Hi John,

Since scale factors depend upon the units, it probably makes sense to simply set the unit as one dollar. As for the meaning of "equality" as proposed by progressives, they generally refer to "equality of outcome", while never getting too specific. I attempt to show (what should be obvious) that absolute equality is both impossible, misleading, even fraudulent, and if the claim is persisted in, then one should suspect it to be a smokescreen behind which a two-class structure is being planned.

Before the corrupt current system began grinding things to a halt, there was considerable economic mobility. Those with little or no wealth could acquire wealth, while earned or inherited wealth could be lost. There was no "too big to fail". We agree that equality of outcomes is impossible in the long term. Supply/demand would not seem to make much sense in such a situation.

I agree that people seem unwilling to allow failure. As failure is an error signal from a control theory perspective, that means that this crucial information is not available for purposes of correcting the error. Not good...

Equipartition is not implied or assumed in equation (1). It is assumed in the "equal" distributions.

As I discussed with Earle Fox above, I'm not proposing a government program to pay people to learn, rather a reinvention of our economic system based on major changes. It may have been a mistake to even mention it in only one page, but I wanted to convey the idea that there are alternatives. I would not design a government program to do anything, as government bureaucracies are the closest thing to eternal life we have on this earth.

My point in the essay was to show why "equality of outcome" is impossible, even absurd. This does NOT tell us what the best way to shape the distributions to reduce the spread of inequality. That is a much tougher problem.

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

With best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #33

Dear Edwin,

I feel ashamed because I cannot easily pay you back your kind quotations you picked up from my essay. The clear political message of your new essay is certainly appealing in particular in the USA where energy and human values are seemingly measured in Dollars.

Let me merely tell you that your nice analogy caused me to reiterate two questions:

- Aren't energy and money (not debts) in their original meaning always positive?

- Don't notions like equivalence and equivalence classes deserve clarification?

I see the latter question related to set theory.

Kindest regards,

Eckard

    Dear Eckard,

    I was not hoping to trade kind quotes. I just enjoyed your essay and hoped that you would read mine and give me feedback. You have done so.

    In the sense that you have been pursuing 'positive', I think that is a valid statement, since you have eliminated debt. Money is positive and energy, even when it represents a decrease, is actually a positive flow of energy away from some situation to another one. Binding energy is typically considered negative, but that would depend upon where one defines zero energy I suppose.

    A mathematician would probably want to examine some aspects of equivalence or equivalence classes, but a physicist looks more for a working proposition, and my proposition was that I can expend energy to accomplish a goal or I can spend money to accomplish the same goal, and in that sense they are equivalent.

    Is the analysis valid? I think it is sufficiently so to justify the conclusion that "equality" is not a real goal, but a smokescreen behind which a two-class society is being setup.

    You may think that money is the be-all and end-all of American life, but I think that freedom holds that honor, and money is in someways simply abstract freedom. I have lived through periods of very little money and also had some profitable years, and I felt freer to pursue my goals when I had money. In Silicon Valley the saying was: Money is just a way of keeping score. (Don't take that too seriously.)

    There are many ways to moralize, but I tend not to moralize about money. It's a fact of life, just as is energy. Being alive means that one MUST expend energy, and that is often tiring. It is less tiring if one can spend money to achieve the desired results.

    Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I've fallen behind in the number of essays I planned to read, and hopefully will catch up later this week.

    My best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hi Edwin,

    I think your approach to the essay question is very original and is both relevant and related to physics.A really clever idea.

    Slight quibble, you live in a liberal democracy but even there I do not think the role of the government is to maximize freedom. Homosexuality and abortion are two issues where government has not maximized freedom of choice. In Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive in other countries there are strict dress codes.In many countries prostitution is outlawed. In NZ sex work is not outlawed and sex workers are tax payers.In many countries drugs are outlawed but not in the Netherlands. It seems to me government is more about making and amending local and national Law than maximizing freedom.

    The essay does have a very USA perspective. I like the pay to learn solution. Though it doesn't sound too different from student loans available in the UK and NZ already. Good summary. I really wish I understood more of the arguments you have made. I'm trying to read lots of essays, I really could do with spending more time with it. Nevertheless I like the idea of what you have done here.

    Good luck. Georgina

      I should really have said 'pay for learning', not 'pay to learn' (which is what happens at the moment of course).

      Dear Georgina,

      Thank you very much for your comments. I'm glad you appreciated the idea.

      Of course you are correct about the actual nature of many of today's governments. Whereas the US formed a government with a Constitution and a purpose, most of today's governments evolved from tribes, Kings, sultans, and revolutions, etc. But even so you note that there many local variations, and comparison between these tells us which work better.

      There is no easy way to perfect our governments, but I've tried to show that "equality" is a false goal and thermodynamically impossible.

      I did not have room to develop the "pay for learning" idea, but I've spent a lot of time thinking about it and hope to expand on it in the future. As I noted, the key techniques to automate payments and accounting are coming into existence, and I think the other details can be worked through.

      I will read your essay and comment. Thanks again.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Humanity uses the goods and services provided by the mechanistic infrastructure of civilization as well as what nature provides. Natural forces control the operation of this infrastructure. Physical energy flow does the work as prescribe by thermodynamics. Humanity can only steer how this temporary infrastructure goes in the future is only they understand this reality as it will then help them to make sound decisions.

        Dear Edwin,

        Good to see you around. I was beginning to worry.

        You identify neatly the dilemma of all political economies namely: "If no one controls more energy than anyone else, the free energy, used for accomplishing goals, vanishes." In the reverse case one gets a lords versus serfs kind of system.

        Instead of assuming equality let us assume instead that things/humans are inherently unequal: in the sense that they are specialized i.e. they will create inequality out of any initial condition/equality (in the words of Schultz and Melsa, "if we are to know anything about a system, we must first know that it is stable."). This then is like assuming that entropy (the informational or the thermodynamic) is by definition the quantum/constant in operation i.e. the "individual" or "uncertainty" by which inequality is measured.

        The value of this approach is that we will get a naturally FRACTAL scale of needs or of work which is at once macro scale valid and YET micros scale valid. This is what I see to be the quantum gravity notion--namely the observer or measuring instrument is essentially the isolated/isolating system i.e. the "universe" or "universal constant" by which and to which its own measurement results and hence any effort at steering is to be applied.

        Isn't it in fact how nature works? A single cell in your body probably sees you as some climate or forces of nature; the same way you see the universal gravitation constant, speed of light etc! There is no absolute scale.

        Thank you for the thermodynamics angle. I myself take a more involved approach to the thermodynamics model. Your candid comment is most welcome.

        wishing you the best.

        Chidi

          Edwin, two points that immediately jumped out at me when I read your paper:

          1. Money very much does NOT represent energy in reality, since it is an irrational, subjective, centrally controlled illusion. I think you would have been far better off to use the idea of needs/resources as your second axis, if you wanted to have your ideas apply to reality.

          2. In think your graphs are sideways from what you might have intended? At least on some of them. If not, I really misunderstood them. Also, the "conservative" curve you've drawn doesn't represent the actual conservative approach that we currently have in our resource/needs distribution system (the "economy" if you eliminate the idea ridiculous idea of numbers/money from the concept of economy, and simply use the term to refer to real things that are valued by individuals as ways to help them do what they need to do, as represented by your idea of energy in the system). The current approach to resource distribution is a single curve with just a few individuals having most of the resources at the top (or bottom) and most of the individuals having very little resources at the bottom (or top), and the middle having a middling amount of resources. The way you've shown it, the middle have the most resources/energy, which clearly isn't the case in human society right now.

          Ultimately, of course, it's not about quantity, but about quality. The goal isn't equality of any one specific thing (even energy). I, as someone who lives in resource poverty right not, don't need MORE resources, I need BETTER resources, and I need the SPECIFIC KINDS of resources that work for my own, unique purposes, for attaining the goals I have in life. This is crucial, because evolution/biology has created a situation where our needs are diverse, resource-wise. And they are probably diverse enough for each individual to have ALL of the specific kinds of things, at high enough quality, we need to be as healthy and productive as we want to be. Or at least pretty close to that ideal. Or at least far closer than most folks ever imagine! (Though I agree that the graph, at that point, would be a typical bell curve, if you're only measuring quantitatively, with the middle volume of individuals having the most resources, but this would represent real equality, in the politically progressive sense, and it would mean a stable state, in the conservative sense, as well, since everyone would have what they subjectively most valued/needed, unrelated to the more objective measurement of the energy involved in that value. (In other words, what I, as a mouse, need might require very little energy, while what you, as an elephant, need might take a whole lot of energy, yet we'd both be totally satisfied with what we had, because we'd have the specific kinds of things, at a high enough level of quality, for what we aimed to do in life, which is what real equality is all about: subjective fulfillment.)

          And yes, it's very clear that when some large portion of human society finally chooses to focus our energy/production/resources on taking good care of ourselves (in the global sense), we will indeed have truly created a global civilization, as you suggest when you say that "the decision to establish a poverty level or absolute threshold, below which no human should fall, marks the beginning of civilization". I call this, at least casually, a planet ready to procreate with the rest of the universe. :-) And freedom is indeed a crucial element of taking good care of ourselves, as we need to be free to take what we need to input into our bodies, and find outlets for what we need to output, so that we can be our best possible selves, and serve the world as effectively as possible, given our unique genes and environment.

            Dear Denis,

            I believe we are in agreement. My essay tends to consider the ability to do work as energy, and this would include the use of the mechanistic infrastructure, which is part of our 'wealth'.

            Thanks for reading my essay. I will read yours soon.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Turil,

            Thank you for reading my essay. I have to disagree with your two points. In your essay you use four dimensions, a Pascal triangle, and four basic forms of matter as a way to package your ideas, and it works effectively and somewhat poetically, but has little relation to physics. In contrast using the abstract equivalence of money and energy to achieve similar results produces thermodynamically correct conclusions. So I'm sorry you did not see the effective equivalence that underlies this approach. Also I believe you have misinterpreted the graphs. One must pay attention to the labeling of axes.

            You express yourself well in your essay: "in this sorry state, no other planet would ever want to date us." And "the next generation's taste in music" is unpredictable.

            Your reference to Abraham Maslow tells me we're not that far apart in our thinking. You seem to agree with my conclusion when you state that evolution/biology has created a situation where our needs are diverse, so it makes no sense for us to fit into the same-size box. So I conclude that somehow you misunderstood my essay and suggest that re-reading it may produce a different understanding. But thank you for reading at the first time.

            Best wishes,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Chidi,

            Thanks for your kind comments. You seem to taken a similar approach, although you note that some resist discussing life or humanity within the physics context. I appreciate your reference to Schroedinger's "What Is Life?", one of the first applications of physical analogies to life, and with startling insight.

            You seem to be saying in your discussion of his role as 'constant' that man is the measure of all things. You apply many different concepts, from ideal gas and blackbody radiation to Markov process all of which seem to have some validity.

            I very much enjoyed your 'chimps counting' story. You use that punchline well to set up your statement that "perhaps it is time for humanity to count itself in as among the "laws" of nature." And while I have heard the "rules of the game", I was unaware that Snow applied these to thermodynamics.

            I believe your discussion of fowl, the 'agric' and the 'native' are analogous to citizens in two-class and one-class states.

            Your essay is full of analogies, allegories, and imagination, and is actually as much concerned with philosophy as physics. I agree with you and with some other essayists science and spirituality are more converging then diverging.

            I found your essay a joy to read.

            My best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Peter,

            I have now read your truly masterful essay. A few small problems but you got the major points correct, especially your key points on page 8. As far as I can tell you've worked this out from geometry. I've worked out the same results from the physics of Stern-Gerlach and Gordon Watson has recently worked out the same result from Bell's formulation. We have thus converged to the same point from three different approaches. I think it will be seen to be the correct point.

            Of your 10 points, the first two are obvious, and the third needs further interpretation. But points 4,5,6,7,9, and 10 are major, and of course go against the grain of orthodoxy. (Although I believe your approach to point number six is incorrect, your result is correct.) I believe your model of spin one half (720° rotation) is not the correct model, but I don't see that this is any effects on the outcome of the measurements.

            The quantum formulation of the singlet state is legitimate. What is not correct is believing the mathematical superposition is physical.

            I do agree with Christian Corda's remark on your page that our understanding of nature is classical, not quantum. Also Steven Tuck, Gene Barbee, and Vladimir Tamari seem to believe (as I do) that classical underlies quantum, opposite to the orthodox view. And I think you have nailed entanglement. It used to be known as conservation of momentum before Bell confused everyone with his naïve formulation.

            I put off reading your essay because, knowing that Gordon and I had worked out the Bell problem, I just assumed your treatment would be wrong, and did not relish challenging you. What a pleasant surprise to find you right on target.

            And what is most impressive is that you are an architect, not a physicist. Just not brainwashed enough I guess.

            Because I've come to the same results by a different path, I can see that you are correct. But I'm not sure other physicists will be able to see it.

            My guess is that the 'unorthodox' nature of your essay (meaning, not as a physicist would do it!) will work against acceptance of your results, plus the fact that most quantum physicists are in love with the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics. But you have seen through to the essence of the problem. Congratulations.

            Worth a 25, but you will have to settle for a 10.

            My very best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            "The Thermodynamics of Freedom

            How Should Humanity Steer the Future? By allowing maximum individual freedom to pursue dreams and expand horizons. History has shown that humanity works best when freedom is maximized; in fact, the purpose of instituting governments is to max- imize individual freedom. Treating a topic this general requires idealization and some- thing resembling a statistical mechanics approach, leading to a thermodynamic model. We know that for thermodynamic work to be done a system must have free energy, else no work gets done. We link these different concepts of freedom in this essay."

            Hi EEK, I have read your essay, and it is most interesting. However, I have many problems with your terminology and assumptions in the first few sentences quoted above. (First - it is obviously impossible to steer the future. This is like saying that moment X changed my life. Since my life hasn't yet happenned in the future, it is impossible to change. One can only speculate looking backward in time what would have happenned if X had not occurred. If you think any moment X changed the future, then every moment changes the future, and so none or all are particularly significant. But these are semantics - most humans think we can steer the future - so we'll agree to that assumption.)

            "History has shown that humanity works best when freedom is maximized;" This sentence is ridiculous (hilarious if you are from the South). Just define 'best' and you will easily see how impossible this statement becomes. "The purpose of instituting governments is to maximize individual freedom." I wish it were so, but in fact, history shows just the opposite to be true. I live in the USA - recently, as an example, an owner of an NBA basketball team made what the press has called racist comments to a friend who was secretly recording the statements for perhaps her own personal gain. These comments have been released to the press, and the feeding frenzy and repercussions have ensued. If individual freedom means everyone can record somebody for personal gain, good luck with spinning that for the "best!"

            Actually, I applaud your mathematical approach to an idealized society, but you can use a similar approach to show that a critical mass of incredibly obnoxious people can spoil a whole city.

            Sorry to play Devil's Advocate

            DrJ

              Hi John S Minkowski,

              I appreciate your good feedback, and I'm glad you at least applaud my mathematical attempt at analysis, and that you found it interesting.

              You note that it is obviously impossible to steer the future. I agree with you. If you reread the essay (I know, no one has time for such!) you'll see that I'm critiquing those who wish to steer towards a two-state future by promulgating a false goal: "equality". I oppose this. If you read closely, you will find that I do NOT propose steering the future, only conserving one class of humanity (although I believe economic policies can be improved.) You and I appear to be in agreement here.

              Second, are you sure you don't agree that humanity works best when freedom is maximized? It seems to me that the South works much better under maximum freedom today than the lesser freedom of yesteryear.

              And I do believe our (US) government was instituted for the purpose of maximizing individual freedom (speech, religion, self-defense, etc.). Historically governments were 'imposed', not instituted, and that is compatible with the sense of my statement. Your example of rabid political correctness and abolition of privacy or even freedom to speak unpopular thoughts is part and parcel of the progressive path to a two-class control system that I outline.

              I don't believe that historical exceptions or contemporary anomalies really argue against my thesis. But I appreciate the chance you've given me to argue with the Devil's advocate! [Please consider my response when scoring.]

              I look forward to reading your essay and commenting,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Thank you Edwin for this very measured reply. In fact, I do hope that all governments will perpetuate individual freedoms, as you correctly suspected, but I am so frustrated with our Citizens United and McCutcheon, and the inevitable asymptotic financializations of the 21rst century. I apologize that I do not plan to submit an essay because it would have been too negative, (and I have grandchildren now!!) JSM

              John,

              I thought I had recently seen your name on a joint paper, and assumed it was one of the essays (which I seem to be falling further behind on.) Anyway thanks for reading and commenting. I certainly (as does probably everyone here!) share your frustrations with our current governments. The oligarchy, grabbing all the power and wealth they can hold onto, do not seem very interested in improving much for the rest of us.

              My best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Dear Edwin,

              Thank you for your essay. The thermodynamic approach to society and its economics is one which does not get enough attention.

              I believe the maximization of freedom to be a proper goal. Given a society's rate of consumption of resources(energy), I would consider it to be that which minimized the energy required maintain the system itself. This is indeed a (temperature dependent) thermodynamic distribution. This implies a minimal government, but one large enough to handle any reasonable coalition of opposing forces. The system would otherwise be unstable.

              I wish to take issue with the idea that money is interchangeable (equal to?) energy. First, the flow of money is opposite to the flow of resources (forms of energy. I exclude financial churning, etc.) But more importantly, that which contains the most energy is valued, in money, least. If say, gasoline were valued, in money, at its energy content, it would be 5 to 10 times as expensive as it is. It would then be essentially useless as a fuel. It is only because it is 'undervalued' that it is valuable. Similarly, if copper were as expensive as gold, it would be useless as plumbing. It is this undervaluing that drives the economy. The whole approach requires the idea of a 'use value' for things, as opposed to a 'market value,' which is all that modern economics teaches.

              This in no way detracts from your using money as a thermodynamic variable, which I believe to be correct, or at least an adequate proxy.

              The idea of being paid to learn, as a substitute for welfare, is also excellent. I would expand it to workfare, and guarantee employment. Everyone should have the opportunity to work, to give more than they receive. Though matters of freedom immediately complicate the issue.

              Charles Gregory St Pierre

                Dear Charles Gregory St Pierre,

                I very much appreciate your comments. I agree with some of your comments on the specifics of money being interchanged with energy. I tend to think of them as the exceptions that prove the rule. Obviously a realistic appreciation of money is not as simple as I treat it for purposes of thermodynamic analysis. I'm also happy that you like the idea of being paid to learn as a substitute for welfare. The idea of course goes far beyond that, but that alone should make a significant difference.

                I've now read your fine essay and I will respond on your page. You've obviously put an awful lot of thought into these issues, and while your recommendations are, on the whole, rather drastic, you qualify the problem by insisting on "impartial evaluation". I'm not sure impartial evaluation exists or is possible. The Club of Rome in the 70s scared me for a while, but the first computer simulations of the world were obviously not up to the task. Not sure that's changed.

                My hope and belief is that the problem is not bad enough to require the strong medicine that you recommend, because my fear is that your solution is far more ideal than is possible. You expect a level of selfless rationality that is hard to envision for one of my years.

                Key is that, as you note, while you argue for urgency, there may be grounds for complacency. If there is not, your approach seems ideal (probably too ideal for reality). If you had merely stated that the problem IS urgent and we MUST follow your plan, I would oppose you on principle. But you say IF the problem is urgent, here is a good plan, and for that I commend you.

                I repeat that my belief is that the actual determination of the current state and projected future state is effectively impossible. And were it to be possible, I suspect the actual implementation of your plan would be far harsher than your well thought out vision. Yours is a top-down solution requiring more of our institutions of higher learning and of our leaders than they may be capable of. My approach tends to be more bottom-up.

                Here's hoping it's not as urgent as it may seem,

                Edwin Eugene Klingman

                Dear Edwin,

                You have certainly applied physics to this topic very imaginatively. I think the idea of the interchangeability of money and energy has much productive value. Apart from the bimodal distributions discussed in your post above, do you think there are consequences to refining the model to account for the fact that there can be large differences between the incomes and therefore the energies associated with individuals?

                I found you insights about the essence of the conservative and progressive stance interesting. I wonder, though, whether the concept of equality as presented in your essay is not a little bit of a straw man. Isn't what most people understand by that concept equality of opportunity, rather than equality of status/money/energy? If you reformulate equality in this way, does it still come out as negatively? Also, how do you account for the fact that over time the population size changes?

                Overall I think this is a very original contribution and it does put the emphasis appropriately on freedom as one of the most valuable aspects of the system.

                Best Wishes,

                Armin