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

Douglas Singleton: on 6/4/14 at 5:14am UTC, wrote Hi John, I had your essay on my "to-read" list for some time but am only...

KoGuan Leo: on 6/1/14 at 2:58am UTC, wrote Dear John, I noted that we have similar background. We are realist and...

Anonymous: on 6/1/14 at 2:56am UTC, wrote Dear John, I noted that we have similar background. We are realist and...

Judy Nabb: on 5/31/14 at 0:46am UTC, wrote John, I agree in all general terms with your viewpoints and ideas. It's...

John Hodge: on 5/28/14 at 17:38pm UTC, wrote Acedemia link https://independent.academia.edu/HodgeJohn.

John Hodge: on 5/28/14 at 17:29pm UTC, wrote Thanks for the vote. Thanks for the reference to Hodge . My reference to...

Peter Jackson: on 5/28/14 at 14:44pm UTC, wrote John, I don't blame you for avoiding the EPR paradox. Once you've got your...

James Hoover: on 5/26/14 at 22:45pm UTC, wrote John, You're right about claiming natural law to further agenda....


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Jorma Seppaenen: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 25, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: Steering humanity's growth by John C Hodge [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 3, 2014 @ 16:59 GMT
Essay Abstract

We are at a critical time in the evolution of our understanding of the physics of the universe and the evolution of the growth of humanity. Humans lack sufficient knowledge to predict outcomes of their actions. The long-term growth of science and humanity has been by trial-and-error. Life observations are applied to determine new science principles and the process and practice of science is applied to suggest how humanity can grow. New fundamental principles of science are proposed. The human species is at such a level that it must reorganize the national and international structure to allow competition and change. Inhibiting change is not an option. Nature's law is grow or die. The measure of success in nature is survival. The national military authority must obey and enforce nature's laws. Competition must be allowed between religions, between approaches to technology, between approaches to society, and between approaches to the environment. Humanity should steer the future by creating a true nation organization. The best state that humanity can achieve is to be able to adapt to changes without the destruction of war or of national collapse.

Author Bio

I sold my electronics company in 1991 (I was 49); retired; retired from retiring; and became an inventor and amateur astronomer. My interest in cosmology developed. I conceived a radical new cosmology model in 2002 and started publishing papers and instructing at Blue Ridge Community College. After writing “Theory of Everything; scalar potential model of the big and the small”, my interest turned to philosophy.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Apr. 4, 2014 @ 02:48 GMT
John,

Welcome to the contest.

It is an interesting, well thought out and reasonable proposal. I do see problems though.

For one thing, I would make the argument that knowledge is inherently subjective. To define is to limit and to limit is to define. So when we make models, we necessarily exclude whatever is not pertinent and there is no such thing as an overall model. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 4, 2014 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear JM

Thanks for your comments.

Most of the comments you make have already been addressed in the paper. The limit of space means that some significant points must be summarized. Therefore, your call for either more data or a fleshing out of a point requires much more data. You are also introducing new terms or definitions the paper doesn’t use.

“For one thing, I would...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 4, 2014 @ 22:06 GMT
JH,

You are right there are way too many angles to the various issues to cover adequately.

In the first part of my critique, I was basically offering a similar view of how different views/models can lead to conflict, but making the argument there is no ultimate model, so in the condition that different views are fundamentally incompatible, the degree of competition will be terminal. Now in many, if not most situations, there is room for different views. I'm sorry if it is difficult to really express all the permutations and am not trying to start an argument, but feel in such a discussion as this, the extremes need to not be overlooked.

As I read your paper, it lays out how states can be the incubators of various social and political models, in a grand scientific experiment. While I agree this is a noble plan, there isn't the space for an objective process and impartial observers, so things might get quite messy. Personally I think it could well happen, but that will be a topic for future historians to debate.

To the extent I see it being framed out, it would be based on the break down of the dollar and the states starting local currencies out of necessity. This would be a bottom up process.

Regards,

JM

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 5, 2014 @ 02:49 GMT
JM

I suppose you can rebut my arguments in my comments on your paper. I am beginning to think we differ less than I had originally thought.

Perhaps you missed one of my points that was not really overtly stated. Different views have always been in conflict, therefore, in competition. Often this leads to war. Your observation that such competition has been terminal is correct. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 4, 2014 @ 08:27 GMT
Hi John C Hodge,

Born in the same year 1942 as you but in Berlin which was the center of terror and subsequent ideological struggle, I appreciate you and Alan Kadin dealing with the growth of population. You wrote: "Nature's law is grow or die" and "the barons are organizing". My essay will advocate a different view.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 4, 2014 @ 17:11 GMT
Dear EB

I will read your paper.

Hodge

Bookmark and Share



Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Apr. 4, 2014 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear John,

The essay seems to be based on your life-long observations and thinking.

Hasmukh K. Tank

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 4, 2014 @ 17:16 GMT
Dear HT

Did you write some papers on redshift and alternant views of universe expansion?

Hodge

Bookmark and Share


Hasmukh K. Tank replied on Apr. 15, 2014 @ 09:54 GMT
Dear John,

Yes, those papers, on alternative interpretations of the cosmological red shift, and alternative view of unverse expansion, are written by me. I shall be happy to receive your valuable comments. My e-mail-address is written in the papers.

With my best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Apr. 7, 2014 @ 01:12 GMT
JH,

Posted this in response;

To a certain extent, my argument is that by viewing money as a contract, rather than a commodity, it would be viewed in fundamentally moral terms, as a force that holds society together and makes the parts function as a whole. Which is what the essence of morality is, the principles by which society can function. Essentially it is the economic blood...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 7, 2014 @ 15:11 GMT
My Dear Mr. Hodge,

I was utterly fascinated reading your superbly written essay, and I do hope that the judges of this competition think likewise. I do have a minor quibble about your abstract assertions.

You wrote: “We are ready for the next evolutionary step in understanding the universe. This future model has already been named the “Theory of Everything.”

Based only 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 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. All material surfaces must travel at the constant “speed” of light. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent “speed” that is less than the “speed” of light. Einstein was completely wrong. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

The real Universe is unique, once. All information is not unique.

With all of my best regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 09:41 GMT
Dear Joe:

Thanks very much for your comment. But, please, my modesty.

I am to comment on some interesting comments you made in your essay as a comment to your essay.

I have also been struck with the thought that light could not be a speed limit that satisfies the Lorentz equations if it presented some surface to the direction of movement. Therefore, the photon itself must present zero cross-section to the direction of movement. The photon is a surface not a 3-D object. Structures of photons say with the surfaces perpendicular to each other would present a surface to any direction of movement and would be impeded (travel less than the speed of light). If particles were composed of photons, then many energy equations may be satisfied. OK this is radically new physics, but it’s fun to think about. Yet, it seems a common sense solution to the problem. The papers photon diffration of light and STOE correspondence to general relativity and quantum mechanics develop this idea a little. There is a long way to go.

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Apr. 7, 2014 @ 16:40 GMT
John H,

"You seem to agree that currency by government is morally evil. The result is inflation or the low interest rates fostered by government in an attempt to have their cake and eat it without tax.

How would you change the system to have currency or money be viewed as a social contract that government could not abuse?"

I made a few comments to this on my own page, but...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 09:40 GMT
JM

RE: contract money

This is not physics, but is interesting. Perhaps physics principles may apply.

I have only a few incomplete thoughts on the money subject. Maintaining anything other than the Friedman type approach or hard money is difficult for me to conceive. The government is not doing either today I think that is why this economic downturn is so sever and long...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 11:41 GMT
JH,

I am pretty much in agreement with your views and don't feel this is introducing something new, but removing a delusion which has developed within the process. Even a gold backed currency, as opposed to using gold directly, is a contract. As in 'IOU an ounce of gold.' If it was hard, ie, the value directly tied to the amount of gold in reserve, it would not be stable, because there...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 12:44 GMT
JM

I’m unsure I understood your comment about gold in the 30’s. I think Friedman (I talk about him a lot, don’t I) in “Free to Choose” describes the events that lead to the severity of the downturn. Economic downturn occurred before the 30’s. Generally, previous downturns lasted only 2-3 years. The 30’s saw government interference in the flow of gold which made the depression...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Peter Gluck wrote on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear John,

Please accept my admiration for your style and for the presentation of the problem. In my opinion, there are actually 3 Fundamental sciences- those of existence, of life and of thinking. In 1953 when I still thought everything is

possible and I will have a chance to become a physicist even in a communist country, I wrote a letter to "Albert Einstein, Princeton USA) telling him about my theory of the isotach space and about a super-Einstein created by me FIBIEGO from physics-biology-egology, as I thought the three great sciences have to be called. (Egology was in a sense used by Arthur C Clarke; I have received his EGOGRAMS in his sunset years. Beyond cosmology and elementary particles we have to solve myriads of problems reagarding evolution of life and developing superior modes of intellectual and ethical modes of thinking- fpr individual and

collective egos.

I still have to meditate about your solution part. Have to confess sincerely thta from my geographically specific cultural heritage if kings could receive a 5, barons are totally negative- less than 1 (aristocratic gangsters, mainly)

The involvement of military is good if they receive the lions share of the GDP

I have to recognize that I am very positively impressed by your ideas even if I do not agree with them all.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 8, 2014 @ 16:38 GMT
Peter,

Thank you and I'll finish reading your entry and comment there. Between limited time and powers of concentration, it's difficult for me to absorb many of the entries in this contest.

Regards,

JM

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 10, 2014 @ 00:09 GMT
Sorry about that! Too many Johns.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 08:26 GMT
Dear John,

I appreciate the nice remarks of political-historical nature in the first part of your essay. I also agree with your remark that: Humans lack sufficient knowledge to predict outcomes of actions. Therefore, a trial-and-error method must be adopted.

I confess that I have more difficulty in following the line of reasoning in Section 2 (The fundamental principles of humanity that apply to physics).

Perhaps due to space limitations, you present interesting facts, but I did not manage to grasp the final message you wanted to give here, other than the observation that life absorbs more free energy and produces more entropy (in order to keep itself ordered) than non-living matter.

In particular, I did not understand the issue: `The fractal universe philosophy should be promoted to a fundamental principle. That is, the universe is a collection of reproduced mechanisms`. Did you mean that the mechanism of self-reproduction is at work not only at the level of the biosphere, but also at lower levels (inanimate matter, or even the spacetime texture), as well as at galactic scales? Or are you perhaps referring to the controversial work of Laurent Nottale (Scale Relativity and Fractal Spacetime)?

Any serious attempt to unify or at least to find similarities between the laws of the biosphere and those of physics deserves the highest attention, in my opinion. Lee Smolin s `The Life of the Cosmos` is a good example. Another example, in a completely different direction, is provided by Teilhard de Chardin s `The Human Phenomenon`.

Any clarification on the essential message that you wanted to convey with this section is welcome. And good luck with the Contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 15:25 GMT
TB

Thanks very much for your comment. This essay is at the limit of my thinking. I see no reason to regurgatate establish ideas of others. Rather, the attempt is to combine thoughts/models.

“I confess that I have more difficulty in following the line of reasoning in Section 2 (The fundamental principles of humanity that apply to physics).” The idea behind the essay was that life...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 17:22 GMT
John,

Interesting read. I agree that the "Theory of Everything" should include life and our social organization, but I'm not sure how that is accomplished. You speak of organizing to preclude war while allowing competition and change, which is sound advice. You suggest a sort of "states rights." Our history has many theories which proclaim natural rights and natural laws but its application always seem vague and/or ambiguous.

What do you think?

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 9, 2014 @ 18:41 GMT
JLH

I was suggesting the accomplishment of inclusion is by the idea that the fundamental principles should correspond to cosmology, quantum mechanics and life. The suggestions for a beginning were in sections 2 and 3. STOE correspondence to general relativity and quantum mechanics and develop this idea a little. STOE application to life. There is a long way to go.

The “states rights” I was suggesting for a constitution similar to the constitution of 1789 (without the individual laws added later). That is, they are laws in a constitution.

I agree, the “natural rights” and “natural laws” are vague because people claim a right when it is only their idealism. That is, these people are claiming a “natural rights” and “natural laws” to support their vague idealism where no real right or law exists. People’s idealism must be turned into concrete laws. The barons showed the idealism must be turned into a law that a court can adjudicate and revolutionized humanities organizing methods. We must form a nation.

What do you think? What principles unite life with physics?

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 22:45 GMT
John,

You're right about claiming natural law to further agenda. Conservatives now claim the "invisible hand" justifies greed while Adam Smith wanted benefits for all through an "invisible hand."

Time grows short, so I am revisited those I've read to assure I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 5/20. Hope you enjoyed mine.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Apr. 13, 2014 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear John :

You stated that "each difference of view" leads to war...

At our age we become aware that a difference of view, mentality or whatever is always leading to discussion, if you would call that war ....

Of course any discussion can lead ultimately to war if one part of the object of discussion is becoming the conviction of a group, and the other part is becoming the conviction of another group...

So mankind has as many "convictions" as there are individuals (7 billion) so we are at the threshold of 7 billion wars...

At the other side it si "L'Unité fait la force" as we see in science where different people are working with their own different ideas on the sma object to get a solution.

It is always the "duality" of mankind (man and woman) that is the origin of getting forward (man and woman together create children) like it is in wars that w make the most of new inventions (weapons).

So our future will indeed always be directed by differences of opinion , leading to one side aggressive actions and on the other side new scientific advances (that can lead indeed again to new weapons...)

So the procreation at one side leads to annihilation at the other side...

IF we would be able to change our mentality...which means that our consciousness may become aware of the positive side of ambiguous being and appreciate its values not only for the differences we will be able to move on without the wars of economy...

I hope that you can spare some time to read and maybe comment my essay "STEERING THE FUTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS" and eventually give it a rating too.

If you comment on my thread I will answer on yours , this is easy because we will be both warned when a post comes in...

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 13, 2014 @ 21:23 GMT
1st response:

Where did I say “…’each difference of view’ leads to war…”?

I did say, “Competition must be allowed between religions, between approaches to technology, and between approaches to the environment.” in the paper and “The room for different views may be had if the views include tolerance for other views (as the rise from tribes to chiefdoms suggests) and include the cooperation with the different views.” in a reply.

Hodge

Bookmark and Share



Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on Apr. 15, 2014 @ 22:25 GMT
Fellow Comrade,

I have respond to your questions on my wall. Your article was entertaining and interesting.

Keep the it up!

Thanks

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Sabine Hossenfelder wrote on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 09:54 GMT
John,

An interesting essay, you are picking up many good points. You might find Homer-Dixon's book "The Upside of Down" interesting. He argues that civilizations collapse due to the inability to generate enough energy to support their high level of complexity. This is of course over-simplistic if you look at the details but I think the underlying idea has much truth to it. Best,

Sabine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 16, 2014 @ 16:22 GMT
Sabine

Thank you so much for your note. Now I see your comment “No, the major challenge,…, is to convert these ideas into action.”

I have “The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization” but have only scanned it. The same with his “Environment, Scarcity, and Violence”. I omitted a reference to them because he makes things a bit more complex than they are, in my opinion. That is why I went with Tainter. For example, I agree with Friedman that the Federal Reserve was a big mistake. I suppose he would call me a “neo-Malthusisn”. I did like his stages of denial, some of his income gap comments, and the chapter of “why don’t we face reality”. You can see examples of the latter in these essays.

All his tectonic stresses and conditions in Tainter are present today and have been for a long time. The limited space left me with commenting, “However, the collapse is a failure of the society’s organization to adapt to nature and to the changing conditions.” That is, he is only describing some of the natural conditions imposed on humanity all th time.

Let me take this opportunity to address another idea I think you are tending toward. Almost all the essays have suggestions with little chance of happening. My last comment “The barons are organizing.” suggest the required action is already happening. Look at the conditions that forced the barons to action. They are all present in the US today. Many today are already taking action toward a thing like the Magna Carta that I suggest is a new constitution. The TEA party (they want a smaller Federal Government) is becoming stronger. The secession movement is small but growing. Many are writing books and article s suggesting constitutional amendments (Friedman, M. R. Levin, R. E. Barnet, etc.). The path toward the kind of constitutional change is already happening. I hope the leaders of today are as smart as the leaders in 1787.

Bookmark and Share



James Dunn wrote on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 19:02 GMT
John,

How does corruption fit into your national organization?

Corruption is actionably defined as: unethical allocation, or

in legal consideration, illegal allocation

abuse of allocation typically involves resources and/or opportunities

Corruption acts on opportunities quickly and then entrenches itself to prevent fair access to resources and/or opportunities.

In a natural state, anyone not born into a affluent family is to be denied access to all opportunities except those that are offered to them by affluent families. This is slave labor and indenturement.

The natural tendency to fight against oppression is war.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Dunn replied on Apr. 18, 2014 @ 19:54 GMT
Iran is different than most countries that fight against oppression. Typically groups of the oppressed would start killing off the families of the oppressors. In Iran, the mafia government kills and maims families that speak against the government. Most recently, 300 young men were blinded because they spoke out against the government diverting the river to supply another city where a governor had family. The agricultural area is drying up as the river fed aquifers are emptied.

The people of Iran have been making slow, unarmed changes at great personal expense. But they have had a long history of being occupied. The British, the French, and now Saudi Arabia backed Iranian thugs.

Many billions are stolen out of the Iranian taxes, and the Government officials steal on an on-going bases. The intellectual people have learned to fight oppression through integration. The oppressed families eventually have representatives within the families of the oppressors. Fighting corruption is done from inside the oppressor's families.

Eventually, oppressors are replaced by people who want economic prosperity fostered by ethical collaboration. They want to live in a safe society, not fearing for their family's lives.

But it takes time to oust self-serving people that have low regard for anyone else, including themselves and their family.

Some are forced into corruption as a means to make changes slowly. Over time they support their family, and make incremental improvements for their country.

The Iranian people have never raised weapons against its oppressors. As a result, the government had to create a mafia militia to do its dirty work because the formal military refuses to attack its own people.

Many hundreds of thousands of Iranian people have lost their lives in fighting oppression. But this has been an alternative to war.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 02:38 GMT
James

I presume you are talking about if this essay’s suggestion is adopted. The problem is war between states that is very destructive. Note the nation constitution is not cast in stone in my mind. But I think the military command belongs in the nation (Federal) control. So the state pays the nation government to keep that military. The military is used to prevent war between states or...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



murat Asgatovich gaisin wrote on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 07:51 GMT
Dear John C Hadge,

I like the general approach to the problems of physics. I do not fully agree with the author. Nevertheless, an interesting article.

Regards,

Murat Asgatovich Gaisin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear John,

I was rereading your essay and would like to make some remarks:

Religion gives a knowledge that cannot be proven, so it is not the scientific knowledge in my opinion.

The future may not give us a "theory" of EVERYTHING but an "understanding of how everything is interconnected, which does not mean that each part has the same "formula's" .

The current society...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 19:48 GMT
WW

“Religion gives a knowledge that cannot be proven, so it is not the scientific knowledge in my opinion.”

Of course religion is not science. That is why I listed it separately in the first words of the essay. I’m not sure where you are going, but science is not really “proven” either. Hypotheses are either rejected or not rejected. Therefore, an observation may be not...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 20:57 GMT
Dear John C Hodge,

You note that "the principles that apply to physics should also apply to humanity, our social organization, and philosophy." I not only agree with this but have attempted this in my current essay, the Thermodynamics of Freedom, which I hope you will read. I have quoted you in the essay. I address the historical problem that "The citizens individual survival outlook in the larger political society is reduced." Not his physical existence so much as his existence as a free being.

In applying principles of physics to humanity you note that "The physics of the minimum action principle suggests that the political hierarchy should not duplicate actions." Don't think our government has heard of that one!

You also note: "Living together harmoniously is not the goal... Only survival and ending violent war are the goals."

I take this as one of the two basic goals I analyze, and think you will find the analysis interesting. I look forward to any comments you might have on it.

And yes, the barons are organizing.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 20:02 GMT
The following essays may be viewed as added references in the introduction of this essay:

Humans Must Help Humanity Steer Itself by Jeff Alstott Indeed, the problem is quite complex... by Israel Perez

Social Evolution Through Massively Decentralised Distributed Resilient Networks by Federico Pistono

Hodge

Bookmark and Share



Ajay Bhatla wrote on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 05:16 GMT
Dear John,

Well argued case for a nation organization.

For some reason, as I read your essay, I kept getting reminded of the growth projected in cities. Nearly 1 million people worldwide are moving to cities every week and 70% of us will be living in cities by 2050 from about 50% today. In effect, we are moving to a city-state model of economic and social design with Singapore as one example and Lagos on the other end. Does this heavy concentration impact your thoughts?

Thank you,

- Ajay

PS: I appreciate any and all comments you might have on my essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 14:40 GMT
No. The senior structure runs the military that does battle outside the political organization and enforces judgments against states. I suppose if the world becomes the nation, the military assumes a different role.

A city-state is just another state that pays taxes for representation in the national organization and must meet the challenges of survival.

What happens to the city-state in a famine? Does the nation provide relief that must come from farm states? No. The folly of such organization will then come home.

Note Detroit. Although the Federal government provided some bailout) funded by more successful states) of the auto industry, it was for naught. What a waste of resources.

Thanks for your comment. I’ll read your essay.

The science to improve the lot of the African people is available. The difficulty they face is the political organization will not allow the science to function. After a political change, other nations such as China have used available science to their advantage. Hence, Africa has starvation and war. The political change must come first. Therefore, your suggestion can be accomplished by making the necessary political changes.

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 09:57 GMT
Dear John,

Very strong and profound essay in the spirit Cartesian doubt with a particular program of action. I fully agree with your conclusion:

«If we fail to organize to preclude war and allow competition and change, humanity will fail. Humanity should steer the future by creating a true nation organization. The best state that humanity can achieve is to be able to adapt to changes without the destruction of war or of collapse. »

Let's all work together in building up a more sustainable future of Humanity and hope for the best! It's time, we start the path... The New Era and New Generation demanded action.

High regard,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 13:03 GMT
John,

It was a great pleasure to read your essay and find so many views and ideas I completely resonate with. For me it was a h jar stuffed with goodies, i.e;

Collapse due to complexity (though I suggest that's relative to intellectual power so we may also have other solutions.

Lack of knowledge/poor predictability of nature. (I show in mine that the same answer may help there too - i.e. the answers are there, most just can't yet see them).

Cosmology and Physics are inconsistent. You betcha! - as above; a specific classical interpretation of QM also emerges which may be a key to most else.

Action by contact; Your foundation seems right in line with mine (and natures of course) as also discussed in different ways the last few essays. I won't go on as you've earned a top score already! Your present score seems a travesty.

I've determined the problem is not so much the coherent science but how to get it assimilated onto neural networks with deeply embedded false assumptions. A big splash such as unifying QM and SR would help, but that's as tricky as any other. I have got a galaxy evolution sequence about to be published. Perhaps we could catch up with each others work after reading essays!

Very well done, and thank you for confirming sense still does exist under the apparent complexity. I don't think I can score at present but I've made a note. I do hope to see you on my blog.

best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 19:07 GMT
Peter

Thanks for the kind words.

What is your blog address?

Hodge

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 17:29 GMT
John,

I don't have a blog, but most papers are webarchived at Academia.edu. Some also on arXiv and viXra. My Email link is at the foot of my end notes. I greatly look forward to discussing with you further.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 17:55 GMT
Dear John,

Now that I have read your paper, I understand your perspective better. I agree with many points that you make in your paper, but there are others where I additional factors that complicate the issues.

Take, for example, your analogy between the laws of physics and the philosophy of life, by which you presumable are referring to certain rules of society. I have the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 19:07 GMT
Armin

I suggest the fundamental principles of life and physics should be the same. They are not now. But, the hope in the essay is to use life, cosmology, and the small (QM) to deduce a single set of fundamental principles. Not analogy, but literally as far as the principles go. The analogy comes when we consider the fractal suggestion. For example, the fractal suggestion concludes that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Israel Perez wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear John

I read your essay with interest. I indeed agree that some principles of physics can be applied to humanity and viceversa, but I think the language in which physics speaks is quite different from that of humanity.

At the beginning of your essay you say: science and religion cover a large range of knowledge. I wonder what kind of knowledge religion covers. I understand that there are several kinds of knowledge but I would not say that religion is about knowledge but of belief and faith. Religion is not as rational as science is. May be you have in mind another kind of knowledge for religion. Perhaps you may wish to express some comments about this.

I would like to clarify something about this statement: Birth is a rearrangement of existing matter to create a new relationship or spirit. Throughout the individual’s life, the matter and the spirit change.

From the point of view of physics, there is no such a thing called spirit. Elementary matter conforms structures, molecules, cells and, ultimately, living organisms but not spirits. For science, there is no duality matter-spirit, there is only matter-energy. A spirit is not part of science. In science, consciousness may play the role of spirit. If this is what you mean to say, please omit what I just said, otherwise, your statement is not well expressed.

Good luck in the contest!

Best Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 18:31 GMT
IP

Thanks for allowing me to reference your essay.

“…the language in which physics speaks is quite different from that of humanity.” I agree. But that is part of the problem. For example, the language of QM and Cosmology are quite different. But yet most agree the new model that corresponds to the two can be found. The definition of terms and language (math) must change, also....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Israel Perez replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 17:56 GMT
Dear John

The language of physics is mathematics because this language is the most appropriate for this science. Physics is just starting to try to explain the physics of living organism through biophysics and chemical-physics but we are still in a primitive stage. Some day in the future, perhaps, science will be able to explain life in mathematical language. This is related to your comment:

I suggest the new language may be defined with humanity in mind..

JH: the language of QM and Cosmology are quite different.

I don't understand why you say this. Cosmology is a branch of physics and QM is a physical theory that can be applied to Cosmology. That's all.

As for the knowledge issue, now I understand what you mean by religious knowledge.

BTW, it is supposed that rating should not be made public, but thanks a lot for letting me know. I appreciate it.

Good luck in the contest

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 01:11 GMT
IP

I note your essay lists lots of numbers that are measurements of the current state vector of humanity or, for my essay, the state vector of each state. But the people must measure their well-being and survival potential of each state. If there is a problem, they vote with their feet. Thus, the survival potential measure I’d like must include per capita type measures.

Let me say...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 20, 2014 @ 18:40 GMT
Hi JOhn,

Time is short, so I'm reviewing past comments for rating. You asked, "What principles unite life with physics?" We must say all in a paradoxical way. Quantum objects are pre­con­di­tions of the pos­si­bility of objects, which occupy space are com­posed of objects that do not occupy space. In my essay I allude to not actually sitting on the couch but somewhat hovering above it. We are captives of a macro and quantum world we do not fully understand, so our solutions to steering the future are at best rough guesses.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 19:19 GMT
JLH

“We are captives of a macro and quantum world we do not fully understand, so our solutions to steering the future are at best rough guesses.”

This is one of the premises of my essay. You’re correct. We don’t know and fail to predict the outcome of our actions. That any of the answers to the contest question may result is a positive development for the survival of humanity is totally unknown.

Hodge

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on May. 24, 2014 @ 22:07 GMT
Hi John,

You conclusion: "Humanity should steer the future by creating a true nation organization. The best state that humanity can achieve is to be able to adapt to changes without the destruction of war or of collapse."

Spot on. And so obvious and well presented.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 14:14 GMT
Thanks.

Hodge

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 13:49 GMT
John,

I hope you managed to read my essay and perhaps followed up the link you asked for above. You'll find a far more consistent description and interpretation than much of the current incoherent stuff. The key is uniting QM and classical physics, which my essay shows how. I can't remember you commenting yet but apologies if you have.

I think both ours are undervalued and are worth high scores let me now if you agree, or ask questions. It seems scientists need to learn how to "adapt to change", which is a very sad comment on a subject which is all about 'advancement'!

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John C Hodge replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 14:13 GMT
I tried before and again now.

After trying to downloading a paper I get “sorry something went wrong”

However, I see you are looking at the EPR paradox. My model avoids it because of the nature of the plenum.

Hodge

Bookmark and Share


Author John C Hodge replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 15:32 GMT
Surprise.

I finally got registered. I see your photos and papers.

Which should I read to discover your DFM is a short description?

I’m currently modeling light (photons) doing diffraction and interference things.

Hodge

Bookmark and Share


Author John C Hodge replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 15:45 GMT
OOps.

When I try to view "A CYCLIC MODEL OF GALAXY EVOLUTION WITH BARS" I get "Sorry, this document isn't available for viewing at this time."

Hodge

Bookmark and Share



Judy Nabb wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 00:46 GMT
John,

I agree in all general terms with your viewpoints and ideas. It's also an interesting solution you propose. I believe your score should be higher so will assist. You may also like my short review of the touchy but critical subject of eugenics, but conclusion that changing our way of thinking, which needs different educations, is the key.

Judy

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 02:56 GMT
Dear John,

I noted that we have similar background. We are realist and pragmatist with dreams and rational optimist outlook. We may not agree in method and solution but we seem to agree with our goal. Similarly, I hate wars. I hate violent conflicts. I like discussion of ideas and peaceful and compromised solution. I share deeply your mission: "Only survival and ending violent war are the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


KoGuan Leo wrote on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 02:58 GMT
Dear John,

I noted that we have similar background. We are realist and pragmatist with dreams and rational optimist outlook. We may not agree in method and solution but we seem to agree with our goal. Similarly, I hate wars. I hate violent conflicts. I like discussion of ideas and peaceful and compromised solution. I share deeply your mission: "Only survival and ending violent war are the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Douglas Alexander Singleton wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 05:14 GMT
Hi John,

I had your essay on my "to-read" list for some time but am only now getting to some of the essays I promised to read and also wanted to read.

From my reading of your essay I think we agree broadly on the idea that adopting a "trial-and-error method" as you phrase it (or in terms of the path integral metaphor that I use in my essay). Also you use several of Jared Diamond books to amplify or illustrate your points. I also admire Diamond's books.

Anyway I liked your essay very much. Best of luck.

Doug

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.