I think this is one of the finest essays I have read. You make a penetrating analysis of the problems brought on by big government. Your observations regarding the current state of large governments ring true to me. More to the point, the proposed solution sounds effective as well, "Decentralized control that deals with a limited number of inputs of maximum importance has higher probability of success".

I am not sure what such a system should look like. My attempt to model intelligence of systems led me to construct a government model that you may want to check out. It focuses exclusively on protecting and enhancing the life of its citizens. I think the model is aligned with Ashby's and Conant's works, and therefore might also satisfy the demanding criterion that you have developed in your work.

Regards, Willy

    Willy, thanks for your comments. I also believe that the focus on security is of highest rank. I just hope our civilization survives so it can get to the level of decentralization. Probability is low due to systemic risks imposed by centralized control.

    Ref. Ashby's remarkable work, it is very challenging to determine the minimum controller of a system due to uncertainty, My point is that this is impossible for large-scale systems. Actually, any controller will fail. We have seen this in recent financial crisis. A new control variable was added, namely quantitative easing. Now this is also absorbed by complexity. Controllers are maybe possible for local, decentralized systems. A lot of work must be done. I by no means offered a solution. Just scratched the surface of the problem. Best.

    There are risks brought about by centralisation, but some of those risks are unavoidable if we are to stabilise at our current level of emergence. A collapse of the current nation state system would result in far greater chaos than anyone would want.

    I think Ashby's work applies to any system that satisfies the condition of homeostasis. The size of the system is not that important. Rather than look at specific details like the QE, Ashby's work suggests that we look at the regulators that are responsible for stabilising the perturbations present in the system. QE is one of the possible responses they came up with. It is possible that the response was insufficient because the regulatory structure itself was incorrectly designed. At least, that's the line of thinking I am going with.

    Your essay makes a fine contribution to the area, and therefore, I hold it in high esteem.

    Kind Regards, Willy

    5 days later

    Dear Efthimios Harokopos,

    Thank you for an exceptional essay. The 'autonomous' system as 'block' universe is hard for me to take seriously, and seems in some cases, as you may hint at, to have ulterior motives. I'm sure that I miss some of the finer philosophical points, but I miss nothing in your discussion of multi-variable goal-oriented systems. You reach the same conclusions that I earlier reached in 'the Thermodynamics of Freedom' only the problem has since become globally recognized, and reactions are occurring. From BRexit to Venezuela, the evidence is there but many avert their eyes as if the problem will just go away. It is inherent to the system.

    I thank you again for a most meaningful essay. The front end shows the difficulties associated with over-simplistic universal schemes (no motion, block universe) while your back end illuminates the world appearing nightly on our TV screens (or round the clock on our iPads).

    I hope that some point you might review my 2014 essay, The Thermodynamics of Freedom, but I invite you to read my current essay, which also focuses on social processes in science.

    My very best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Thank you Edwin. It's surprising that each time someone comments about the merit of the essay, someone else give it a very low grade. My estimate was that after you made your comment I received a 2 that pushed back average from 5.3 to 4.9. I have made the proposal to the organizers to keep grades secret until the end of the contest. They should also consider having a panel to grade. The amount of totally unrelated essays is large and these people, who obviously missed the subject, are allowed to grade.

      Anyway, I started reading your assay. It's very good as in 2014.. You have some unique ideas about the connection of thermodynamics to social science that worth further investigation.

      17 days later

      Efthimios,

      Nice essay, interesting, original, very well written and argued. I think I followed most and agreed some, but nearing the scoring deadline I'm now down to speed reading, so may have missed some meaning.

      I question; "goal oriented systems make sense only if there is causality

      if physical reality at the level of macrocosm is autonomous, then there are no random mutations because everything is deterministic"

      because I derive a random mutation mechanism in my essay which is entirely causal, though not entirely deterministic. It also produces a 'quasi' classical QM compliant with Bell via dynamic geometry. I hope you may get the chance to read and challenge or analyse it in terms of your thesis (but don't try to speed read it as it's quite dense!).

      Must dash, I'm late for a free lunch (It'll probably be all gone then!) I'm not sure what the 4.2 is about, but it seems few read it. Score boost coming in 10 secs so hold on tight.

      Very best

      Peter

        Dear Sirs!

        Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

        New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

        New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

        Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

        Sincerely,

        Dizhechko Boris

          Peter,

          Thank you. I will read your essay carefully. I dealt with causality at the macrocosm level because how this macrocosm arises from quantum microcosm is not entirely clear. I will read your essay slowly and carefully and I am sure I will learn many new things.

          Efthimios

          Dizhechko ,

          I will read your essay with great interest. Thanks for your pointer.

          Efthimios

          Write a Reply...