced at your abstract (I will take a closer look and give more detailed comments later this coming week). Anyway from your abstract you mention "global material and communication resources, distributed laterally rather than hierarchically". This does seem to resonant with the idea of more uniformly distributing resources which would allow more groups of people to try out different ways of solving societal, economic, political questions. The US which used to be more laterally distributed is unfortunately becoming more hierarchically distributed and I think this has a bad influence on innovation. This was the reason for my example in the essay of the Haijin or "sea ban" which was imposed by two Chinese dynasties. Since everything was very hierarchically structured the (bad) decision could be made with no push back from other groups at the same lateral level since there was no "the same lateral level".

                      Good luck with the contest and I will have a look at your essay hopefully within a week.

                      Best,

                      Doug

                      Hi Chidi,

                      Thanks for reading my essay and your good questions. In *physics* macroscopic objects follow essentially the classical path. The non-classical quantum paths do not contribute much. However for quantum systems paths which deviate from classical path can have a greater influence.

                      Now in my essay I was using the path integral as a loose metaphor for the idea that in the context of social, political, economic problems one should emulate the path integral and try different paths to see which gives a good or "classical" solution to the specific social, political, economic, question. But the metaphor should not be pushed to far. And in fact your question has I think uncovered a weakness in the metaphor (but not the basic idea I hope). The path integral in *physics* only really tries many paths on the small (quantum scale). Once you go to large scale you essentially get locked into just the classical path of the system. However maybe I could still save the metaphor with the additional statement that unlike physics questions where we know how to weight each path, in the realm of society, economics, politics we don't have an idea which path (or paths) will be best or "classical" thus we should try many directions to these non-physics questions. Also note that for the non-physics questions I indicate there might be more than one good or "classical" path.

                      The path integral approach *was* already used to some extent in some countries earlier. For example in US society it seemed there *used* to be a bigger willingness to try different paths. My view is that this is becoming less the case. In an example from science/engineering let me mention the old Bell Labs. A few years ago Dr. Doug Osheroff came to give a talk at an Society of Physics Students meeting I was helping to organize to give two great talks -- one dealing with his role in the Columbia Shuttle investigation and one on what made him decide to become a scientist (as an aside if you have a chance to see Dr. Osheroff talk take it -- great speaker, great person). Anyway I had a chance to chat with him and he had spent part of his career at Bell Labs. His description of Bell Labs circa 1970s/1980s was a scientist's paradise. They were given time, money and other support to pursue their scientific curiosity without having to justify what they were researching in terms of a corporate bottom line. My understanding in talking with him was that few if any companies today operated in this way. Today there was always (according to Osheroff) much more pressure on short term company financial interest. He actually got out of Bell Labs and took a position at Stanford because of the changing climate in research in industry. Thus in science/engineering terms (and I would argue in terms of social, economic and political issues as well) we are moving away from a path integral (try many paths) approach to things.

                      Anyway thanks for reading and I will try to have a look at your essay oin the coming week.

                      Best,

                      Doug