Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga: on 6/4/14 at 13:57pm UTC, wrote Hi Aaron, thanks for rating. I agree with you about the importance of...

Aaron Feeney: on 5/31/14 at 4:04am UTC, wrote Hi Torsten, An excellent essay indeed. You provide a great deal of detail,...

KoGuan Leo: on 5/30/14 at 2:36am UTC, wrote Dear Torsten I rated you an 8 but it only raise your rating from 5.3 to...

Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga: on 5/29/14 at 21:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Leo, thanks for your time to read my essay. I agree with you (but...

KoGuan Leo: on 5/29/14 at 15:32pm UTC, wrote Dear Torsten, Excellent essay. I like it. I do believe that not only...

James Hoover: on 5/27/14 at 17:25pm UTC, wrote Torsten, Thanks for taking the time to read and evaluate my essay. Jim

Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga: on 5/27/14 at 11:57am UTC, wrote Dear Jayakar, I agree with but here my model is to simple to include the...

Jayakar Joseph: on 5/25/14 at 9:38am UTC, wrote Dear Asselmeyer-Maluga, Though your statement, "The development of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "They are proud, because they have solved some problems, which are..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, I do have an interest in the history, but not as much as I used..." in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment presents 3 causally linked state..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Roger Granet: "Well put! Physics is hard, but biochemistry (my area), other sciences..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "BTW The neck scarves are a promotional souvenir given out at non sports..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 18, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: The Evolution of humanity as driven by evolution of technology by Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Mar. 12, 2014 @ 14:43 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract In this essay I will discuss the future of humanity as abstractly described by an evolutionary process. The main driving force in this process is the development of new technology. I will present a simple (mathematical) model for evolution to discuss questions like: what is the direction of evolution? What is the best state and how can we reach them? The influence of the society is also modeled by the so-called Co-evolution leading to global trends. On these grounds, the future of humanity is quite open only controlled by our free will and our needs.

Author Bio

I'm a researcher at the German Aerospace Center with widespreaded interests. Evolution was the topic of my PhD thesis. But my current work is more in direction of quantum gravity and cosmology.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Domenico Oricchio wrote on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 00:22 GMT
It is interesting, a good work.

The technological evolution like a specie evolution; I wrote a simple gene evolution (a toy model), some time ago, for the allele evolution (the evolution of AA, AB, BB allele in the dna) that can be a lower level of the evolution for populations (there are better models on internet).

If the gene is a code for a construction, or a code for a language (depth of a burrow or ants genetic eusociality), then the technological evolution could be an evolution of single concepts (the allele like the words, or the components of the mechanical, or electrical, devices).

I have only a problem: if the evolution is an optimization problem (best dna for an environment), then a perfect being for a constant environment must be possible (I am thinking some living fossil like crocodilians), and I am thinking that some microorganism in the depth of the Earth could be little genetic change because of the geological stationarity (constant environment).

The humanity have a technological evolution, and a social evolution, so that could the evolution model applied to laws (semantic of the laws)?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 08:26 GMT
Thanks for your interest and your question.

You point on an interesting aspect which I had forgoten to mention. The encoding of the problem is very important to make the evolution work. In case of a 'bad coding', every mutation will destroy the good parts of the species.

Here is an example: There is the idea to evolve computer programs. If you encode the computer program into the usual manner (as a text file that is as a sequence of strings) then a simple mutation (changing one or more strings) will destroy the computer program completely. So, the mutation of a workable computer program ends in an errorous program.

But genetic programming works! The solution is the encoding of a computer program into a tree (using the computer language LISP). Then a mutation (modification of a tree) ends in a new tree which is a computer program again.

I would propose to modify the laws correspondingly. The evolution will also work in this case.

I will read your essay soon.

Best

Torsten

Bookmark and Share


Alexandre de Pomposo replied on Mar. 19, 2014 @ 22:21 GMT
Dear Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga:

I’ve read, very carefully, your interesting paper and I am very glad that I myself attained conclusions similar to yours, though following very different paths. I plenty coincide with you concerning the non-deterministic behavior of evolutionary models. Nevertheless I would like to point out some aspects that, may be, are due to my lack of understanding...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Mar. 20, 2014 @ 08:59 GMT
Dear Alexandre de Pomposo,

thanks for your reply and for the good ideas. I agree that my model is not very detailed. But the discoveries in science cannot be planned and if I don't know it I can assume a stochastic process. More philosophical: noise creates potential information not real information. The real information can be created by selection (or by other processes of choice among the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 15, 2014 @ 15:07 GMT
Dr. Asselmeyer-Maluga:

I like your concept of technology as an evolutionary adaptive system. Given multinational exchange of information and products, this has become a global enterprise. However, a key boundary condition for the evolution of technology has been the availability of cheap fossil fuels, which will become increasingly untenable due to resource depletion and global warming. My own essay ("Just Too Many People: Towards a Sustainable Future Earth") focuses on the dynamics of global population. Fertility rates are dropping worldwide, due in part to cultural adaptation to urbanization, but I argue that the global population is already larger than is sustainable for the long term. We need to move towards a world with decreasing population, while maintaining high technological productivity. That requires a change from the prevailing cultural paradigm of continuous growth.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Mar. 16, 2014 @ 21:56 GMT
Thanks Alan for your interest.

I will also read your essay as soon as possible.

Torsten

Bookmark and Share



Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Mar. 16, 2014 @ 01:02 GMT
Torsten,

The equations you work up are forms of the Fokker-Planck equation. This is associated to a Langevin equation for stochastic processes. The matrix part is deterministic and the part (f_i - )P_i is the stochastic portion.

I am entering an essay. I submitted it today. I was not going to enter one, but a bit of an idea came to me that I decided to write up a paper. The paper involves limits on the amount of information available to observers and how this restricts the prospects for supercivilizations that can simulate cosmologies. It means the scientific process has a reasonable prospect of being objective. Our world is not likely a simulation by super agents.

This has a somewhat pessimistic conclusion that intelligent life is likely to expire before it can create simulations of universes on a fine grained scale sufficiently convincing. The type III civilization might be able to simulate a fair to decent universe, but there are reasons why this is highly improbable.

LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Mar. 16, 2014 @ 21:55 GMT
Lawrence,

I know that the evolution equation is a Fokker-Planck equation but do not overload the essay with these technical details. The non-linear equation of the co-evolution is a reaction-diffusion equation.

I'm looking forward to read your essay.

Best

Torsten

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 17, 2014 @ 16:43 GMT
Dear Asselmeyer-Maluga,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your absorbing essay, and I do hope that it does well in the competition. I do not wish to be critical, but I would like to make a comment about your analysis of human evolution.

Ammunition contains lead. Untraceable microscopic amounts of lead cause brain damage, especially in newborn babies. Americans fired off about a million bullets in populated areas last year. Autism is on the rise. Attention span deficiency is on the rise. American general intelligence has declined so much; America has gone from first place and now ranks lower than nineteenth of nations tested.

Natural evolution is beneficial. The unnatural evolution of technology has to be malignant, for as I have carefully pointed out in my essay, REALITY, ONCE, in a unique real Universe, identical states can never come into existence. “Artificial intelligence” will be absolutely useless for it will consist of only seeming identical bits and pieces. Human thought fails because of a lack of understanding and acceptance of the unique.

Best regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Mar. 18, 2014 @ 08:14 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

my essay is only purely theoretical. You are absolutely right, there are many aspects and boundary conditions which influence the result of evolution But I was only interested in the principles which must be general for all evolutionary processes.

Thanks for the wishes which I will give back.

I will have a look in your essay, hopefully soon.

Best

Torsten

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 17, 2014 @ 23:40 GMT
Torsten,

This is a very thought-provoking essay. We both know that it is impossible to model human behavior, but certainly technology as an input has more than chance or probability to lead it astray. Global participants in the form of the powerful do not leave technology to chance or probability. They intervene utilizing their vast resources to bring their own global solution. That of course is with the absence of limitation.I do argue for common needs and a better state as well in the form of common good. I'm not sure what determines that other than the need for survival and what benefits the majority toward a viable future.

I wonder if my ideas are too ideological and yours too theoretical and whether we need a combination.

If the solution were easy, we would not be discussing it.

What do you think?

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 18, 2014 @ 01:51 GMT
Incidentally, Torsten, your essay is the first I have read. I plan to read several for comparison before I rate them.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Mar. 18, 2014 @ 08:38 GMT
Jim,

In my opinion, a combination of ideas is always better but I don't have an idea to realize it. Ideology marks one direction in favour of all other directions.

You are right that it is impossible to model human behaviour in particular the individual human behaviour. For large group of people it is much easier to do it. I remember on simulations for escape ways during catastrophies. Then the human behaviour can be simulated quite well.

But something different in mind. I think my approach also includes the change of the environment in particular because of limitation of the ressources. Then certainly the fitness function will change. So, the model can manage it. But the problem is more whether humanity can manage it. I think we have a chance to do it when we sparke our own sun, i.e. nuclear fusion.

Certainly I have to go over your essay.

Thanks for your comments.

Torsten

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 19:16 GMT
Torsten,

It grows late, so I am revisiting and rating. How do we evolve for the common good? That is a question I cannot answer. I speak of "looking beyond" for new ideas and "within" for the untapped capacity of our brains, truly a microcosm of the universe, but I'm not sure about evolving human motives and behavior.

Have you had a chance to read my essay?

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 19:37 GMT
Very nice exposition. I like the heuristics, but wonder why did you only consider real solutions and not also complex ones? In other words, there are also oscillatory solutions as well as asymptotic ones for evolution just like there are for other natural systems.

And of course, you really need to include forcing functions like climate changes and other global changes that affect humanity on the scale of evolution. And it is simple organisms that really dominate evolution on earth, not higher organisms. In effect, humanity is just a small fraction of the biological life on earth and simple life has got on for upwards of a billion years without us and likely will survive long after our species.

In fact, there are likely humanity's replacements are cooking away right now in the cauldrons of evolution even as we speak.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Mar. 25, 2014 @ 20:05 GMT
Thanks for your words. Real solutions are prefered because the formalism of statistical physics leads to it. But it does not mean that there is no oszillations. For instance, consider a double well potential as fitness function and choose a high rate of mutation then you will get oszillations (if the difference of the two wells are nearly equal). Furthermore the solution converges to the ground state (a distribution around the optimum) for infinite times (asymptotic state).

Yes you are right that exterior conditions will mainly influence the process of evolution. So, real evolution has no fixed fitness function, instead all species and the environment are forming this fitness function. I expressed it partly using Co-evolution. But the real system is much more complex.

Torsten

Bookmark and Share



Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Mar. 24, 2014 @ 11:14 GMT
Dear Torsten,

Evolution, is generally considered as a process of mutations and selection, and, as you have pointed out, it applies to technology as well.

It may be interesting, that in an article written by me in 1988, evolution was considered as a process progressing towards more and more 'specialization' of cells and organs, and 'better and better 'co-ordination' among them. e.g. evolution started with single-cellular-organism amoeba. Then these cells co-operated, and formed cyllindrical-structure for the collection of food, and hydra came into existencs; then more and more specialized organs developed and they co-operated with others to form multi-cellular-organisms. They did so for more and more and more conduciveness, to avoid pain and to increase conduciveness. Human beings can evolve further by different people specializing in different fields and co-operating with others. When an organism is not physically bound togather, like our body, but it functions for more and more conduciveness, then that is also an evolution of organization.

You may be able to express it using mathematics, and predict the future of mankind.

Thanks for reading,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Mar. 25, 2014 @ 20:10 GMT
Dear Hasmukh,

many thanks for your very intersting remakr/question. I agree that diversity is an important incredient in any evolution process. By now, my model is very simple and cannot simulate it. But I have now something to think about.

Maybe I have to look into your article. Can you give me the exact reference?

Thanks in advance.

Best

Torsten

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Apr. 3, 2014 @ 07:37 GMT
Dear Torsten,

I liked very much that obviously you were interested in the past in the problem of evolution and you have significant contributions to it, including a very sound quantitative model, which can be adapted straightforwardly to the technological evolution of humanity, due to your observation "The development of technology is an evolutionary process in an abstract sense, consisting of mutation and selection". I enjoyed your insightful essay.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Apr. 10, 2014 @ 13:30 GMT
Dear Cristi,

thanks for your comments. Yes I live the word "widespreaded interests". It was fascinating to develop a model which gives the evolution qualitatively.

Unfortunately I had not enough to go over your interesting essay. But I promise to do and comment.

All the best for you

Torsten

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear Torsten,

I found a lot of attitudes in your essay I am agreeing with. Concerning some of your statements I am not sure whether or not I did already understood you correctly. For instance, you wrote: "Who knows, evolution has no global direction."

In what sense did you use the attribute "global"? In the essay I submitted "global" refers to the globe, i.e. to the earth.

Are you a Berliner? I guess you are too young as to be much influenced by the shadows of the past. I just wondered why you deviate from writing Asselmeyer with ss only in your thesis. When you wrote Sschroedinger, this was certainly a typo. Is your German name correct with the letter sz instead of double s?

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Apr. 10, 2014 @ 19:22 GMT
Dear Eckhard,

thanks for your interest. Yes you are right this statement is not very clear expressed. My favorite subject is topology (in connection to physics, you maybe remember on my previous contributions to FQXi contests). So, the word 'global' has a special meaning to me. Here I had in mind: Evolution has no general direction or in the language of the fitness landscape: evolution has no global vector field pointing in the direction of the optimum.

The second part of your answer is more personal. I'm not a real Berliner. I grow up 50 miles far from Berlin in the South (very nice landscape) in the former East-Germany. I felt some of the shadow....

I came to Berlin in 1988 at the age of 18 and I was 19 when the wall breaks down. I missed the school (the high school in that time) in November, 10th 1989 to visit West-Berlin for the first time. Fortunately I had only little trouble with the secret service in East-Germany and I noticed all the good and bad things after the unification.

My original spelling is

Aßelmeyer (with th special german letter ß for sz)

and Aßelmeyer-Maluga after my marriage. The spelling Asselmeyer was only the english speaking people (it made it easier)

Thanks again and I will have a look into your essay.

Best

Torsten

Bookmark and Share



Member Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Apr. 15, 2014 @ 09:41 GMT
Hi Torsten,

The idea of comparing the evolution of technology with that of species in the biosphere is fascinating (I don`t remember where I read that even the spread of ideas, or tales, or jokes, may be subject to the darwinian processes of random mutation and selection - and these are products of the human mind too, like technology). You mention S. Lem`s work, and his influence on your essay, but I am not sure whether you mean that Lem or someone else is at the origin of this view at technological progress. Could you please clarify?

You introduce in your model a way to incorporate the effects of human interaction/communication on the dynamics of technologies (the iPhone effect). I wonder whether one can think of a two-way process, in which technology influences humans back. Here genetic engineering comes to mind, by which the human species consciously modifies itself, thus imitating (or bypassing) darwinian evolution.

Perhaps it would be even more correct to put humans and their artifacts (including robots) in the same pot, is a single ecology, and let all these `species` evolve as Darwin and friends describe.

Do you think you could adapt (at least in principle) your model to reflect this more unified view?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 11:08 GMT
Hi Tommaso,

thanks for your interest and sorry for the delay (Easter travel with my family and no internet connection...)

No, Lem is not at the origin of this idea. In his book, Lem wrote about the theoretical limits of human development. Here he discussed also the direct change of the human body (or the brain) also in the direction of genetic engineering but also as combination of technology and biology. But the main part in his argumentation is the evolutionary development of all kinds (technology, humanity and society). For me it was the first time that someone mentioned such a unifying principle and this was the main influence of Lem for me. (Quantum gravity is also such a unifying principle but this is another story....)

In the second part of your question, you mention a two-way process (technology influences humans). Yes, you are right that there is such an influence.

As model I would propose a coupling of the two evolutionary processes (also by a special rate, so not deterministic but probabilistic). Years ago we developed this strategy (and call it diochotomic strategie). Unfortunately we never published something and it is only contained in a PhD thesis (but in german). The corresponding equation was later found to be comparable to the Dyson equation in quantu field theory (but now with imaginary time, a usual trick to change from quantum field theory to statistical physics).

But your question reminds to make some work in this direction again.

Best Torsten

Bookmark and Share



Anselm Smidt wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 16:22 GMT
Der freie Wille beinhaltet kriminellen Unternehmen und Mafia.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 13:37 GMT
Der freie Wille beinhaltet auch den Kampf dagegen.

Bookmark and Share



Douglas Alexander Singleton wrote on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 23:40 GMT
Hi Torsten,

Nice to read your essay. In general I am a bit hesitant to apply hard mathematical equations to complex systems like humans or human societies. Although I think you mention that applying such mathematical reasoning to groups of people works better than applying it to an individual (which is true since this is why actuarial tables work so well for groups of people). Also to be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 13:25 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share


Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 13:33 GMT
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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 13:34 GMT
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!

Bookmark and Share



James Dunn wrote on May. 4, 2014 @ 04:19 GMT
There are about 6 different essays that each represent a path as a system of path integrals.

Perhaps this collective can merge their essays into a common Mind Map and work toward modeling the collective system in a supercomputer. Using something like IBM's Deep Thunder (weather simulator) as a processing software.

Currently, only 1 out of 10 people can think in these terms. So I'm not sure it would be representative of the desires of people who have no intimate interest in anything outside their tiny world.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 09:14 GMT
Sorry for the delay but I travelled without internet access.

Here is a fundamental missunderstanding about the aim of the essay.

I analyzed the evolution of humanity as driven by technology but I ahd never in mind to simulate it. I want to show that there is real goal for evolution and that the driving force is our need and/or wish.

I'm rather sceptical that we can really steer our development because there are to many conflicting interests. But I think we have a chance to enforce our development by using science.

That is the essence of my approach. I disagree that it is a tiny world.....

Bookmark and Share



Mohammed M. Khalil wrote on May. 6, 2014 @ 15:30 GMT
Hi Torsten,

Great essay! You offer good arguments supporting your views about the evolution of humanity and technology. However, I believe that we can increase the evolutionary rate of technology. In my essay , I try to identify how to improve science to increase the rate of scientific and technological breakthroughs.

I wish you elaborated more on the possible trends of (AI, fusion, and new materials). I agree with you about AI and new materials, but I don't think humanity's energy problems can be solved with nuclear fusion, at least not in the near future. www.scientificamerican.com/article/fusions-missing-pieces-it
er-problems/


Best regards,

Mohammed

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 09:18 GMT
Hi Mohammed,

Sorry for the delay but I travelled without internet access.

I certainly have to read your essay and how you plan to increase the evolutionary rate of technology. In principle it is also possible in my approach: support stronger science to make research in any direction.

After looking in the article, I agree with you. Fussion will take a longer time to realize.

More soon on your discussion site

Best wishes

Torsten

Bookmark and Share



Ajay Bhatla wrote on May. 9, 2014 @ 05:43 GMT
Torsten,

Coming from the world of science and technology, I can only agree with you that they are both crucial to humanity's future.

You never addressed a third item that I also think fits in somewhere: the human mind. The existence of the human mind and this mind's ability to imagine what has never existed before and this mind's ability to think up ingenuous ways to do things, must fit in somewhere in your "technology as an evolutionary process." Any comments?

I look forward to your reaction to my essay here

- Ajay

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on May. 9, 2014 @ 21:15 GMT
Dear Ajay,

you are absolutely right. I think Lem was smart enough to point in this direction but I was not aware of it. There is maybe two possible ways: I adressed it in my essay as a random process (mutation) where I only assume that science can be developed in any direction, or I have to include a more complex interaction term in my equation (integro-differential equation for mutation with along correlation).

I will read your essay soon.

Best

Torsten

Bookmark and Share



Israel Perez wrote on May. 17, 2014 @ 00:16 GMT
Dear Torsten

I found your essay interesting and well written. The model you present is very illustrative. I was unaware of the 4th industrial revolution, although I understand that automatization, networking and artificial intelligence is the "vogue", I have some misgivings about the realization of this project.

During reading, I found something that it was not clear for me. You say:

I strongly believed that humanity will steer the future according to these principles.

What principles do you mean? I read some lines before this one but I couldn't get those principles. Could you please explicitly mention such principles.

According to your model, you also find that evolution will never end and because of this, no final state can be achieved. I do agree that humans are always looking for innovation but I do think there are limits to understanding and someday we will reach this limits. So, at some point in the future, we will reach a stable state. For instance, electronics is now reaching the limit of miniaturization. If we can not develop spintronics or room temperature superconductors in the following two or three decades, electronics will reach a state of stagnation for several decades.

You also say that there is no general plan for the future of humanity but we all together will do it.

In my view, some countries have a plan for the future. We have seen this in universal history. Rome had a plan, the Mongol empire, the british empire and more recently the Americans and Chinese have a plan. And because of this, they need to steer the future. I briefly discuss about this in my essay. I'll be glad if you could take at look at it and leave some comments. I hope you like it.

Good luck in the contest!

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Israel,

thanks for your interest.

You are right I don't mention these principles explicitely.

I had the following in mind: the driving force is science and humanity should invest also in this direction, there is no central plan (evolution is enough) but one needs a communication between the species. Finally the selection process is the adaption of the technologies according to our needs. Humantiy should also allow a development in any direction without any limits (but fulfilling ethical requirements etc.).

I will also looking forward to read yours.

Good luck in the contest, too

Best

Torsten

Bookmark and Share


Israel Perez replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 17:38 GMT
Hi Torsten

Thanks for your reply. I understand you although politicians have a plan and work in strategic topics. Not all fields of science are supported but only those that are strategic for the economical growth of a country.

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 09:38 GMT
Dear Asselmeyer-Maluga,

Though your statement, "The development of technology is an evolutionary process in an abstract sense, consisting of mutation and selection", is true, the 'survival for the fittest' in context to technology, is economical rather than environmental. Thus there is a fundamental flaw in the development of Humanity that has an impact on environment.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 11:57 GMT
Dear Jayakar,

I agree with but here my model is to simple to include the details of the interaction with the environment (but it is partly included in the mutation term).

Best

Torsten

Bookmark and Share



KoGuan Leo wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear Torsten,

Excellent essay. I like it. I do believe that not only technology but Existence itself is subject to mutation, selection and co-evolution. In my KQID theory, Existence mutated, selected and co-evolved as a one entangled hologram Existence every absolute digital time T ≤ 10^-1000seconds.

KQID-Euler Ee^iτ = A + S ⊆ T.

I rated high to boast you rating up because it must be so.

Good luck!

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 21:18 GMT
Dear Leo,

thanks for your time to read my essay.

I agree with you (but was not brave enough to state in my essay) the whole existence is itself subjkect to evolution. Many thanks for the rating (I do the same for you)

I'm really impressed by chinese philosophy for a long time. The thoughts are quite non-linear and holistic (in contrast to the linear and local thinkling in the wetsern world). I'm totally agree wit your KQID theory but it seems interesting.

Berst wishes and good luck for the contest

Torsten

Bookmark and Share



KoGuan Leo wrote on May. 30, 2014 @ 02:36 GMT
Dear Torsten

I rated you an 8 but it only raise your rating from 5.3 to 5.4. Sorry, I should give you a higher score because yours is an important essay. It should be rated by the FQXI judges fairly.

To get your attention, I repost here my comment to you in my blog:

Dear Torsten,

Thanks for your kind words. You are very kind and our species is kind, only scarcity,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Aaron M. Feeney wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 04:04 GMT
Hi Torsten,

An excellent essay indeed. You provide a great deal of detail, and it is interesting to suggest that the development of science and technology is like an evolutionary process, insofar as new ideas are akin to mutation. I would want to add that new scientific discoveries and resultant technologies are sometimes driven by new conceptual discoveries. For instance, the scientific method was a philosophical invention, and one could argue that the widespread demonstration that the scientific method works is the mother of all scientific discoveries. Of course, conceptual discoveries may also be seen in an evolutionary fashion. I think that taking a look at the work which has been done on the evolution of memes is something you might find interesting. I'm about to rate your essay highly, so I think you'll notice a bump in your total. Best wishes to you!

Warmly,

Aaron

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 13:57 GMT
Hi Aaron,

thanks for rating.

I agree with you about the importance of conceptional discoveries and the scientific methods was an important one. I will have a look into the work about the evolution of memes. Thanks for the hint.

Good luck for the contest and best wishes

Torsten

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.