• [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

                Hi Judy,

                Thanks for reading my essay and I do agree with the statement that I think there would be more breakthroughs scientifically, economically, socially, etc. if we diversify our approach to trying solutions to address the various questions/problems that come up in these areas. This is the essential statement/point of my essay. Now this "try many different approaches" idea has surely been successful in science/engineering. This is one of the themes behind the brilliant TV series and book by James Burke which I mention in my essay. Big advances often/always come people trying different, unusual, unexpected approaches to science questions. And often at the beginning the researchers themselves do not see the end point of their initial investigations. their genius of course lies in that *eventually* they realize the importance of what they have stumbled on to. It's more rare that some big, grand project is tried from the outset and found to work as advertised right of the bat.

                I'll have a look at your essay in the coming week.

                Best,

                Doug

                Hi Georgina,

                Your essay was already on my "to read list" (which is now becoming longer) so thanks for reading my essay and for your excellent question about the more important issue of clean water versus hot water.

                In fact in the house of my wife's family, who lives in the rice farming region of Northeastern Thailand close to the Laotian border they do in fact catch rain water in addition to getting water from wells. And the rain water is really great -- it has a totally different, cleaner, better taste compared to the water we have here in the central part of California where I currently live (California is undergoing a severe drought so we would have trouble getting water from rain here, but this rain water solution is definitely workable in some parts of the world, and in fact it is used). To be sure during the dry season in Thailand they use just the well, but during the rainy season they can enjoy water from the sky. One does have to clean the rain water which is caught in this way since they let it run down the slanted roofs (designed for this purpose) and any dirt on the roof will get in the rain water. But they have methods of cleaning the rain water once it is captured in the containers (they have large holding vases for this purpose). Also the dirt issue is largest in the transition between dry and rainy season when the roof has accumulated a lot of dust.

                I'll look at your essay soon.

                Best,

                Doug

                Hi Doug,

                Great thinking. Even greater attitude!

                All the best,

                Chidi

                Thanks, Doug. Your mention that your wife is Thai reminded me of an economist (I don't remember who) at the University of Michigan who had married a Japanese woman, and drove around Ann Arbor -- (this was the late 70s or 80s, IIRC, when Japan was handily overtaking the U.S. auto industry) -- with a bumper sticker that read, "Buy American, marry Japanese!"

                When we can all freely choose our own boundaries -- whether social, political or economic -- hierarchies die of their own unnecessary weight.

                Best,

                Tom

                Hi John,

                Thanks for reading my essay and your good questions/comments. What you describe above (the connection between time and temperature) is what one gets when one does a Wick rotation (lets time --> -i*time_E where the "E" stands for Euclidean) so that one has a Euclidean path integral. Then one makes a comparison between this Euclidean path integral with the statistical mechanical partition function and thus finds a very powerful analogy between time and temperature (actually I think the connection is between time and inverse temperature but in any case there is a strong connection). Also in his comment on my essay Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga made the point that it might have been more correct if I had phrased things in terms of the Euclidean path integral vs. Minkowskian path integral, which is probably true, but as well I am only using the path integral (either Euclidean or Minkowskian) as a loose metaphor to suggest that like a thermodynamic/QFT system people should try out different approaches to societal questions. The one difference is that (even though I think people have at present only a very crude ability to steer things) people should take and active role in deciding which societal path or paths are good or "classical". By the way in Torsten's essay there is also some type of thermodynamic evolution but with some input/control from people/society (this is the "g" coupling in his essay). Anyway you might find his essay of interest and hopefully I got the gist of his point correctly.

                I'll have a look at your essay in the coming week.

                Best,

                Doug

                Doug,

                Thank you for taking the time to put that in a broader context.

                Don't feel obligated to read those prior contest entries, I just put them up for reference.

                There are other aspects of this which I see as worth noting. For one thing, if time were a vector from past to future, you would think the faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but since it ages/burns quicker, it actually falls into the past faster. The tortoise is still plodding along, long after the hare has died.

                As an effect of physical actions, the reason it is asymmetric is simple momentum. Actions don't stop and go the other way, whatever the entropic effects.

                As probability precedes actuality, determinism isn't an issue, since the input into any event can only happen with its occurrence. Equally we don't need to presume the past remains probabilistic, by branching off into many worlds, as physical actions determine the fate of the cat.

                As I often describe it, the earth isn't traveling some dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the world turns.

                Thanks,

                John

                Doug,

                One must never assume, because it makes an ass of u and me. Reality is unique, once. Minkowski's abstract space-time is just as unrealistic as all of the other abstractions you keep quoting.

                Joe