CATEGORY:
Blog
[back]
TOPIC:
How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 04:51 GMT
Greetings all -- Just a quick announcement to say our current
essay contest -- How Should Humanity Steer the Future? -- is closed for entries as of now. We are currently reviewing all the great entries that arrived in the past few days, so expect to see new essays continuously posted over the next week. Enjoy!
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
David Brown wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 11:41 GMT
Consider the question "How should humanity steer the future?" — there might be profound issues of ontology and deontology incorporated into the question. If nature is fundamentally deterministic, then the question might be equivalent to "How can plankton swim against the ocean currents?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F65n-C7MheU Superstring and the foundation of quantum mechanics by Gerard 't Hooft, 2013
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 06:00 GMT
The how-question already implies the non-fatalistic view which I consider the reasonable in physics too: The past cannot be steered. Since modern theory might see this outdated, it has been inadequate. Roger Schlafly's essay points to the problem but doesn't provide an acceptable answer to the question. An essay that largely denies steering might be attractive to theorists and those who hope for escaping their responsibility. I see Alfred Nobel's attitude more human and Nobel laureates obliged to not just feel proud like winners of a prestigious competition.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 01:12 GMT
Just reflecting upon extinction scenarios. From the fatalist view, everything that can be done, will be done, and if extinction occurs then it is a matter of natural consequence.
However, if the view of fatalism creates a sense of expectation in a non-deterministic physical environment, then the act of considering fatalism is unethical.
If non-deterministic considerations create a sense of expectation for influencing the outcome, and in fact we cannot, then the consideration is not unethical because no negative consequence occurred.
From a physics point of view, if physics exists within a closed system, this does not necessarily mean a deterministic environment. Some states can feasibly made to not occur, ever. Or occur, less often. Even in a deterministic model, logic processes outside of relativity may influence observable physics.
Therefore, "How to steer the future" is a valid question from these perspectives.
I would think fatalism is more likely a sub-set and/or super-set of physics, depending upon the systems being considered.
Based upon Axiom of Choice being a fundamental foundation of logic (math..) then if physics is anything different then other forms of relating to physics will need to be considered and neither fatalism nor non-deterministic considerations will be completely valid by themselves.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 15:03 GMT
Common sense tells me that the notion absolutely closed system belongs to an abstract model rather than to something real. Common sense tells me also that AC was fabricated by Ernst Zermelo as to rescue Georg Gantor's naive set theory and it seems still to be controversial.
Admittedly, I am distinguishing between causality and determinism. I consider the latter the illusory belief that anything can be represented by a system of physical laws. My objection is based on feeling responsible and on common sense: Dreaming of the possibility to calculate or model anything is certainly insane, at least to me. A while ago I argued that just the initial values are unknown. Meanwhile my uncertified common sense tells me, block time and parallel worlds are inappropriate models. Invention of dynamite did steer.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 23:33 GMT
The physical reality we observe is both dependable and regular. I think that it is NOT an "illusory belief that anything can be represented by a system of physical laws" - surely there is too much evidence of physical laws and the regularity of nature to just throw laws out?
But reality ALSO involves real creativity i.e. the new.
I don't mean a physical outcome that just appears on the surface to be new e.g. because of complexity, but underneath surface appearances is actually entirely the result of old pre-existing deterministic law-of-nature rules.
What I mean by "new" is something truly new: a new law-of-nature rule; a new unpredictable to observers, but non-random, physical outcome; a new injection of information into the universe.
Where the models of physics are wrong is where physics has assumed that nothing truly new ever happens in the universe; but if something truly new DOES happen, then it is just a purely random outcome. As they stand, the models of physics cannot cope with a creative universe.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 00:19 GMT
Hi Lorainne,
The models need to be put within an explanatory framework where each has its place and they can function without contradiction or paradox. I have just put the diagram of the explanatory framework on my essay discussion thread. Quantum observations are made over many iterations of the Object universe giving a statistical viewpoint and theoretical wave function collapse or decoherence is a switching from one model of reality, the statistical view to another as the observer creates an image reality from received data. Relativity and space time relate to The Image reality created from received data not the material world made of atoms.Classical mechanics is, I think, modelling what happens over a sequence of iterations of the Object universe. As it involves things happening in space and passage of time.
The Object-universe has only one configuration at uni-temporal Now, there is no temporal spread, no time dimension, to it as its new form is made out of the old. The time line spanning the iterations is imaginary. The Object universe can be truly creative by reiteration of simple mathematical processes, rotation, translation, scaling transformation, folding, bringing together and pulling apart of matter. As can be seen in the chaos of weather systems and the embrogenesis of living organisms
Building unimaginable shapes - Michael Hansmeyer I think that is a wonderful video. The forms are so natural looking but also like nothing else. Just from simple reiteration of algorithms.It would be even better if the material versions could be grown rather than having to painstakingly print them. He was inspired by cell division.I had thought about folding, like origami, as a natural process and have seen it in embryogenesis but didn't imagine how just simple reiteration could form such wonderful things. That's not random.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 00:22 GMT
That Anonymous was me, Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 00:21 GMT
But Georgina,
how do you account for free will/free choice/genuine creativity/the genuinely new occurring as a natural part of the universe???
If "free will" is the result of deterministic processes, then clearly it is not free will. Free will is not just about deterministic processes that are so complex that no one can predict the outcome, and so its called "free will". That is a type of self-deception.
According to Oxford Dictionaries, "free will" is "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate". Free will is surely about something genuinely new and creative occurring.
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 01:30 GMT
The scientific community talks about free will because from its perspective we are all just machines that do "stuff". Why is it that science never talk about what the observer is experiencing? Science can't even figure out how to make an observer. When it is suggested that the observer is a spirit that is encased in the brain, there is not even a intelligent response to this; only some giggles and a general scoff, and desire to move onto something more physical.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 02:03 GMT
Jason,
there is no "spirit"/information/experience/consciousness separate from physical reality. Information is physical, "the physical" is information. And information is subjective experience/consciousness.
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 03:23 GMT
Loraine,
Then why are there so many reports of hauntings and activity by ghosts (and other things)? Why are there hauntings that result in attacks by invisible entities including scratching, biting, being shoved down stairs?
Your position that such things don't exist is entirely prejudice and is not backed up by a shred of evidence. Sorry. :(
Jason
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 05:08 GMT
The truth is that we all have souls and that the evolutionary biology explanation of how this is possible is very straightforward. Beyond that, there are millions of observers of spirits who are willing to talk about their experiences; and there are billions of observers who are afraid to or dismiss their experiences as imagination, nerves, tiredness or just forget the experience happened because such experiences violate their beliefs or could threaten their career. There are probably a majority of physicists who have experienced the paranormal, most of whom wouldn't dare talk about it.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 05:27 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
I think human experience of free will is in large part self delusion. Just watching the illusionist Derren Brown at work it is easy to see how easily ideas can be implanted in our subconscious minds that we take to be our own original ideas.
Derren Brown Advertising agency task We take in and use far more information than our conscious mind is made aware of, to avoid overload. We recognize only the filtered input passed on and imagine ideas that do not seem to have had an external origin to be our own creations.I also think that biochemistry has a lot to do with behaviour again we may think and feel that we are expressing freewill but the biochemistry is "pulling the strings" Alter the neurotransmitter balance and a different behaviour will be expressed. Having said that I do not believe in fate or that the material future is already written. Partly because of chaos, a small change can have very large consequences. There are also balance points where the direction taken may depend on the slightest input pushing or pulling in one direction out of many. (Sometimes making those thank goodness or if only situations.)Also just trying something new and seeing what happens may produce something new and unexpected and original, or not.I think that ties in with Jonathan Dickau's essay, arguing that play should be valued.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 08:17 GMT
Hi Georgina,
re "I do not believe in fate or that the material future is already written. Partly because of chaos, a small change can have very large consequences.":
But if that "small change" is itself the result of complex deterministic processes, and everything else is a complex deterministic process, then surely the rest IS fate, and the future IS already written?
The same goes for "balance points where the direction taken may depend on the slightest input pushing or pulling in one direction out of many." and "trying something new" if these are also the result of deterministic processes.
That why I contend that if there is no fate and the future is not already written, and the future is not the result of random processes, then the nature of reality must be such that it allows something new/creative and non-deterministic to be input into the universe.
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 08:58 GMT
How is it that you cannot see your free will from the point of view of inside? Your physical body is a collection of eigenstates. Before you, there are many paths that you can take, some are easy to get to, and some are hard to get to. It is always your choice, even if the way is hard, even if the right path is a path of suffering.
It is your spirit that chooses which path to take, even if you have to think about it.
In any event, you should all be aware that determinism is undermined by quantum mechanics. Any physicists that insists that determinism is the ultimate truth, ... is deluded.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 21:58 GMT
Lorraine,
I distinguished between causality and determinism, and I spoke of my free will.
Let me maintain: Determinism is the wrong belief that anything is already written in advance as Georgina formulated it. Not written means in principle not calculable by means of the fundamental laws of nature. My point is: The world must be considered open to indefinitely much of not completely known influences. These uncountable influences are not creations but just something that we cannot and will therefore never completely comprehend in detail.
Has a mechanism for random output have free will? No in the sense that will is only ascribed to brains of animals. Yes in the sense that its purpose is to deliver something that cannot be predicted. In any case, I am trusting in causality which means, I don't believe in something supra-natural.
If you argue: "the nature of reality must be such that it allows something new/creative and non-deterministic to be input into the universe" then you consider the universe closed in the sense that something may exist and come from outside of it. I see this religious construct unfounded.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 22:42 GMT
Lorraine,
A change in the relationships of the components of a system can create new inputs to the 'evolution' of the system giving a hitherto unobserved output. New, unpredictable. Yes ultimately what output is observed will depend on the exact relationships of all of the particles constituting the Object universe over time but it is so complex and uncomputable, with so many variables, that it may as well be regarded as non deterministic.
Consider the consequences of genetic damage caused by a gamma ray. Whether or not cancer develops is regarded as random. One can not say with certainty whether the gamma ray will cause cancer or not. It depends where in the genetic code it hits and whether or not the body can carry out repair of the damage, which depends no doubt upon the health of the person, which depends upon factors such as age and lifestyle, which is full of a host variables any one of which might make the difference. No one can say what made the difference, maybe it was that row with his auntie. It is not deterministic, as in you have been damaged by a gamma ray you will get cancer.
I have read about the unexpected survival(or good health) of rabbits fed an extremely unhealthy diet, attributable to the preferential petting and attention they received from the animal handler.So health was not
determined by diet but overall well being. Stress relieve counteracting the negative effects of bad diet.I have had a quick look but have not found the reference.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 02:52 GMT
Lorraine,
There can be affects from the large scale to the small and vice versa, as seen in weather and climate systems and also from simplicity to complexity and vice versa. Which complicates matters further as one must consider how parts act together in particular arrangements. Here's a thought:
Perhaps the determinism of the small scale is undone by the determinism of the lager scale (eg. tornado) and vice versa (eg. butterfly effect) and so also with the scales in between. The determinism of the complex might be undermined by the determinism of the simple, (eg. spanner in the works) or vice versa (eg. the computer operated machine, or man, shaping the wood) So rather than a simple deterministic model there can be battles for control not just within but across scales and levels of complexity. Can that multi layer multi level maze of complexity still be regarded as deterministic?
I suspect there is an element of relativity here because how the system is regarded affects how one thinks the control or determinism is occurring. Then there is information. Information though carried by some kind of physical agent or medium is not just the thing that carries it. That information can cause change to occur. I might, despite my biochemical led propensity to do something, change my mind when I receive some information.New behaviour, depending upon what information. A change in the information carried by a control region of the genetic code might result in drastically altered morphology of the resultant organism. Something new.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 13:57 GMT
Eckard,
There is nothing outside the universe - I am not talking about a "religious construct".
As I have tried to describe in my essay this year, if new law-of-nature rules were somehow created once WITHIN THE UNIVERSE at the foundations of the universe, then it is not unreasonable to think that the nature of the universe is such that it can continue to create things similar to law-of-nature rules.
You have to consider what ARE law-of-nature rules? (Have you noticed that nobody seems to have any idea what they are?) And if law-of-nature rules exist WITHIN the physical universe, what does this imply about the nature of reality? Laws-of-nature are certainly not some magical platonic entities pulling the strings from outside the universe: nothing exists outside the universe.
As I tried to explain in my essay last year, I consider that law-of-nature rules are similar to physical outcomes in that they are both (what I call) information category relationships. So I consider that the creation of some physical outcomes can be similar to the creation of temporary laws-of-nature. Free will/free choice is simply the creation of such a type of physical outcome (seemingly from a window of possible outcomes).
I think it is pointless to split hairs about causality and determinism, and whether anything actually is "already written in advance", and whether or not you know about all the factors that contribute to a deterministic physical outcome so that the outcome is "not calculable", and so you FEEL like you have free will when the truth is you don't really have any free will at all. You might think that deceiving yourself about the truth doesn't matter. Well I think the truth DOES matter: either you are a pawn being "steered" BY a deterministic law-of-nature mechanism, OR you, as an entirely natural element of the universe, are creating an outcome in an entirely natural way.
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 16:21 GMT
Georgina,
I appreciate what you are saying, but I can't agree with you. The "scales and levels of complexity" make no difference at all to the true nature of the situation: it merely alters surface appearances, giving the superficial appearance of "something new" happening. I think you can't say that the system "may as well be regarded as non deterministic" if in fact the system IS deterministic.
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 19:43 GMT
I am surprised that nobody can see how free will is similar to the two slit experiment. In the two slit experiment, the photons or electrons have free will to land anywhere on the back plane. That's like having free will. But over the course of many hundreds or thousands of photons/electrons hitting the backward, the overall effect looks deterministic.
But since you are all ignoring what "mind readers...ghost hunters and spiritualists" have to say, you will fail to see how your freewill is related to deterministic physics equations.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 21:28 GMT
The scientific community is clearly ill equipped to understand free-will or determinism. You can't even understand consciousness. You who think there are no spirits and no afterlife are the least reliable to make that claim. Scientism dogma prevents you from even pondering if quantum field lifeforms exist. And all your logic is based upon statistical averages and "protect your reputation". There could easily be quantum field lifeforms that we call "ghosts", but you intellectuals would have your reputations destroyed by even discussing it. The scientific community is blind to half of reality.
The fact that you won't debate me means that you can't debate me.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 03:20 GMT
You wrote I think you can't say that the system "may as well be regarded as non deterministic" if in fact the system IS deterministic.And I think you are right but do you or I know the system is deterministic? No. How about this argument?
Necessary but insufficient causation from Wikipedia, Indeterminism
Quote: "Indeterminists do not have to deny that causes exist. Instead, they can maintain that the only causes that exist are of a type that do not constrain the future to a single course; for instance, they can maintain that only necessary and not sufficient causes exist. The necessary/sufficient distinction works as follows; If x is a necessary cause of y; then the presence of y necessarily implies that x preceded it. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur. If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x.
As Daniel Dennett points out in Freedom Evolves, it is possible for everything to have a necessary cause, even while indeterminism holds and the future is open, because a necessary cause does not lead to a single inevitable effect. Thus "everything has a cause" is not a clear statement of determinism." End Quote. See necessity and sufficiency for further information.
Interesting also:Aristotle from Wikipedia. Indeterminism
Quote "The first major philosopher to argue convincingly for some indeterminism was probably Aristotle. He described four possible causes (material, efficient, formal, and final). Aristotle's word for these causes.... translates as causes in the sense of the multiple factors responsible for an event. Aristotle did not subscribe to the simplistic "every event has a (single) cause" idea that was to come later." End quote
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 08:17 GMT
Anonymous May. 4, 2014 @ 03:20 GMT was me
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 08:49 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
Found this
Total Perspective Vortex "Since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation - every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake.............." Douglas Adams : )
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 10:27 GMT
Lorraine said, "There is nothing outside the universe - I am not talking about a "religious construct".
As I have tried to describe in my essay this year, if new law-of-nature rules were somehow created once WITHIN THE UNIVERSE at the foundations of the universe, then it is not unreasonable to think that the nature of the universe is such that it can continue to create things similar to law-of-nature rules. "
That is unsound reasoning. First of all, you need something to pre-exist before the big bang. You either need a quantum vacuum so that the universe can explode into existence from a quantum fluctuation, or you need a God to create the universe. Personally, I prefer to say that you had both. You had a pre-existing quantum vacuum which is more like an aether or a misty spiritual existence. Then you had a powerful being, like God, create the laws of physics which resulted in the big bang.
It's easy to argue that something existed before the big bang and consequently that it still exists beyond the boundaries of the physical universe.
As for laws recreating themselves, I am not aware of any evidence that they do create things similar to law-of-nature rules.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 11:05 GMT
Jason,
I am ready to discuss but despite knowing so much about ghosts I asked you before whether ghosts eat, drink, sleep and walk around like humans but you said you did not know and I commend your honest reply.
Now, you said, "...you need something to pre-exist before the big bang" and I have some questions for you-
For how long was the 'something', either quantum vacuum or a powerful being like God existing before it decided to create the laws of physics? Before, the laws of physics were created, what laws were operational? Can the universe come to an end, and if so what laws of physics and what something, if any will post-exist the universe? Were there ghosts before the big bang or they came after? Apart from TV and comics, have you personally seen, heard the voice or been slapped by a ghost before? Did you exchange conversation? How will you differentiate this from auditory or visual hallucination?
Sorry I am a skeptic but I am hoping to learn from you.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 15:06 GMT
Hi Georgina,
Re "Indeterminists do not have to deny that causes exist...the presence of y does not imply the presence of x":
Philosophy gets away with a lot of nonsense.
The problem is philosophers' definition of determinism (and thereby indeterminism): "Determinism is the philosophical movement that for every event, including human action, exist conditions that could cause no other event" (Wikipedia). This ridiculous definition is guaranteed to cause endless convoluted philosophical discussion and confusion.
The correct way to look at determinism is to say that in a deterministic universe only one physical outcome is possible for each next moment in time. So that if the system is deterministic, choice (by a subject) is impossible.
I think that we live in a universe where more than one physical outcome is possible for each next moment in time, and where subjects can choose/create physical outcomes.
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 20:12 GMT
Hi Akinbo Ojo,
This is what I can tell you. I am very certain that Higgs fields, gravity fields and other kinds of fields exist. I am very certain that the building blocks of reality are particles and fields. Things like dark matter, wave-functions and the two slit experiment are further evidence that invisible and undetectable things can exist.
I am very certain that a universe with laws of physics and physics constants cannot pop into existence from true nothingness. It would be irrational to think that it could. It makes a great deal more sense that there are quantum fields that we know nothing about that existed before the big bang and probably exist today. Maybe these unknown quantum fields are describable with M-theory, who knows.
I witnessed a black cloaked entity, the same one that my mom and her friend were trying to contact with a seance. I have not experienced anything like that since. Ghosts/spirits/souls would have existed whether the big bang happened or not. As for being a skeptic, I am sorry to say that ghosts and spirits are also observers, they see what they see and remember whatever they remember; they exist beyond science's ability to prove at this time. Now if a bunch of scientists were to march down to the local cemetery or attempt to communicate with spirits, who knows?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 20:13 GMT
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 23:30 GMT
Hi Lorraine,
though you dislike the definition from Wikipedia , your response shows that the two views are compatible.
Wikipedia: "
Indeterminists do not have to deny that causes exist. Instead, they can maintain that the only causes that exist are of a type that
do not constrain the future to a single course" My emphasis.
I don't know why it says only of that type. I don't know why there can't be causes that can give only one outcome
and causes that do not have only one possible outcome.
Lorraine:"The correct way to look at
determinism is to say that in a deterministic universe
only one physical outcome is possible for each next moment in time. So that if the system is deterministic, choice (by a subject) is impossible." My emphasis.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 16:50 GMT
Hi Georgina,
I'm trying to explain what I think is wrong with "Indeterminism":
The indeterminist idea that "the only causes that exist are of a type that do not constrain the future to a single course" is not specific enough: it fails to note that MOST parameters of physical events/outcomes ARE fully constrained by laws-of-nature. If there IS an opening for choice, then it is a small one: clearly if every parameter was unconstrained by laws-of-nature then ordinary reality would be bizarre and unpredictable.
Also I think the idea of "causes" is also not specific enough. In physical reality there are seemingly only 3 causal factors of a consequential event(s): the parameters of the causal events; laws-of-nature; and maybe, if free will exists, the limited choice/creation of some parameters of the consequential event(s).
Also, the parameters of physical events are seemingly interconnected into a network of complex law-of-nature relationships. Talking about "necessary causes" or "sufficient causes" says nothing about the actual nature of reality. The important point is whether this whole complex network has only one possible physical outcome or not. If there is only one possible outcome then reality is deterministic.
I think indeterministic /"indeterminism" is a meaningless term. If reality is not deterministic, then seemingly there is an opening where there is more than one possible value for one or more parameters of the consequential event AND the subject of the event chooses/creates some parameters of the consequential event.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 23:44 GMT
Considering the ejaculation of great ideas generated from this forum, is it possible to wrapped it up with a communique and made available to relevant institutions? Other comments are being reserved for now!
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 9, 2014 @ 20:44 GMT
Words of wisdom!
Counting the articles so far accepted, they are more than 150 in all. I believe all these essays have been duly assessed before published. The only way to make this forum warm, dynamic and lively is by creating time to survey this great work. It cost each author time, energy and perhaps resources before submitting one. The only way to acknowledge such labour is just to visit one essay at a time and leave a comment. If we cannot go through all because of time, at least we can reciprocate by reading essay authors that comments on your wall (thread). Of course, comments should be mature and devoid of any bias as the rule of the game permits. This will make this forum more warm and interesting. Let’s leave rewards and accolades in the hands of the convener/producer of “How humanity should steer the future”.
Let’s keep it warm!
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 02:17 GMT
I find it curious that a fair number of people have entered this contest, but don't respond to comments. I can possibly understand it in the context of the other contests, where it was more of a direct competition of ideas, but the premise of this one is to propose a course for humanity and that means communicating with and motivating a group of people. So it is not as though the premise is simply to be he chosen winner, especially since it was made fairly clear members of FQXI are reserved for most of those awards. Yes, some of those non-responders are simply FQXI members operating on that obscured level, but it seems a fair number are not. Where is that necessary sense of communication? I can certainly understand a lot of reasons to have limited communication, from basic lack of time, or simply not having the emotional commitment to really unwrap what someone else is saying, given the wide range of experiences brought to this competition, but those who don't even respond to comments on their own threads seem to have lost the premise of the question.
Regards,
John Meryman
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 09:45 GMT
John,
There is an African proverb that when you bring home insects from your farm you have indirectly invited lizards and wall geckos to dinner. What do you expect? This is supposed to be a forum for Natural Philosophy, (old name for Physics). This house that Aristotle, Plato, Newton, Leibniz, Einstein, etc built as a legacy for us is no longer so. First, we invited mathematicians to dinner, well we may excuse that. Next, we invited computer scientists (It from Bit), then we invited psychologists and mind readers (to discuss consciousness), then ghost hunters and spiritualists joined, now is the turn of astrologers, palm readers, fortune tellers and environmental conservationists (to see the future). Now I see 'how does beauty color the universe' by Roger Penrose as a video (I have not watched yet but I hope cosmetologists and beauty therapists have not entered the room. Roger, by the way is one of the few that may save our physics because I have read his book, The Emperor's New Mind). Perhaps this is all deliberate, since Pentcho claims somewhere that the high priests are now abandoning a sinking ship. In all these the noise is so much that we, the natural philosophers, can no longer hear each other on what is dear to some of us, which is to continue and complete the work of our predecessors mentioned above. This is not to say a few of the essays are not interesting.
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 15:19 GMT
Akinbo,
While I agree the topic invites a broad spectrum of views and we probably have to accept this, it does bother me that 1) Some people don't participate, after going to the effort of submitting an essay.
And on a conceptual level, it does seem many of these entries are out of 20th century science fiction. We haven't been back to the moon in forty years and how many of these entries are going on about populating the universe and moving off the planet after we have finished trashing it!!!! Do these people even bother to go out side and look up at the sky and really appreciate just how far away everything is and how little there is that we can actually work with? The point I raise, that we have a financial system which effectively acts like a hydraulic pump to siphon value out of virtually everything and the end result is a pile of promises to ourselves, is effectively destroying the environment, you would think that would be apparent as something which must be dealt with, but only one other entry,
by Stefan Weckbach, even brings it up. Given we are about to have history's biggest debt bubble burst, there is even a logical opportunity to address the issue, yet even the mechanical engineers can't seem to see the dynamic. I have to say I am disappointed.
The fact is that the one thing we really have accomplished is creating this effectively planet wide neural network of the internet. Yet what good is a planetary mind, if we effectively destroy the planetary body?
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 00:43 GMT
"mind readers...ghost hunters and spiritualists joined, now is the turn of astrologers, palm readers, fortune tellers ...I have not watched yet but I hope cosmetologists and beauty therapists have not entered the room"
Good post Akinbo, I had to laugh!
John,
I think you are so right: "it does seem many of these entries are out of 20th century science fiction. We haven't been back to the moon in forty years and how many of these entries are going on about populating the universe and moving off the planet after we have finished trashing it!!!!"
And good point about the financial system too.
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 15:56 GMT
John,
I also brought up the economic egoism in
my essayWilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
James Dunn wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 09:03 GMT
John Meryman,
Regarding: why people do not respond to comments
There will be I'm sure one or more people that create a number of entries under alternative email addresses so that they have more essay writer votes than others. Using their many available votes to vote for one or a couple of their own many submissions. The actual value of such submissions is only for the purpose of gaining an extra vote.
They will have no real interest in defending a topic they have no real interest. They are just biding their time until rating submission closes and will saturate their real essay submission to skew legitimate voting.
Hopefully, the judges will be able to recognize comment inconsistencies and the "real" value of the content of submissions, to provide an overall representative rating of "worth".
Corruption = Unethical Allocation of resources and/or opportunities
in legal scenarios
Corruption = Illegal Allocation of resources and/or opportunities
What can be done to fight related corruption? Make comments so that judges can more easily spot the value of an essay and as easily spot stuffing the ballot box.
I don't know that this is being done. But if I can imagine it, I'm sure other's can as well.
report post as inappropriate
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 23:07 GMT
Dear James,
I really share your opinion. I wish the game of manipulations can be avoided in this competition and the the subsequent ones? My opinion is to make all the earlier entries unavoidable to the new authors until the closing date. I see a lot of copings and re-modellings which do not allow fresh ideas but re-circulation of information and ideas. I fore see a better forum if this can be done!
The competition to my human evaluation should provide the stakeholders of this forum a strategic plan on "How Humanity should steer his future". What an innovative topic!
Regards
Gbenga
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 7, 2014 @ 05:03 GMT
Evaluation criteria from the Contest Information page."...general readers strongly encouraged) to rate the entries by the degree to which they are relevant and interesting, as more specifically described below, with 1/3 weight given to relevancy and 2/3 weight given to interest."
Relevant 1/3 rating
"In this contest we ask how humanity should attempt to steer its own course in light of the radically different modes of thought and fundamentally new technologies that are becoming relevant in the coming decades."
"(Note: While this topic is broad, successful essays will not use this breadth as an excuse to shoehorn in the author's pet topic, but will rather keep as their central focus the theme of how humanity should steer the future.)"
"Additionally, to be consonant with FQXi's scope and goals, essays should be sure to touch on issues in physics and cosmology, or closed related fields, such as astrophysics, biophysics, mathematics, complexity and emergence, and the philosophy of physics."
Interesting 2/3 rating
" * Original and Creative:* Technically correct and rigorously argued,
to the degree of a published work or grant proposal.* Well and clearly written, so that it is comprehensible and enjoyable to read. *Accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience."
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 09:15 GMT
Eckard Blumschein,
I do not share your belief that nothing can be accurately modeled, with absolute precision. We cannot at present, however in the future quantum computing and the potential to couple the quantum computing states with our universe (part of the universe) may allow for absolute precision.
My own initial treatise of
Axiom of Choice extended to include Relativity
http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0041v1.pdf
However, recognized is the potential for an infinite, or extremely larger space of causality than what is needed for our universe. The many-universe considerations. Where our systems of causality are non-relativistic in reference and we float about as an aliased evolving part of something much larger. Influenced by other segments. Yet still it is feasible to model physics exactly, even though we cannot.
Back to deterministic versus fatalism. These are neither the full space to consider, and they both can occur concurrently in a state of states.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 09:37 GMT
John Meryman,
quote: Yet what good is a planetary mind, if we effectively destroy the planetary body?
I fully agree, and the point of my essay. Teaching people to think broadly and "be able" to consider long term consequences of proposed actions.
What good does it do to introduce "technology" into a sensitive eco-system, that will increase the local human population for no reason other than stripping resources. Or in the case of oil/mining companies and wars, stealing resources.
Presently, increasing human populations decreases the diversity of life. Our activities make it impossible for other species of plants, animals, and microbes to survive. Diversity of microbes makes it harder for destructive pathogens that evolve to broadly propagate.
What are the likely consequences of global short-sighted behaviors?
Exhausting resources (already happening)
Planetary extinction of most species (in-progress)
Small groups that dominate over everyone else (already happened)
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 10:26 GMT
Lorraine,
quote: If "free will" is the result of deterministic processes, then clearly it is not free will. Free will is not just about deterministic processes that are so complex that no one can predict the outcome, and so its called "free will". That is a type of self-deception.
Just musing
If we live as part of an infinite non-deterministic system of causality. Then our...
view entire post
Lorraine,
quote: If "free will" is the result of deterministic processes, then clearly it is not free will. Free will is not just about deterministic processes that are so complex that no one can predict the outcome, and so its called "free will". That is a type of self-deception.
Just musing
If we live as part of an infinite non-deterministic system of causality. Then our universe is a sub-state of that infinitely larger system. To singularly exist makes little sense. So likely there are infinitely more node of other universes that are of different dimensional states many more than our own. But infinity means there are an infinite number of similar universes that are close to ours. An infinite number where we each make every alternate decision and live with the consequences. And an infinite number of universes that are exactly the same as ours.
In this scenario systems evolve. Repeated Big Bangs as universes slip into other dimensional states to maintain consistency with entropy (proceeding from one set of states to another). So in this system there is no free will, but no one knows the difference. Because of the infinite space, we have an infinite number of exact replicas. We live eternally in an infinite number of universes, concurrently making every alternative decision.
Free Will is both fatalist and non-deterministic at the same time.
Now let's consider a finite closed set of causality that only supports our universe. Non-relative causality cannot be directly observed. Everything that is observable is relative and evolving. At fundamental considerations try to find a contradiction. Photon's en-route do not evolve and have no entropy. Photons travelling billions of years across the universe are stable; and cannot be seen. Mass has entropy, and can be seen. Quantum Entanglement is only observable indirectly. This is more complex but just citing generalities for discussion.
So a finite universe has both non-relativistic and relativistic components. A causal system of states that evolve transforms, but does NOT end. A perpetual engine.
Time is modeled in this system as quantum step events that evolve.
Space is modeled as quantum step events that do not evolve.
So space/time or m/s are moderated ratios that form momentum, force, energy, power, and every other observable consideration. QESdunn
This may not be how cosmology actually is, it is just the model I am working with at present.
So in this system of observable and non-observable causality are the physics constants that moderate the systems of subatomic particles. The subatomic particles have dominance over most observable macroscopic interactions, but non-relativistic influences still have some influence as "noise".
Nothing observable is exact except when considering probability. Which is why quantum mechanics in its present state has self-limiting use. Differing systems of causality are hidden (grouped together) in probability and error analysis.
So in this closed system of causality, some but not everything evolves as indicated by entropy and photons en-route, then eventually physics constants will no longer dominate aliasing of our subatomic particles and related observable fields. At this point our causal system slips into another dimensional state and the next Big Bang occurs forming a new system of relativity; different than ours.
This happens over and over, with almost inconceivable numbers of different dimensional spaces evolving. But eventually, our physics constants (singularities) are exactly as before. However, our galaxy does not exist the majority of times our physics constants are repeated. But eventually, a Big Bang forms our galaxy, but the Earth does not exist in the majority of times our galaxy forms. But eventually the Earth is formed, but the majority of times humans do not evolve, but eventually they do. Eventually, through extraordinarily large numbers of Big Bangs humans evolve and with each vast numbers of cycling of Big Bangs, humans come to experience every alternate decision that is possible and lives with the consequences. Eventually, after untold numbers of Big Bangs, every subatomic particle in the universe repeats exactly. Then depending upon non-relativistic causality, the whole broader cycle repeats.
So we have no Free Will from a deterministic point of view, but that we ultimately make every potential alternate decision, all of us, and every intelligence everywhere in our relativistic universe, then we have expressed free will in that we have made every alternate decision.
Because we repeat, we live eternally.
Such are my thoughts on the subject of Free Will. Free Will exists concurrently with lack of Free Will. A non-deterministic universe exists concurrently with a fatalist universe.
.
.
.
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 17:21 GMT
I agree with James Dunn when he says, "Free Will exists concurrently with lack of Free Will. A non-deterministic universe exists concurrently with a fatalist universe." This whole "free will is an illusion" idea can be falsified any time someone is willing to be unpredictable. In fact, the whole concept of determinism is awkward. Determinism is a statistical average.
Determinism is a statistical average. But instantaneously, you can do whatever you like.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 18:22 GMT
James,
I keep making a point about time, that its not the point of the present traveling some vector from a determined past into a probabilistic future, but the process by which future becomes past. For example, tomorrow becomes yesterday because the world turns.
The perception of the present moving along this narrative vector is an effect of the fact we are single points of perception and so experience change as a sequence of events. Much as we do see the sun moving across the sky, since we exist as a point of observation on this spinning planet.
So probability precedes actuality. Before the race, there are ten potential winners, but after it, only one actual winner. The problem is when we think of it as this process of proceeding from a determined past into a probabilistic future, we either think the future must in fact already be determined, since everything exists on its currently determined trajectory and only one outcome will result from all the possibilities. Or we think it's all fundamentally probable and so the past remains probabilistic, but just branching out into multiple versions of everything that can happen.
While the function creating events condenses all possible outcomes into one result and thus determine it, the input into that equation only happens with the occurrence of the event. The input can't compute before it occurs. That's why the future remains probable, while the past has been determined.
As for free will, to will is to determine. We are one of the factors in the equation. We weigh all possibilities and then chose a course. That event then recedes into the past as the physical dynamic of what exists continues to produce succeeding events. The present doesn't move, rather the events occur.
As for what nature does, she likes blowing up big bubbles and popping them. We have been given the task of minimizing the collapse of our particular bubble. Life is not worth living without challenges.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 22:22 GMT
And now just to update -- all entries are processed, and the complete list of contenders is online. There's lots to read and think about, so have at it.
John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 3, 2014 @ 16:56 GMT
I just tried rating an entry and it didn't go through. I also noticed someone made a comment in one of the essay threads that their effort to rate failed.
Heads up?
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 21:11 GMT
I believe those entries were disqualified. I had the same em-passe, but one work was not original and was a re-submission from a past competition. So I assumed they were removed from rating.
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 23:22 GMT
I renege my last assessment. I am not able to vote on any essay either.
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 12:00 GMT
The problem has something to do with IP addresses. I either went back to a hotspot I used when voting originally, or I moved to a new hotspot that I did not vote previously. Same email address.
I have not as yet isolated why voting from one IP address works while another does not.
Another potential issue is the kind of technology used. I used significantly different hardware where I was allowed to vote.
report post as inappropriate
Judy Nabb wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 08:37 GMT
I've also been unable to rate essays for some days. I haven't changed IP address. I've now tried to rate a number of essays.
Is the problem being addressed? Is there a technical department address we should contact?
Judy
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 09:21 GMT
I have emailed Brendan Foster, I mentioned that I had been unable to vote and that I had seen others were having the same difficulty.
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 16:10 GMT
Hi Judy -- I believe the problem should be fixed now. Please check and let us know if not.
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 05:58 GMT
Dear FQXI,
I WISH TO ADD AN ATTACHMENT BUT I RECEIVED A CONSTANT MESSAGE IN A SMALL BOX SAYING "THE POST CONTAIN NO TEXT". THAT IS AFTER ATTACHMENT AND CLICKING ON SUBMIT NEW POST.
HOW MAY YOU HELP OUT PLEASE?
THANK YOU.
GBENGA
RESOLVED YOU MAY DISREGARD.
THANKS
GBENGA
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 16:11 GMT
If anyone is having trouble with voting still, please let us know. I believe the problem should be fixed now. [and before you ask me, I don't know what it was]
Peter Jackson replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 18:54 GMT
Brendan,
Spooky quantum ghosts in the machine, not!
Explainable with causal classical mechanics in reality.
All working fine for me now, thanks.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 19:06 GMT
Brendan said, "Spooky quantum ghosts in the machine, not! Explainable with causal classical mechanics in reality."
Classical mechanics is not foundational. If you were honest with yourselves, you would admit that the building blocks of reality are (quantum) fields and particles. Name one thing in existence that's not made of a field or a particle.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 20:04 GMT
I think that quantum field theory predicts the existence of ghosts. Afterall, if lifeforms can be made of particles, and the foundation of reality is particle-wave duality, or particles and fields, then why wouldn't there be lifeforms made of a quantum field? There are certainly more observers of ghosts than there are of super-strings.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 22:06 GMT
Evaluation criteria for the essays are given on the introduction page of the competition section of this site.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 7, 2014 @ 20:07 GMT
One of my criteria is going to be participation. Right now I'm only trying to upgrade entries that I think deserve attention, but when its at near the end, I'll probably put in various downgrades and right now I'd say a big one is 'failure to communicate.' Steering humanity is something that will require broad participation.
Even when small cliques get hold of the reins of power, as they occasionally do, the result invariably becomes some kind of vortex, as everything revolves around their agenda and the end result is usually detrimental to the larger context.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 7, 2014 @ 22:26 GMT
John,
Participation is good but some people may be able to dedicate more time than others because of their personal commitments.It takes time to read and reflect upon the essay content and presentation and just checking back to see if there are relies takes time too. Meanwhile life goes on.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 16:51 GMT
Georgina,
I certainly agree. In prior contests, this certainly wouldn't have been an issue. The reason I'm making it one is because it seems to me an elemental function of 'steering humanity' must be an ability to communicate and not only an ability to communicate, but to take criticism, seriously consider others arguments, etc. and otherwise learn to cooperate. Obviously this is probably difficult for some members of this community and I certainly respect their preferences and inclinations. Yet I think the nature of this question should be seriously addressed, given it will likely be one of life and death for untold numbers of people, should humanity steer itself off any number of very real precipices. If you have been following the news lately, life has been going on, in a very disturbing direction.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on May. 8, 2014 @ 20:47 GMT
The building blocks of reality are particles and fields. It's not mathematics. Not everything in reality lends itself to mathematics.
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 10:45 GMT
From my perspective, the building blocks of particles and fields are based in singularity moderated systems of quantum causality. Practical limitations of mathematics related to "non-repeating systems" of causality (non-relativistic), does not remove the potential of treating subsets of related systems in terms of set theory.
Language is based in set theory. So we probably cannot meaningfully talk about non-repeating instances of causality.
A "Particle" in physics is a library of relationships. A particle modeled as an imperturbable entity does not exist. But we use set theory to give libraries of relationships names so we can discus related relationships.
How could we come to talk about non-repeating features of causality?
report post as inappropriate
Tommy Anderberg wrote on May. 8, 2014 @ 23:05 GMT
Today I noticed that one of the contest sponsors has been removed from
the list of contest partners. May I ask why?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 9, 2014 @ 03:33 GMT
Today I noticed that the evaluation criteria for this contest have been replaced by the evaluation criteria for the previous contest.(It also now says guidelines rather than introduction.) I have emailed Brendan Foster. Hopefully it is just a technical error.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 9, 2014 @ 04:45 GMT
Also, today I have noticed, for the first time, there is a video contest too, as it sits alongside the current essay competition on the Competitions home page.
Deadline 8th Aug 2014
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 07:28 GMT
Dear Georgina,
Changing criteria is not a problem. The real evaluation criteria are political connections of participants.
Cheers, CH.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 16:52 GMT
Christian,
The politics of physics and the physics of politics.
The structure has to be built on the foundations we made. This bootstrapping process creates a wave effect, in that it builds up until the momentum cannot support the height, then it curls over and crashes. You know you are near the top of the wave when it's mostly foam and bubbles.
Regards,
John Merryman
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 23:35 GMT
The correct evaluation criteria are now back.
It says "An expert panel of judges will be instructed (
and general readers strongly encouraged) to rate the entries by the degree to which they are relevant and interesting, as more specifically described below, with 1/3 weight given to relevancy and 2/3 weight given to interest."My emphasis.
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on May. 11, 2014 @ 14:43 GMT
John,
Politic connections in the sense that you must be FQXi or PI member in order to win a first second or third prize. If you have not such a membership you can write an Essay at level of Nobel Prize and maybe you will obtain a 4th prize here.
Cheers, Ch.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 11, 2014 @ 20:24 GMT
Christian,
The fact they even let people like me compete is a miracle.
Social conventions seem quant, idiosyncratic, particular, even bizarre, if viewed from an external point of view, yet they are like language. We need them. They are the models by which we functions as a society. We think we are so much more objective today, than in times past, but so did those people in their...
view entire post
Christian,
The fact they even let people like me compete is a miracle.
Social conventions seem quant, idiosyncratic, particular, even bizarre, if viewed from an external point of view, yet they are like language. We need them. They are the models by which we functions as a society. We think we are so much more objective today, than in times past, but so did those people in their worlds. So in the culture of academia today, the idea that someone "off the street" can put up a proposal against those who have spent their lives studying, not only the subject at hand, but the observations, thoughts, experiments, etc, of all those who came before, or at least those accepted as legitimate, simply does not compute. So that when the decision is handed off the those expert judges, it doesn't compute.
Consider that right now, Sabine Hossenfelder and Philip Gibbs have been trading off the top spot. Is it because steering the path of humanity using the scientific method, or a more open peer review are such excellent and novel ideas, or is it because they are true fan favorites among physics junkies? It's the same social mechanisms at work.
Now to be tough on you, does the solution for explaining black holes really serve as a guide for steering humanity? You are an expert in that particular field, yet for example, does it help to explain how our financial system has turned into a black hole at the center of the economy, consequently siphoning all value out of virtually every economic exchange? If you were to step back and try to use your knowledge to describe the processes at work, it might offer some useful insight for those of us who are both at the mercy of the financial system and generally clueless about black holes. The problem is that both your field of study and the financial system are vortices which draw all attention/value/whatever their currency of choice is, into them and don't let go, until they go super-nova.
So while FQXI is not a perfect system, it is at least, an open playing field, for those who care and dare to wander on it.
Regards,
John
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 11, 2014 @ 20:49 GMT
Christian,
And it will be quite interesting to see how they score this, given the nature of the subject and how the sorts of subjects which physics based communities deal in may not provide the most effective solutions to this issue. For example, moving off the planet seems like an option which those considering haven't fully examined the reality. But then physics has been coming up with some rather far out solutions to its own questions.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 12, 2014 @ 01:50 GMT
John,
take a look at the guidelines page for details
Quote "An expert panel of judges will be
instructed (and general readers strongly encouraged) to rate the entries by the degree to which they are relevant and interesting, as more specifically described below, with 1/3 weight given to relevancy and 2/3 weight given to interest." My emphasis.
It is my sincere hope that the evaluation criteria will be used as we were all given them as guidelines on which to write our essays.If they are not used that's moving the goal posts.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 12, 2014 @ 02:54 GMT
Georgina,
That really is vague enough to drive a truck though and I doubt there are any penalties for how the judges chose to interpret it. The fact is we do live in what amounts to a quantum/probabilistic, relative/subjective reality and the idea of some classical objectivity is a fast fading illusion of a bygone era. There are more advantages to this, than disadvantages though. In a very real sense we all view the world from our own perspective and so have some leeway in deciding what is important, relevant, successful to us. It is when we have this objective view that the same set of rules must apply everywhere and so there is only one winner and everyone has to get in line, etc, that we get into situations where the whole world seems to spiral down the drain, rather than all the parts balancing all the other parts in a great rhythm, as nature requires for long term survival. Personally I grew up as a younger kid in a big family and quickly learned I'd never win when I was playing someone else's game, so I would just wander off into my own space and play my own games. Eventually I found nature played back and taught me far more than I ever learned out of a book. When everyone is running off in one direction, its time to just go in some other direction. If you find you are alone, it just gives you more time to learn about things other than people.
As for these contests, I suspect it was written somewhere in the original funding proposals that they would be open to the public and it was a small price to pay for the grant money. That doesn't mean they are going to share it and winning does involve the prize money. So make use of it as an opportunity for what it is, as a most excellent forum, not what it promises to be.
To live is to learn.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on May. 12, 2014 @ 17:01 GMT
Georgina and John,
Please see my comment below.
Warm Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 16:24 GMT
Tommy -- I think you had noticed what was a technical glitch [previous contest's rules replaced the current one]. We still have all of our sponsors. Thanks to Georgina for pointing out the glitch.
hide replies
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on May. 9, 2014 @ 21:29 GMT
A fresh thought!
The universe is in a state of perpetual equilibrium with itself including all natural phenomena. The sun does not need to struggle before it rises or does not need any special intervention before it sets. The same goes for the moon, galaxies, stars, rain e.t.c. All these obey the law of existence; call it the law of nature. They are in perfect harmony. What happen if the earth does not revolves along its axis? Of course, no time and no season and in the state of chaos! This is just to establish that the world is in a state of equilibrium.
But why the confusion among the nations, horrific scenes posing threat to global peace, its ecosystem, including financial, socio-economic, moral institutions and other institutions innumerable to list?
There have been several references from the Bible by different authors in this forum, including the atheists. I like to draw my inspiration from this.
Ecclesiastes 7: 29.
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made MAN UPRIGHT: but THEY have sought OUT MANY INVENTIONS.
The reason for this confusion and dystopia is due to human’s inventions. All forms of human inventions can either MAR or MAKE the equilibrium upon which the universe is established. Any effort (invention) of man with the risk of upsetting the equilibrium must be tamed, while continue to encourage any effort (invention) directed toward establishing the equilibrium. The ecologist normally removes any endanger species and leave the good ones for the peace of the ecosystem and himself.
This is why I wrote on STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM. I expatiate more on the subject using some philosophy of Physics. This is the link to it. You may want to check up and criticize! http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
James Dunn replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 10:04 GMT
Gbenga,
The universe is not in observable equilibrium. Entropy is a required property of causal evolution. Causal evolution toward what? My current theory is a causal evolution toward an alternate dimensional shift and a Big Bang into another dimension where all life as we know it will be inconsistent with the new physics properties.
Eventually, for simplicity here, we will repeat in every experience involving an alternate decision. Free will and non-determinism simultaneously existing because we cannot presently know in which cycle we are evolving. Alternate dimensional relativity wiping out remnants of prior cycles of our dimensional states.
Science studies Gods' works (everything not touched by mankind) and makes broad attempts to remove the influences of mankind. Religions study and revere the works of mankind and dismiss the works of God (Bible: Genesis). Religions use small loops of logic to manipulate to meet whatever perspective happens to fit a human agenda; i.e. over 100,000 religions in the world.
My personal preference is aligned with science and I admire the depths to which scientists attempt to understand God's works using the largest inclusive systems of interrelated logic.
There should NOT be a balance between technology and ecosystems. Ecosystems should dominate over technology. Technology needs to fit into ecosystems to promote the broadest diversity of life. Diversity of micro-organisms provides a resistance for propagating destructive evolved pathogens and limits propagation to local micro-environments. Without broad diversity, a virus can kill most of the world's corn, potato, or rice crops (famine), or more directly, the majority of people.
These are my beliefs, and yours are just as valid for yourself.
report post as inappropriate
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 06:03 GMT
Dear James Dunn,
I do not really know whether your essay is one of those I have downloaded to add to my reading list. But I will find out and try to read your whole concept.
About your comments, Thanks so much. But you cannot get my logic until you read the whole episode! My balance concept is very broad and of course consider quite the ideology of diversity. As an authority in environmental science I have the idea of keeping the global world in equilibrium. Various physics philosophy were used, the thermodynamics aspect follows the first law-the principle of conservation of energy and not entropy in the first place. The world cannot be in a closed system but sure it is a unit of community where life exists. To get my concept kindly read it here http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020
Until then will you be able to make your judgement. I will look out for your article to also read or better still provide the link here considering the numerous essays we have. But nonetheless, I will read and comment on your thread.
Even the diversities of all entries in this competition make it dynamics and warm.
Thanks
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 06:05 GMT
Some clarifications on the article, “Striking a balance between technology & ecosystem”.
I am compelled to clarify the thermodynamics aspect of my article following the various comments and questions asked. No reference is made to entropy, which is the degree of randomness of an enclosed system in the article. I based my theory on the 1st law of thermodynamics which is the law of conservation of energy. Kindly follow my ideology stated below.
As propounded by Einstein, the theory of relativity establishes the relationship between space, time, mass and energy: which found it expression in the law of conservation of matter. That is, the total quantity in the universe is fixed and cannot be increased or decreased by human agency. This is the same to the law of conservation of energy which also state that the total quantity of energy in the universe is constant and can be neither created nor destroyed. This is popular known as the first law of thermodynamics.
My emphasis is on first law of thermodynamics and not entropy change which goes for a closed system. This should be consciously noted as the readers read the article. My explanation on conservation of energy received from the sun to be used by humanity and other living components of the ecosystem follows the theory of relativity and not entropy.
These notes could have been part of the footnotes of the article, but for oversight
attachments:
1_Some_clarifications_on_the_article_fqxi.pdf
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 17:53 GMT
Gbenga,
I agree entropy is a subset of the conservation principle and contrary to James' point, I don't think the current cosmology of the universe beginning at a point, based on the redshift of distant light sources, will hold up in the long run. I suspect we will discover some mechanism by which light is redshifted optically over such extremely long distances and that what the universe...
view entire post
Gbenga,
I agree entropy is a subset of the conservation principle and contrary to James' point, I don't think the current cosmology of the universe beginning at a point, based on the redshift of distant light sources, will hold up in the long run. I suspect we will discover some mechanism by which light is redshifted optically over such extremely long distances and that what the universe consists of is a convection cycle of expanding radiation and collapsing mass. Much of this is generally agreed on, but some rather fantastical patches have been theorized to solve some of the remaining gaps. It should be keep in mind that the redshifted light of those most distant galaxies has to travel the gaps between galaxies and since gravity and thus galaxies, curve the measure of space inward, it stands to reason the space between galaxies curves outward, in balance. Resulting in the overall flat space we measure with COBE and WMAP. It is not that those galaxies are moving away in a an absolute sense, since this intergalactic expansion is balanced by galactic contraction. Convection cycles of expanding energy and cooling contracting structure explain planetary and stellar processes, so it is not a leap to figure they explain galactic processes as well. Galaxies pull mass in and radiate light away. We just have to figure out how in the intergalactic medium, this light coalesces/cools back to mass points and starts falling back inward.
In fact, much of human activity can be understood in terms of this heated expansion and cooling contraction. Currently humanity has been expending enormous energy to expand and everyone is fearful of the coming contraction, yet if we view it from the side of normal natural processes, this is necessary and will prove beneficial for life in the long run. As with these processes in nature, much of the waste will be returned to nature as fertilizer and what remains of life will be seeds growing in it. Our civilization and technology could be a nascent central nervous system of a planetary organism. Yet the function of the central nervous system is to preserve the organism, not exploit it. So we still have a long way to go.
Regards,
John Merryman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear John,
Thanks. God bless you and great reward for your efforts in this competition,
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 17, 2014 @ 01:33 GMT
Gbenga,
May we all have some success in stitching man and nature back together.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 10, 2014 @ 00:44 GMT
I tried 4 times to rate the one essay, but nothing happened:after each rating the community rating did not change, and the number of ratings did not change.
Brendan, please fix this problem!
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 12, 2014 @ 16:52 GMT
Let me sort something out..
Concerns were raised above about the criteria applied for evaluation of our essays. There were also statements made that politics is involved in assigning winners, and this is likely true, but at a different level or for other reasons than have been impugned. The thing is; FQXi is conducting this and all of their contests using grant money - which means they...
view entire post
Let me sort something out..
Concerns were raised above about the criteria applied for evaluation of our essays. There were also statements made that politics is involved in assigning winners, and this is likely true, but at a different level or for other reasons than have been impugned. The thing is; FQXi is conducting this and all of their contests using grant money - which means they must justify all their decisions to the grantors, in their final report.
However; there is a real danger - and evidence already on the table - that this induces a bias for the reasons articulated by Phil Gibbs in his essay, based on the need to show evidence to the sponsors that the winning essay authors are qualified to produce the quality of work they created in their essays. It seems there is a concern on the part of FQXi that the ideas of a candidate author have already achieved a certain level of acceptance. That is; the organizers want to be able to sell their choices to the boss - those providing the funding - that the people chosen to win create good PR for both FQXi and the underwriters. So in effect; we are applying for jobs as poster children.
The thing is; misleading metrics skew any attempt to create a profile for individual entrants, or to assess the quality of their prior work. What is worse is that we're supposed to be judged on the quality of the submission, and if the essay we submitted to FQXi is our best work to date, this
should count much more heavily than any measure of our prior performance, qualifications, employment or academic affiliations, membership in professional organizations, having a popular blog, or receiving prior awards and honors.
What should count is the quality of the essay we submitted, and the fact that it is legitimately our work. If there are genuine doubts about whether an author created an essay, or if the works cited as foundational are seen as faulty in evidence or logic - then such metrics provide an essential means to restore order and fairness! However; when Google Scholar stopped including papers on viXra, and given the widespread reports of abuse of editorial privilege by arXiv, I am certain that a lot of metrics are skewed, and can be used against us - to disqualify otherwise worthy authors and prize-deserving efforts. But I will keep trying anyhow.
All the Best,
Jonathan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 12, 2014 @ 18:29 GMT
Jonathan,
Thank you for adding depth to the issue. It will be very interesting to see how FQXI sorts this out, given what appears to be significant input from outsiders and limited member participation, along with what appear to be a fair number that address the question only tangentially, if that.
I would emphasize my previous point, that we should appreciate FQXI for what it is and not get too wrapped up in what it promises.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 01:21 GMT
Jonathan wrote: "What should count is the quality of the essay we submitted, and the fact that it is legitimately our work." Yes I agree.
However, we were presented with hoops to jump, the guidelines. We all had the freewill to decide to try to jump them or to do something else, lets say walk away without trying, or pee on a lamp post and then bite the hand that feeds. If the community and final judging is then conducted by choosing conformation to breed type, waggiest tail, or even most excellent lamp post peeing, something is wrong. That's how I feel.
That doesn't mean essays that don't fit the guidelines are not valuable in their own right. I have read some wonderful stuff, and some very strange stuff, and have been educated in more than one way and on a variety of topics. Its a contest that has really brought out a great diversity of thought and passion about diverse subjects. Some of it uplifting, some of it frankly scary.
By the way I have not yet voted on any essays but intend to go back and vote on the essays that I have read. I am trying to read lots but I doubt I will be able to read them all, as there are so many.
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 06:00 GMT
Dear Jonathan,
Your thoughts are largely sharable but I also think that these essay contests are to a fair measure somewhat internal to FQXi and Perimeter Institute. Let us consider last years "results". There is an almost one-to-one correspondence between the 9 FQXi members and the 8 top prizes, despite some of those essays being rather weak, to say the least. The contests are clearly not unbiased and for somebody who has credentials that do not fit a certain profile the probabilities of winning are very small. I suspect the problem is that FQXi does not have much choice of judges. Very few people of sufficient standing would be willing to take the time to review more than 40 essays for no credit. I doubt there is a budget for compensation. This means that the directors of the FQXi have to call in favours from their friends to get them to judge. I think that the Perimeter Institute provides a large proportion of the judges and most of the FQXi members who actively participate in the contest have Perimeter Institute connections. It looks to be a strong clique.Thus, I did not expect much from the "results". Also notice that this year rules have been changed. With the new rules it will be the same thing to be #1 or #40 in the community rating. In fact, now community rating works only to establish the finalists and it will not be considered in the stage of the final judgement by FQXi judges. I suspect that this is partially due to my last year's strong protest. More, FQXi members have also the advantage to automatically become a Finalist by meeting some simple criteria. This is ridiculous as, in general, in a competition, members of the institution organizing the competition are not publicly advantaged, at least to save appearances.
Cheers, Ch.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 10:03 GMT
If I recall correctly, it was the contest sponsor who since dropped out that prompted this year's question and it is a question which does not seem to play to the strengths of FQXI members, so it will be interesting to see the results of how this is resolved, since we will not know the process by which it is resolved.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on May. 12, 2014 @ 21:55 GMT
KEEP YOUR COMMITMENT AND CONVICTION TO THE END!
I have written about members' altitude on posting comments and rating essays earlier. I tried to address the issue and encourage the spirit of participation. Unfortunately, I think it is not an over-statement to say that people are just being deliberate in their not rating essays and posting comments. But you do what you know best to do and leave the rest. Keep to your commitment and conviction, it is also a proof of how best to steer the future of humanity- This can begin from this forum!!!!!!!!
Regards
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Feeney,
You see? I told you you'll be bombarded. Yours is a bold essay.
What I personally find intriguing (even frustrating) is that without having before set a camera therein we cannot just walk into a room and decide to view say its past 1 hour or 30 minutes etc. Feeney, once we can get a method to zoom in and out of space-time then future and past viewing will become one. In fact I wager that past viewing in this sense will be far more useful because it will revolutionize crime investigation, privacy, etc.
Now to the practical side, isn't a conservation law actually kind of a natural future knowledge “machine”?
In other words, to adopt a different “conservation law” (universal constant) is to adopt a different observer/space-time.
I take
this approach , so you can understand that our thesis somehow merge, namely: man will be then the “space-time” i.e. the de facto unit for measuring/predicting space and time.
I appreciate your statement that: “…not only will viewer foreknowledge eliminate the uncertainty and deception that warfare requires for its existence, it will also gradually eliminate the concept of collective enemies.”
In your own words I'll say, your essay was very good and I learnt a lot!
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
Chidi Idika replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 14:41 GMT
Sorry, All.
What a mess! I posted to the wrong place.
I was going to say to you, Gbenga. Your observation is very true. Interaction this year is very unlike the usual level of interaction in this contest. But it might hot up towards the end. BTW I owe you one.
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 19:05 GMT
Please steer physics in a better direction. Explain to me where the big bang came from without using the Jedi mind trick "it came from nothiiiiiinnnnngggg".
Go back to alchemy; you'll make more progress that way. But replace the Michelson-Morley aether with a set, a set, of quantum fields. What are the missing standard model particles that set the physics constants?
This is a better use of your time.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 19:31 GMT
If reality is made of particles and fields, like the Higgs field/Higgs boson, is there a particle-field that enforces the speed of light/permittivity/permeability?
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 18:53 GMT
Jason,
Yes free fermion pairs and protons (electron/positron) 'pure plasma', which has high coupling but a refractive index of ~1 (same as the vacuum) so is invisible except kinetically
VLBA Plasma Cloud kinetic refraction finding.The particles that don't annihilate evolve to bound particles and the characteristics and EM profile change as the mess spreads. In the end we result.
It's actually what's now termed the Higg's process that produces the conjugate pairs. It's effectively an additional binding spin state.
Hope you're well. I haven't seem you reading essays yet!?
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Chidi Idika wrote on May. 15, 2014 @ 21:46 GMT
Hello, Folks.
BECAUSE I identify with the expressed objective of FQXI in setting up this essay contest AND because I (and several other comments) find that down voting is derailing this objective of a scholarly openhearted exchange, I personally have decided that after this year I will no more participate in these contests until we have at least tried here OPEN PEER REVIEW.
Namely: people may comment on essays without voting on them but they CANNOT VOTE WITHOUT COMMENTING. So we may know the rationale behind votes.
People who live in glass house should not throw stones. But more especially it is better to be NOT rated than to be unfairly down rated.
We all are here to encourage positive exchange. Clearly some allow themselves to be driven by more primitive impulse. But I insist that such impulse must not rule over me or others.
Thank you all (and forgive me if I decide wrongly),
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
Chidi Idika replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 22:23 GMT
And, for the sake of clarity. I want just that we should know THE VOTER and then his/her RATIONALE.
Regards,
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 02:19 GMT
Chidi,
I have to add my vote to this, though it may also lead to a degree of acrimony, as these are the sort of questions on which most of the participants have strongly held opinions. Maybe there can be three categories of votes; Public, community on the record and community off the record. Then give two thirds weight to on the record votes and one third to off the record.
Regards,
John Merryman
report post as inappropriate
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 21:29 GMT
THIS PIECE FOLLOWS EARLIER POSTS
Dear Chidi,
I am happy to read your comments following the issue I raised about people’s attitude in not rating. You have raised important comments but please do not be offended at the following points I will make. It is with due regards.
I was the first to rate your essay and offered a constructive comment! If memory serves me well, I either rated you 9 or 10. You promised you were going to read my article and rate as well but you have not done so till now. I have rated so many essays in this forum, some I even opened the floor with extreme high rate before other authors down-rated such essays. I am not offended at all at this. It is my personal philosophy not to allow people to change me if I cannot change them. I tried to correct this negative altitude having seen previous competitions and the extreme high spirit in them compared to this selfish and cold altitude in our own. But since I discovered people did not change, I rather continue to rate and offer comments as much as there is time, energy and interest without being affected by whether people rate me or not.
This is not to castigate but for all of us to address our negative altitude and have a change of orientation. To me, this is the most captivating topic FQXI will ever produce but unfortunately, it is the most perceived with negative sentiment! How then can we say we want to steer the future of humanity in the positive sense according to all these ejaculated essays?
Best wishes to all after-all I have known about 150 names in this forum alone! That is achievement on its own.
All the best to all authors
Regards
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
Chidi Idika replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 22:39 GMT
Gbenga,
I said it that I owe you one. I owe Jonathan one eventually. And that's about all I owe so far. Matter of fact, far more people owe me than I owe.
But ALL that I owe am sure I'll pay. And, honestly, I love your spirit,
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 16, 2014 @ 18:24 GMT
I propose(d) this voting system...
In order to cast a down vote (1, 2, or 3), one would need to leave a comment in a box labeled 'criticism' or 'dislikes,' which would automatically show up in the forum with that heading. Likewise; in order to cast an up vote (8, 9, or 10), one would need to leave a comment in a box marked 'approval' or 'likes,' and this would automatically show up with that heading. This way; essay authors would get some useful feedback about their essays. I am not sure whether it is better to require that the voter be identified, or to give them the option of anonymous comments - so they feel more inclined to comment honestly rather than being fearful of reprisals by the essay authors.
Variations include a graded response where more extreme votes like '1' or '10' require a more lengthy comment (at least 8 or 10 words) in criticism or approval, and short comments or none are allowed for ratings nearer the middle of range (4, 5, 6, and 7). This could prevent both punitive and reward voting from dominating the ratings landscape, and might yield a more reasonable spread of scores. I see there are a lot of decent essays with very low ratings, and some very good ones in the middle of the pack, so I have to wonder at other people's rationale for voting the way they did.
Regards,
Jonathan
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 07:33 GMT
Dea Jonathan,
Excellent idea. This year I am under attack by various idiots who rate "1" my Essay without reading it. I suspect it is the same problems of various participants who write good Essays. These trolls must be asked to justify their rates.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 14:01 GMT
It's definitely a problem. I think it's a good idea that the administrators hide all the ratings and freeze the order, during the last 2 or 3 days of voting.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on May. 16, 2014 @ 20:20 GMT
Jonathen
Nice plan, if a bit complex. I've suggested perhaps a simple line in the guidance may solve the main issue. Something like;
"Very low scores without apparent/reasonable justification may be removed and applied to the scorers own essay entirely at the discretion of the organizers."Now that may just stop the hail of 1's like arrows reigning down on essays when in range (or near the cut off come judgement day). Clearly no essay in the top half is worth an honest 1.
I don't think anyone should have scored less than a 3 as I haven't yet found an essay only worth 2 (I'm reading bottom ones too). As we've seen in previous years dishonesty and bias can permeate from bottom to top, and the judges scores are the only ones that matter.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Chidi Idika wrote on May. 16, 2014 @ 22:29 GMT
Jonathan,
>> "I am not sure whether it is better to require that the voter be identified, or to give them the option of anonymous comments - so they feel more inclined to comment honestly rather than being fearful of reprisals by the essay authors."
Now I ask, if any one CANNOT own up to their own objective criticism of a work AND ALSO admit honest criticism of their own work why then are they in science??
If you make it anonymous people will say ANYTHING to get by!
Gbenga,
I said it that I owe you one. I owe Jonathan one eventually. And that's about all I owe so far. Matter of fact, far more people owe me than I owe.
But ALL that I owe am sure I'll pay. And, honestly, I love your spirit,
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
Chidi Idika replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 22:44 GMT
To keep things tidy let me repeat pls:
Jonathan,
>> "I am not sure whether it is better to require that the voter be identified, or to give them the option of anonymous comments - so they feel more inclined to comment honestly rather than being fearful of reprisals by the essay authors."
Now I ask, if any one CANNOT own up to their own objective criticism of a work AND ALSO admit honest criticism of their own work why then are they in science??
If you make it anonymous people will say ANYTHING to get by!
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
Michael Allan wrote on May. 17, 2014 @ 14:54 GMT
Folks,
Today, the font style in the contest forum switched generally to italic face. I assume this is unintentional, so I reported it by email.
Mike
report post as inappropriate
Michael Allan replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 12:23 GMT
Now the font is normal again. I guess someone back there fixed it (thank you). - Mike
report post as inappropriate
Michael Allan replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 14:31 GMT
Well, now it's generally switched to bold (even on the present page) as I guess everyone can see. Meanwhile here's one that's both bold and italic:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2120. - Mike
report post as inappropriate
Stuart Marongwe wrote on May. 18, 2014 @ 13:14 GMT
Hie Folks
In my essay I mention that from a Quantum Gravity perspective NOTHING FALLS INTO A BLACK HOLE.Here is the reason why:
My work shows that a blackhole has negative temperature (a BH is matter in the highest energy state the planck state -all its microscopic constituents are in this single state) thus giving it low entropy as well as giving rise to a high thermal gradient. Thus anything outside the event horizon is'colder'and cannot go against this high thermal gradient.A particle of matter only falls up to the event horizon and no more farther than that. This conditions I believe are similar to the pre Big Bang conditions. At a critical point my research shows that a BH will go not hypernova but BIG BANG when the thermal gradient exceeds gravity.
Cheers
Stuart
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 19, 2014 @ 01:03 GMT
Stuart,
Could it be that black holes are just a mathematical description of a gravitational vortex and as you say, nothing falls in, but rather than the larger ones accumulating this energy, it is essentially what is radiated out the poles as those enormous jets of cosmic rays?
I am not a fan of the Big Bang theory and think we will eventually find that redshift is an optical...
view entire post
Stuart,
Could it be that black holes are just a mathematical description of a gravitational vortex and as you say, nothing falls in, but rather than the larger ones accumulating this energy, it is essentially what is radiated out the poles as those enormous jets of cosmic rays?
I am not a fan of the Big Bang theory and think we will eventually find that redshift is an optical effect, by which the intergalactic medium is essentially lensing that light in a way that it effectively expands, but the universe as a whole does not, because those gravity wells of galaxies perform the opposite function and cause the measure of space to contract, such that these two effects naturally balance out to the overall flat space, which we do observe, according to measurements of the CMBR.
Now Einstein did originally propose the cosmological constant as a way to balance gravity from collapsing the universe and especially since the discovery of the need for dark energy to make the theory work, this expansion has been compared to a cosmological constant. If it is a lensing effect, then dark energy is not necessary, since those galaxies are not actually being moved apart.
One of the points I keep making is that when they say those distant galaxies will eventually recede from view, they are still assuming a stable speed of light across this expanding space, such that it would take light longer to cross it. So if they are going to use C as the denominator, that would make the expansion a numerator, which means it is not expanding space, but simply an increasing amount of stable space.
So I think we will eventually find it to be a cosmic convection cycle of expanding radiation and contracting mass. Since we know when mass turns to energy, it expands, the question is whether when
energy turns to mass, it contracts, creating a vacuum, otherwise known as gravity. This would make gravity an effect of energy condensing into mass and further coalescing into ever more dense forms of matter, rather than just a property of mass. They can't find that dark matter on the periphery of galaxies, but there is a lot of excess cosmic rays to be explained and the first generation stars seem to mostly be on the outer fringes of galaxies, suggesting an inwardly evolving process, before the final stage of whatever is left to fall into the swirl at the center and be jetted back out, to start the process again.
Now it is much easier to believe in the Big Bang, Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Multiverses, because that is what the rest of the herd believes, but since my career isn't dependent on that particular clique, I'm allowed to believe in simply what makes sense.
Regards,
John Merryman
Ps,
An interesting discussion of the topic on FQXI blogs.
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Stuart Marongwe replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 07:33 GMT
Hie John
Yes John I am working on the problem of polar jets too.I have tried to find a connection with this research on BH thermodynamics.They seem so far not quiet related because for a BH to go Big Bang it has to accumulate an enormous amount of mass energy.Think of a BH as a compressed spring of spacetime which will spring out at a certain critical mass. Another interesting aspect of tge explosion is that it will be like intense broadcast laser beam. In other words a homogenous expansion of spacetime and energy.
Cheers
Stuart
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 09:56 GMT
Stuart, John,
Polar jets have long been studied in detail. A rationale has emerged, all the implications of which are analysed and discussed in this preprint (accepted and in press) along with the significant comprehensive evidence.
https://www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_
GALAXY_EVOLUTION_WITH_BARS.
Unfortunately the coherent description doesn't support the...
view entire post
Stuart, John,
Polar jets have long been studied in detail. A rationale has emerged, all the implications of which are analysed and discussed in this preprint (accepted and in press) along with the significant comprehensive evidence.
https://www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_
GALAXY_EVOLUTION_WITH_BARS.Unfortunately the coherent description doesn't support the conventional view of what the 'Big Bang' was, because the CMBR anisotropies are a good fit to the smaller scale galaxy recycling model based on 'polar outflow' quasar jets. A whole gamut of anomalous findings are resolved. If you can find any aspect which you don't feel is consistent or adequately falsified please do raise it.
John,
At the heart of the human condition, and suggest far more fundamental and important for our survival than money and exchange mechanisms, is our poor understanding of nature and the universe. You dismiss my work on the unification of physics, but I think that's only because you've failed so far to understand the massive implications of succeeding. It truly would bring a quantum leap in mankind's place in the universe once we shed old beliefs and understand how the universe works, so understand how WE really work!
The above paper may give you a fresh perspective. It's written in a way most should comprehend, not stuffed to overflowing with the manipulated Arabic symbols we call numbers. The mechanism shows that precise quantification is impossible and pointless. It won't be accepted into doctrine for some time, but if even those who are NOT indoctrinated by present descriptions won't look, then perhaps we will NEVER make that leap. The EPR paradox is merely the fissure allowing the whole shell of nonsense to be removed, revealing the truth.
Do give me your views on reading the paper. The main describes and body proves the cyclic process at galaxy scale. The greater implications then become clear.
Best wishes.
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stuart Marongwe replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 13:09 GMT
Peter
I have read your article.In my opinion I did not find a coherent and satisfactory explanation of the formation of polar jets in it.Your explanation of galactic evolution does not take into consideration the role of Dark Matter which forms a crucial part of galactic structure formation.
report post as inappropriate
Stuart Marongwe replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 13:36 GMT
Here is my suggestion for the formation if polar jets:Strong magnetic fields at the poles of BHs generated by the accretion disc have a tendency to expand spacetime. The stronger the field the more pronounced the effect.This makes spacetime colder relative to The BH which has negative temperature.If the fields are strong enough they increase the thermal gradient at the poles beyond the threshold causing the BH to emit energy laser style.
Stuart
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 16:25 GMT
Stuart,
You missed the fermionic dark matter implication. Refraction in pure plasma (see the references; free electrons/positrons and protons) behaves precisely as 'curved space time', using JM rotation of optical axis, as discussed in my 2012 essay and at the same time resolving the anomalies of KRR, invisibility optics etc. The proton particle mass and spatial density distributions also start to fit as resolution improves. The anomalous change from high to low galaxy gas content during the cycle (open spiral to red disc) also fits like a glove.
I agree your description up to the point where you needed to assume 'spacetime'. I don't agree a coherent description should need any such assumption. Observations also find that the torus is hot and temperatures PEAK at the z-pinch contra-outflow precession zone where friction is highest (again see the many references). If you study nuclear tokamaks you'll see that the acceleration around the toroid is a self organizing natural spin driven process. Certainly we can call it a magnetic field effect. We can also call it a 'gravitational' effect because in reality we understand neither those or 'matter' itself. However my model and ontology precisely corresponds with wide empirical evidence.
The good thing is that I see nothing that can't be changed in yours to also do so. At this point I'd normally expect older mainstream believers to put hands over ears and eyes and refuse to budge. I don't think you're either of those so hope you'll check the evidence and demonstrate flexibility. I've found that an essential quality in building consistent theories. I have a pile of other MNRAS etc references not cited. Most of the best are there but do ask about any specifics. Did you have another way of deriving the apparent speeds up to 46c without violation of c?
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 16:33 GMT
Stuart,
I forgot to mention the 'charge flow' of Birkland currents (Multiple linear Helical vortices). I've just spotted this which looks like if may be very interesting;
Dr Donald Scott video.Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 16:36 GMT
Peter,
I will get around to reading your article when I find the time and unwind a bit more, but it is not your contest entry and to that I have to ask, what is your target audience and how does unifying physics directly affect the human condition?
It might well have been a completely appropriate entry, as are many of the other, more arcane entries, in the usual sort of FQXI...
view entire post
Peter,
I will get around to reading your article when I find the time and unwind a bit more, but it is not your contest entry and to that I have to ask, what is your target audience and how does unifying physics directly affect the human condition?
It might well have been a completely appropriate entry, as are many of the other, more arcane entries, in the usual sort of FQXI contest, but this one asks; How to steer humanity. If you go back and consider all the people who actually have 'steered humanity,' no matter how deep and profound their message might be at some levels, at other levels, it can be put on a bumper sticker, whether it is "Love thy neighbor," or "We will fight them on the beaches."
Some messages are a mile wide and an inch deep and they appeal to twenty million teenagers. Others are an inch wide and a mile deep and they appeal to two hundred astrophysicists. Any message which hopes to effectively lead humanity in a positive direction has to figure out how to be both wide and deep.
Stuart,
A basic conceptual issue I keep raising in these discussions and
contests is that while we perceive time as a sequence of events, from past to future and physics distills this to specific measures of duration, the result, spacetime, is not pretty, as it treats time as a static, symmetric scalar dimension. I think the underlaying reality is that we are looking at this backwards. Much as we see the sun moving overhead, when it is really the earth moving, with us, the other direction. Similarly, it is not the present moving from past to future, but the changing configuration of what exists, that turns future into past. To wit, the earth does not travel some fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, rather tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns.
To both determinists and multiworlders; Probability precedes actuality.
This makes time an effect of action, similar to temperature, rather than space. Time is to temperature, what frequency is to amplitude. It's just that with temperature, we are used to considering the cumulative effect of lots of individual motions, because that is how we largely experience it, but with time, we experience it as a particular point of reference and so think of the individual rate of change. Yet there is no universal clock, just the effect of lots of little rates of change. Which is why clocks can run at different rates and remain in the same frame, like ground and GPS.
Now most physicists to whom I've mentioned this ignore it because it does run counter to the modern equivalent of epicycles they have been taught, because "The math works," yet the math worked for epicycles too.
So do with it as you chose, but you do seem to have a very interesting and functional theory there otherwise. Just model it in terms of normal thermodynamic convection cycles of expanding energy and contracting mass, resulting in these galactic vortices of infalling structure and radiating energy, which eventually eject the final energy/mass out the poles.
Regards,
John
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 24, 2014 @ 13:07 GMT
John,
Some of my posts are missing. On essays and here. Has the human condition improved since say stone age, or early mediaeval times? If so it's due largely to our understanding of nature and use of tools. We now mainly call those science and technology. Whatever else we think, that's the reality. Even truthfulness has followed; lie detectors and CCTV keep many far more honest than they...
view entire post
John,
Some of my posts are missing. On essays and here. Has the human condition improved since say stone age, or early mediaeval times? If so it's due largely to our understanding of nature and use of tools. We now mainly call those science and technology. Whatever else we think, that's the reality. Even truthfulness has followed; lie detectors and CCTV keep many far more honest than they were, and honesty is as habitual as anything else.
If we're considering our future we must consider survival, and what of the scores of problems may be the ones that most put that at risk, then how to overcome them. As my abstract explains, only better understanding our planet and nature can secure that. That even includes external problems, like increasing space debris exponentially increasing, and approaching meteors.
I've shown in the experiment at the back of the essay that we can teach all 10 years old's far better how nature works and that it's unified. My children were taught to lie in physics as school to pass exams, i.e; "you won't find A from the experiment but must report that you did to pass."
I warned the ones involved in the experiment (all ages including adults) that what they learned wouldn't get them past present exams as present doctrine is different. They a still each managed to reproduce the "predictions of QM" from the classical subjective test. They also then understood how applying the same fundamental law give a slightly better interpretation of SR (as AE's in 1952) which then allowed unification of SR and QM. Absolutely nothing since the Copernican revolution and Galileo has represented such a leap in comprehension.
Only denial of bias and adherence to old doctrine without challenge is preventing such a leap. Of course perhaps the belief that such things aren't important is just as bad! The lessons of history are very clear, but we're not very good at analysing and learning from them.
To me the direction we need to leap to enable all the other advances is very clear, and I show precisely which way and how to do it. But I'm reminded a little on Indy Jones in the temple of doom; to those with poor vision, looking elsewhere or just preaching the stepping stones are still invisible.
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 24, 2014 @ 19:46 GMT
Peter,
My point is that it's even far simpler than that. School children understand the principle of suction, as they drink milk from a straw and that is the essential principle by which the monetary system draws value out of every nook and cranny of the economy, since it functions as the economic circulatory system, forcing the rest of the economy to suction even more value out of social and environmental resources. This is why it was described as an octopus a hundred years ago and Matt Talibi refers to it as a giant vacuum squid, attached to the face of the economy, in Rolling Stone.
The point is that it is as much a necessary public utility as roads, courts, police, etc., but the way it is currently organized, it is the worst of all possible worlds for the larger economy and best for the financial sector, since with the way the central bank is organized, risks are public and rewards are private. Thus the taxpayer bailed out the banks and none of them went to jail.
Maybe your idea has far more cosmic significance, but this is what is one factor we can actually do something about the next time it all blows up. Though it seems doubtful few involved in this contest will be of much help.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 19, 2014 @ 01:54 GMT
Now that the contest has developed its form, I'm going to allow myself a rant:
There used to be a time when men of science were natural polymaths, but with this era of specialization, that seems to have passed. This planet and its functions, from the geologic to the human social and cultural, are vast and dynamic systems and while there is a fairly broad array of entries in this contest,...
view entire post
Now that the contest has developed its form, I'm going to allow myself a rant:
There used to be a time when men of science were natural polymaths, but with this era of specialization, that seems to have passed. This planet and its functions, from the geologic to the human social and cultural, are vast and dynamic systems and while there is a fairly broad array of entries in this contest, they do seem to focus on sets of topics of particular interest to what might be called the STEM crowd. While members of this community naturally consider themselves on the cutting edge of human progress, sometimes the cutting edge lacks a certain degree of depth.
For those of us who do read the general news, there are many significant and serious issues which seem as though they will only grow more serious in the not too distant future, so I had thought they would be addressed with much more depth and analysis than is apparent, in this contest.
Now some do consider such issues as over population, resource depletion and environment degradation, though in a fair number of cases, simply to compel moving off the planet. Which in all realistic consideration of the distances, time, inhospitableness, lack of serious lunar development, mostly filling low earth orbit with debris, etc, this just does not seem a very logical option.
Only two, myself and
Stefan Weckbach even directly address the issue of the world financial and monetary systems being used as giant resource and value vacuums to drain the planet of all monetizable wealth, but out there in the larger community, it should be noted that Thomas Piketty's rather dense tome, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" is at the top of the best seller lists, so it is not that many sensible people do not recognize the issue.
Personally I would say his solution of a global wealth tax would only direct this enormous jet of extracted value back into various governmental functions, when the real need is to slow the rate of extraction and thus resource destruction, but that is an issue which will have to wait for a more interested audience.
As it is, it should be noted that intense focus on a limited number of very specialized topics, Bell's theorem and questions of non-locality come to mind, do tend to create otherwise distorted perceptions, as that search light of focus can over illuminate one aspect of a situation, but obscure its larger context, so that debates rage on, with little hope of resolution and lost intellectual resources which might otherwise be better deployed. The consequence seems to be that when members of the STEM community do engage in the larger economy, it is not to effectively analyze how it might better function, but to facilitate some of its worst behaviors, such as concocting ever more elaborate systems of financial leverage, or more powerful weaponry to not only further subdue sections of the world not yet being siphoned of value, but also to spend the public debt which must be incurred to support the value of all this notational wealth.
Normally I don't come down so hard on people just going about their lives, but this is a serious question which FQXI choose to ask and the participants in this contest are members of the larger community.
Rant over. Thank you for your time.
Regards,
John M
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Brent Pfister replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 20:35 GMT
John M,
My reply to your post about my essay got dropped, so I do not know if you replied.
Thomas Pikkity's "Capital in the 21st century" seems to be mostly about the financial system increasing income inequality. That is a problem but the
USA has bigger financial problems:
National Debt 73% of annual GDP
Taxes 34% of annual GDP
Underfunded Social Security
Underfunded Pension Funds
Rising cost of Medicare as percentage of GDP
Defense spending
Other countries have similar problems. The rising costs for energy and dealing with global warming will be even bigger problems. If I were to read an economics book now, I might pick "The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment" by Chris Martenson.
You are right: "the real need is to slow the rate of extraction and thus resource destruction".
Brent Pfister
Steering the Happy Path to Humanity's Future
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 24, 2014 @ 01:19 GMT
Brent,
That was a coincidence. I just posted the following to your thread;
"There is always a conflict of the generations. As I describe it, growing up is like grass trying to push through the concrete. Then one day, you wake up and you are the concrete and there is this damn grass trying to push you out of the way.
In my entry I start out with the dichotomy of energy and...
view entire post
Brent,
That was a coincidence. I just posted the following to your thread;
"There is always a conflict of the generations. As I describe it, growing up is like grass trying to push through the concrete. Then one day, you wake up and you are the concrete and there is this damn grass trying to push you out of the way.
In
my entry I start out with the dichotomy of energy and information and how energy manifests information, while information defines energy. That this dichotomy is reflecting in our physiology, with the central nervous system processing information, while the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems process energy, etc.
Also that since energy is inherently dynamic, while information is inherently static, energy is constantly creating and dissolving information, thus creating the effect of time. Which gets to generations. Youth is that energy constantly pushing out and testing its boundaries, while age is the form and definition we acquire with experience. Our awareness is that energy of being, while our knowledge is the form it manifests.
Currently much of the form of society is being compelled by the monetary mechanism it uses to lubricate exchange, to the point that that it has gone from facilitating the market, to being the primary product of the economy, to the increasing detriment of the environment. I think your generation will eventually find this amounts to a form of socially cancerous behavior and curing it will be required before many of the other problems can be addressed.
Given the desire to acquire money on the part of virtually everyone, the force behind this wave is far greater than just the efforts of those riding its crest. That is why, to put it in a nutshell, I make the point that we have to start treating money as the contract it is, not the commodity we have grown to think of it as. As a public contract, it is a public utility. We no more own those pieces of paper in our pockets than we own the section of road we happen to be driving on. This is in fact how it really is anyway, but it just benefits those controlling the system to have us think it is private property, then we are much more willing to extract value from other stores of value, such as communal relations and the environment, in order to trade in this system. If we naturally understood it as a form of public property, most people would get much more attuned to sustaining value in the more organic aspects of their lives, than everything from elder and child care, primary education, local public projects, etc, would be more community based, even using local currencies, rather than at the mercy of those global control functions."
I does seem like things are quieter, since the break down of the last couple of days.
Regards,
John
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 19, 2014 @ 17:03 GMT
Peter,
Academia.edu won't take my signup. "Try again in a few minutes." Even after three tries.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 19:49 GMT
John,
Maybe arXiv disease has hit; gatekeepers exclude non-academics. Send me an Email (foot of my end notes) and I'll pass you a pdf.
To answer your question; A billion bumper stickers or preachers won't change behaviour. However profound it mostly reduces to esoteric waffle. I'm a doer. Only the guy who turns the wheel can steer. Look back, it's always been technology ('tools') that's changed our path and opened new roads and ways of seeing ahead.
Not understanding the fundamentals of how nature works is like a log jam. At the deepest level there is one key log whose removal will allow all the others to flow. That is the impasse between the 'two pillars' of science. We have them BOTH wrong. See the most recent post and response on my essay. One noose around the right log to a truck on the shore will do the job. My real concern is do we really WANT to things to move ahead and change that quickly!? I seriously forsee suicides in academia!
But there's no half measures. We can't release a log jam a small percentage at a time. The good will well outweigh the bad. Just one of a thousand results, cheap renewable energy, should be enough to fundamentally change society, (including probably the whole monetary system in the medium term!) My other concern is the same as Bob's on his way back. Are we too late? Can embedded nonsensical beliefs ever now be overcome? If not then the next big technical challenge, an asteroid or whatever, will defeat us. Note I also subtly show that a new way of thinking will be needed to cope with the sudden progress.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Stuart Marongwe wrote on May. 20, 2014 @ 14:01 GMT
Hie Folks.
A new model of Quantum Gravity that explains Dark Energy and Dark Matter and gives the correct calculation of the enigmatic cosmological constant is now ready for download from this site http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021988781450
0595
Regards
Stuart
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 21, 2014 @ 01:44 GMT
Brendan,
I STILL CANNOT RATE ESSAYS - NOTHING HAPPENS WHEN I TRY TO RATE ESSAYS !!!
HELP !!!
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 14:03 GMT
Brendan,
I Login, and I enter my "Community Evaluator" code, and when I select a number to rate an essay and then click "go" - NOTHING HAPPENS!!
I still have not been able to rate a single essay!!
There's not much time left for me to rate essays.
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 16:01 GMT
Hi Lorraine -- I'll send you an email, and we can try to figure this out.
James Dunn wrote on May. 21, 2014 @ 18:05 GMT
@ Jonathan J. Dickau
Suggestion:
Create 2 essay areas for each Authored essay:
1) the original submission; no changes
2) an evolving submission by the author that evolves with reader insights and continued development
This would allow for correcting typos, context gaps, formatting, realized inconsistencies, linking to evidence ...
Then one month before winners are announced close all updates.
The intent is to provide a better product through broad collaboration.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam wrote on May. 21, 2014 @ 21:58 GMT
Brendan Foster,
I just sent an email to forums@FQXi.org concerning the essay contest.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 22, 2014 @ 14:44 GMT
Web-site failure alert!!!
Since some time last night; ALL my FQXi bookmarks failed, and I could access NO pages on the FQXi web-site. It turns out all addresses beginning with 'http://www.fqxi.org' FAILED, but apparently; sites beginning with 'http://fqxi.org' are still working. The server is CONFIGURED INCORRECTLY, as all variants of a valid address should re-direct to a working node, and THIS DOES NOT TAKE PLACE.
For several hours last night, I tried periodically to access the site - to no avail. I also had a friend in a distant location try to access 'www.fqxi.org' using a different ISP, with the same result. The links on Wikipedia, and from a Google search all contain the 'www,' so they fail as well. It appeared that I was locked out, and so was everyone else.
For the record; I DO NOT WANT to be required to re-send all the notifications I sent out, about the contest, and to correct the syntax in every FQXi bookmark, in order to compensate for what is clearly an FQXi technical issue. This is a server-side problem, not an issue the participants should be forced to work around or troubleshoot!
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 15:55 GMT
Thanks for the notice Jonathan -- we will investigate pronto.
Anonymous replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 16:29 GMT
Jonathan,
Thanks for the alert, however, it is also the responsibility of those who post to this site to keep a clean machine themselves. In case people have not been paying any notice to the fact that the is a cyberwar going on, and that hackers of all national, corporate, and criminal interests would be attracted to a site like this to gain entry to files which might contain content...
view entire post
Jonathan,
Thanks for the alert, however, it is also the responsibility of those who post to this site to keep a clean machine themselves. In case people have not been paying any notice to the fact that the is a cyberwar going on, and that hackers of all national, corporate, and criminal interests would be attracted to a site like this to gain entry to files which might contain content beyond that which you intend to share publicly, don't simply blame FQXi for not running a tight ship.
Firstly, EVERY TIME you shut down you computer: go to internet options manually, then click on the box for 'delete browsing history' and then same on the next window option if it follows, then click on the OK box, then click to the icon to manually shut down. DON'T be lazy and do the one click pre-program shut-down option, it can be circumvented. Also, frequently call up 'developer tools' and manually click on 'clear browser cache' of the DOCTYPE html.
This is for your benefit as well as any whom might download any link you post. And here is why. Despite denials by the corporate elite that they don't archive content, only the politically naïve believe that crap. And any and every time you download or access any app, it's server implants an identifier onto not just the data file your working in, but onto the operating system of your computer, which is how one computer knows how to reply to another. But it doesn't stop there, that identifier is shared by the server with other servers which produces the humidity to form the ' cloud'. Mobile devises are even more susceptible to hackers because they don't provide the management option menus you have on a computer. Old, slow computers are actually more secure because modern scans operate a super fast speeds and the loop count gets reset before the scan of a slow speed program is completed.
All this could be largely preventable by adopting a new machine language which would not share bit sequences between data storage and retrieval, and operating system. Gee kids! I wonder why the corporate government industry doesn't do that? As it is, if a bug gets into your data files, it can infect your operating system.
Be Schooled. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 18:35 GMT
Thanks Brendan,
It appears the problem is repaired.
Thanks John (Anonymous),
I do those things anyhow, but I agree it is the individual's responsibility to clean out the browser cache and temp files periodically, to avoid leaving a trail of 'bread crumbs,' or an open back door. I also use Ghostery so I can watch who is watching, and block their efforts. I think it is pretty wild that when you watch a video on the Weather Channel web-site (for example), 30 or more tracker bots will load to see where your mouse hovers and what you click on next. Most people are entirely unaware of how much their activity is being tracked, whenever they browse the internet, but I am not most people.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 22, 2014 @ 17:57 GMT
For some reason the various posts I've made in the last day or so have disappeared and I can no longer access the site through my desktop computer. It doesn't look as though others have lost any posts from last night or earlier today, so is anyone else having these issues, or am I just out of luck, or finally said too much of the wrong things?
See if this posts. From the phone, but same password n email.
Regards,
John Merryman
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 18:31 GMT
I had the same problem, John. Just got reconnected this afternoon. Lost one post I know of, in my essay forum.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 18:43 GMT
Given the other problem..
It appears they migrated the site to a server with more capacity, prior to the final week of voting, in preparation for the bandwidth demand surge sure to come soon. However; there were a few glitches, and perhaps a few posts that will be lost unless they are manually ported from the old server, or are temporarily missing until the delta is restored. I imagine there will be a few ratings, made last night, that end up in limbo as well. But since I was unable to connect during the switch-over; I won't have those problems.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 21:23 GMT
Yes, we had some bumps during a switch of servers -- Sorry for the confusion and inconvenience. We can work on recovering any posts or ratings that may have fallen in the crack, but you might want to go ahead and try and redo them yourselves if possible.
Peter Gluck replied on May. 24, 2014 @ 10:20 GMT
I apologize for joining these discussions so late- but please believe it was due to vis major circumstances. Analyzing the state of this contest:
153 fine essays try to answer an unanswerable question and to solve a rather intractable problem- it is actually not possible to tell how to steer humanity toward a better future.This is gourmet food for the Problem Solving Rules described in my essay, especially rule 18. Do NOT accept the premises of the problem, change them as necessary and possible.
Changing premises adds a new dimension to these solutions-essays and leads to necessary options. Here is a decisive point, will be these options idealistic and
popular or will they be realistic and unpopular? I opted for pragmatism: the World is interesting not GOOD, the truths are broken, negatives as obstacle removal are more important, more urgent than positives.This leads to losses- e.g. in points received from peers or the public but I don't make compromises.
I enjoy the privilege of total sincerity (excuse my typos, I have problems with sight)
Peter
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on May. 23, 2014 @ 18:14 GMT
Dear FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster,
I wish to bring to your notice that two comments were posted by me yesterday in response to the earlier comments of others but it appears the system did not record these. The first thing is that I did not get any notification on my email alerts and then I notice that there conflicting details about my posts on different browsers. How can this be resolved technically please?
Thanks in anticipation.
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam wrote on May. 24, 2014 @ 21:21 GMT
Peter Gluck,
I think your essay
A pragmatic strategy for catalyzing self-sustained progress should be near the top. It is needed in this contest to give balance politically and scientifically.
From your message above: "Here is a decisive point, will be these options idealistic and popular or will they be realistic and unpopular? I opted for pragmatism: the World is interesting not GOOD, the truths are broken, negatives as obstacle removal are more important, more urgent than positives. This leads to losses- e.g. in points received from peers or the public but I don't make compromises."
Your essay was a nice discovery after reading several essays promoting idealistic political/economic themes. I choose to not rate those. In the real world, I would not support the implementation of any of them. I won't give specific reasons in this message. This message is meant to help draw attention to your important essay.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Peter Gluck replied on May. 25, 2014 @ 05:39 GMT
Very nice words dear James! To be discovered, distinguished is the very first condition of an essay to succeed.It has 152 competitors, many of them charming and attractive.
Thank you, James and please discover my blog EGO OUT and its philosophy. The majority of writings there are dedicated to the Energy solution of the future, i do not fear to tell openly to what was once called Cold Fusion. But the blog is about my philosophy- posts labelled BASIC and PROBLEM SOLVING.
There are two other- more specifically cold fusion essays here. In the essay I am predicting commercial level success of two lines of research competing for New Energy. I predict decisive events- to take place before Aug. 31 this year. If true, then my essay is -in a sense a contribution to the action of steering humanity toward a much better future. And then its value is enhanced tremendously.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 02:27 GMT
As an extension of my prior rant, I'm going to post part of a recent comment I made on Don Limuti's thread:
"The process of education goes in cycles. We are a form of swarm intelligence, so this is just one more stage of trying out multiple systems, to find which work best. If you really sit back and look at how these processes function from a natural, rather than an anthropocentric...
view entire post
As an extension of my prior rant, I'm going to post part of a recent comment I made on
Don Limuti's thread: "The process of education goes in cycles. We are a form of swarm intelligence, so this is just one more stage of trying out multiple systems, to find which work best. If you really sit back and look at how these processes function from a natural, rather than an anthropocentric perspective, a lot of our behaviors and their likely consequences are quite predicable.
Consider it in terms of the dichotomy of energy as inherently dynamic and thus constantly pushing outward, while information emerges from the interactions and thus is a stabilizing form of these energies, thus creating the effect of mass.
So then superimpose this relationship on various aspects of biological activity. Such as the relationship of youth to age; Youth is constantly pushing out and trying to expand, with often little regard for past lessons, while age, having been through much of this, is focused on all those structures and strictures we learn in life, due to all the conflicts created by everyone trying to create their own space and expanding out as best as possible.
We could then extend that to the dichotomy of liberal and conservative, with the natural youthful expectation of freedom, enlightenment and progress motivating the basic liberal mindset.
Meanwhile the conservative mind is much more focused on all those hard edges of reality which insist on making themselves felt.
Now there are multitudes of feedback loops of each reflecting off the other, such as political correctness, which is conservative attributes manifesting in formerly liberal assumptions. Or libertarianism, which is more expansionist tendencies manifesting from a conservative mindset.
Then consider the dichotomy my entry focused on, that of government as the social central nervous system and thus processing information, while the financial sector, as the economic circulatory system, is the mechanism by which economic energy/capital, is pushing out in all possible directions, looking for ways to increase its own leverage and power/energy.
How in a healthy relationship, the function of government is to channel these forces in ways which are productive, or at least not destructive, in the longer term. Much as the brain tries to channel the body's energies and impulses in positive and nondestructive manners.
Yet when there isn't apparent positive directions to go, these energies turn inward and start corroding the structural integrity of the system, whether it is corruption in the public sphere, or bad personal vices for the individual.
What we need to learn and educate society to, is the need to be able to channel those necessary elements in a far sighted fashion. Consider all the various systems devised by societies over the ages to channel their public energies. It's safe to say the pyramids arose because there was lots of surplus energy in ancient Egyptian society between the growing and harvest seasons. Most wars over the ages, either interstate, or civil, have been due to the pot boiling over in various communal interactions.
We have been extremely fortunate in the United States, primarily for those of European descent, to have about four hundred years of room to expand, first geographically, then technologically and then using these advantages globally.
Right now, we are about to get serious pushback.
One of the primary sources of our global influence and thus power, has been that the world has used our currency as the global exchange medium, which means we have been able to issue far more than we personally need and thus reap the trade benefits of essentially manufacturing this paper. The really big problem is that it has become a bit of a Ponzi scheme, in that it has to keep growing, or it will start to contract, if not collapse. Much of those middle eastern wars of the last decade have been a function of this necessity to keep the bubble of our monetary empire whole, but our military failures have exposed a serious weakness on the Eurasian continent, which various countries over there can make very effective use of, simply by joining in trade federations that don't use the dollar. Then a lot of those surplus dollars will start returning home and have to be absorbed by our economy.
So what is now happening in the Ukraine has deep financial consequences and neither side can really afford to back down easily. Short of war though, the US will have to. Europe is fundamentally more dependent on Russian gas, than it is on US dollars and banking, even if the banks think and act otherwise.
China is dependent on our markets, but they will have to adjust their economic model, since we largely pay them with raw materials and printed forms of currency, both of which they are starting to have in excess.
So we are at a tipping point and it is the monetary, specifically dollar bubble which is most vulnerable to reality, since it amounts to nothing more than a bunch of contractual agreements that cannot be paid in full and the resulting ill will will break down the basis of trust on which they are based anyway.
So this is why I think the issue of the nature of money, as a contract, not a commodity, is so important in our immediate future and the lack of interest, or knowledge, among the otherwise quite intelligent members of this contest is so depressing to me and evidence of the extent to which people are profoundly deceived by those actually running things.
How can they be educated?"
Regards,
John Merryman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear Brendan and competitor colleagues,
About Science-Religion convergence in the essays.
I dare to think that a sign of goodness, quality of the solutions proposed by us, the participants is convergence- kind of all (or at least more) roads lead to Rome. That mans good ideas will be discovered independently by more of us, using very different premises and approaches. Especially the...
view entire post
Dear Brendan and competitor colleagues,
About Science-Religion convergence in the essays.
I dare to think that a sign of goodness, quality of the solutions proposed by us, the participants is convergence- kind of all (or at least more) roads lead to Rome. That mans good ideas will be discovered independently by more of us, using very different premises and approaches. Especially the more effcctive ideas would result both from the highest level scientific thinking and from ethical superior religious principles.
I am very contented because my pragmatic approach has three pillars Interestigness of the World, Incompleteness of the Truths and Priority of the negative. OK, a great man of science and of religion, Freeman Dyson has also
found that our Universe is the most interesting of all possible universes. A most pleasant surprise recently he has found that the scientific ideas are as I also describe Pareto Truths. see please
https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.sou
ndcloud.com/tracks/148014458%3Fsecret_token%3Ds-7fDb7&color=
0066cc&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_artwork=true
P
hysics Legend Freeman Dyson On The One Thing We Just Don't Get About Science (PODCAST)
[The whole point of science is that most of it is uncertain. That's why science is exciting--because we don't know. Science is all about things we don't understand. The public, of course, imagines science is just a set of facts. But it's not. Science is a process of exploring, which is always partial. We explore, and we find out things that we understand. We find out things we thought we understood were wrong. That's how it makes progress.
Theories are ideas in progress and you never can know when a theory is nailed down.}
I hope he will also arrive to the rather unpopular idea of the priority of the negative.
May I give you the most timely example of the idea that it is more important to NOT do than to do. Today hundreds of millions people on our continent are voting for the European Parliament- they have many choices however it is essential they should NOT vote for neo-nazis- we have to avoid to see 1933 repeated.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Gluck replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 04:32 GMT
I have no idea why the previous post has appeared as written by Anonymous.
I was logged in.
Peter G;uck
report post as inappropriate
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 12:20 GMT
Although I do not count this message as my final episode on this forum but all the same, I felt since the competition is just few days on. So I write.
Special appreciation to the anchor of HOW SHOULD HUMANITY STERR THE FUTURE, the sponsors, and in particular the FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster who responded to individual technical problems. Much more every author who made it to the list of essays. In particular, I appreciate Joe Fisher who appeared in almost every thread of every author and offering constructive criticisms and to all those who commented and rated mine article. To those articles I have opportunity to comments and rate as well I say thank you. There so many others I commented and rated, and promised to do the same, but failed to do the same, you are great-There is still room to make every difference.
I found this forum challenging, educating and interesting.
It is well!
Regards
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 19:58 GMT
Gbenga,
There are a number of us for whom FQXI is a regular forum and source of interesting conversation. Though occasionally it wraps around particular points of obsessive interest, for which there is no resolution, such that the heat exceeds the light, I'm sure a new voice and fresh perspective will always be welcome.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Brent Pfister wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 20:00 GMT
Are we allowed to score our own essay?
I found some problems in mine and was thinking of downvoting it, even though I would not do that to other essays. My essay is
Steering the Happy Path to Humanity’s Future. It does have strengths in addressing these questions: Who steers the future? What are the most important challenges in the next few decades? Could an intelligent computer discover new physics? If interstellar travel ever becomes possible, what is the next colonization problem? It also has many useful links.
Thanks,
Brent
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 20:37 GMT
Hi Brent -- that is very honest of you, but in fact the system is set to block you from rating your own essay.
this post was moved here from a different topic
Brent Pfister replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 20:56 GMT
OK thank you Brendan.
Echoing Gbenga, thank you everyone involved with this contest, especially people who screened essays or commented on many essays. The unexpectedly wide variety of essays taught me a lot. This contest is a form of
crowdsourcing which may pay off in surprising ways in steering the future.
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 19:23 GMT
Alert! Essay Contest voting deadline moved back one week!
We know that our recent behind-the-scenes updates to our website created issues for some of you with voting and accessing the site.
As a result, we will push back the deadline for rating essays, and setting the pool of finalists, one week to NEXT Friday 6 June, at 11:59 PM.
We apologize for any confusion. Please continue to read, rate, and discuss the entries until then.
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on May. 30, 2014 @ 03:44 GMT
Thank you Brendan,
Since I am one of the people who had access issues, and since I've had the additional burden of a Lyme disease infection to fight off (which brings fatigue), I am grateful for the extra time. I should add that the cure is working and I'm feeling much better. A full week should allow me to finish almost all of the essays on my 'essential reading' list. But there are so many good to excellent essays entered, and it will be hard to get to them all, so I apologize for those I will miss reading before next Friday.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Luca Valeri wrote on May. 30, 2014 @ 14:10 GMT
Almost at the end of the voting deadline some statistics might be appropriate.
Compared to the It from Bit contest there where a bit less essays: 155 (vs. 181 )
but almost half of the number of posts: 6'254 (vs. 12'423)
and almost half of the number of community ratings 2'463 (vs. 5'830).
The same relation for the public rating: 1'464 (vs. 2'941).
The (weighted) averaged ratings a bit more generous: 5.3 (vs. 4.2).
56 persons out of the 155 have already posted in the It from bit contest.
Their rating is equal to the other contestants
However they got more posts 50 on average vs. 35 of the new contestants.
The correlation of the number of post to the rating decreased to 0.57 (vs. 0.7 in the It from bit contest)
Of course the number of ratings and posts have some margin to increase but they will not reach the activity level of the last contest.
Interpretation is left to the reader.
Luca
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on May. 30, 2014 @ 16:33 GMT
Hello Luca -- thanks and it will be interesting to look at the stats after voting is closed. The fact is, in all past contests, a huge number of the ratings are placed just within the final days, and even within the last few hours before the deadline.
Similarly, we always receive half of all entries in the last week before the deadline, and around one-third of all entries arrive just within the final day.
Interpretation of these facts left to the readers...
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 20:25 GMT
Thank you Jonathan,
Sorry for your infection. Please get well on time and make this forum more dynamic has ever. On your last question as it appeared in my thread, here is my clarification.
There is hardly any form of technology and invented device produced by the scientists or engineers that you buy at the shopping malls without a working manual with it. Even the drugs we buy the pharmacists who produced them will recommend at “Doctors prescriptions.” But that does not solve the problem of drug addiction. You even found for example, a form of routine test conducted for those in sports to ensure they keep shape without any influence of drugs. Those tested positive are ban for not keeping the law.
I asked in my article the intention of “Edward Teller and his team for inventing the Hydrogen bomb?” Of course it may be with good intention, but for the endanger species (human beings) in the ecosystem which use the same to propagate terrorism and every act of dehumanization and upset the balance in the ecosystem, the law will catch up on such. So my explanation goes beyond technology and inventions but even all activities of man which must be correlated to the good of others and the natural habitat in the ecosystem. But if he will use technology, invention or any activity to abuse others and the good of the ecosystem, the law or retribution will apply. This is my concept. So the ideology explained in the essay, form a concept for a normal way of life for the global community to follow. And I think the UN is doing a lot in this direction and can still do more. For more on the essay, here is the link http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020
This may not apply to everyone but may add to earlier post as regard my essay on STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYTEM. You may downplay it if it does not apply to you.
With highest regards to Jonathan
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 20:27 GMT
He who thinks he is leading and has no one following him is only taking a walk.
An African Proverb.
This website in all has produced many followers in particular HOW HUMANITY SHOULD STEER THE FUTURE. What is your take my colleagues………
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 13:29 GMT
What would one say if we were taking a walk in the same direction? -- that everyone is leading and no one following? Or everyone is following and no one leading?
Perhaps we can do without leaders and followers altogether, and enjoy walking our own paths.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 13:51 GMT
Gbenga,
Tom,
There is another old African saying, I heard a long time ago; "If you want to travel fast, go alone, but if you want to travel far, go with a group."
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 14:13 GMT
Tom,
"enjoy walking our own paths."
Consider time as the narrative sequence of the individual path, while the community moving about is more thermodynamics. History is when those leaders try to get everyone moving in the same direction.
Yet the fact remains that; "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Thermodynamics rules.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 17:46 GMT
"Thermodynamics rules."
Yes, but the rule is self-limiting to equilibrium, which is equivalent to death. To choose life, though we cannot reverse the trajectory toward equilibrium, we can ensure that the trajectory is continuous, i.e., adiabatic at every scale.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 20:40 GMT
Tom,
Either the entire universe began at that unexplained point of low entropy and high energy and is expanding out to thermal equilibrium, which does create the rather large question of where it came from, or the universe is infinite and simply trades energy around, in that what is lost to outward radiation at one place, is replaced by inward radiation from surrounding areas.
Either way, the ability for energy to coalesce, either as the galaxies we observe, or the initial singularity that is proposed, has to be taken into account. If it happened once, it must be able to happen again.
So either way, thermal equilibrium is just the calm areas between the vortices and the cycle is logically endless. Mass contracts, radiation expands.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 04:26 GMT
"Either the entire universe began at that unexplained point of low entropy and high energy and is expanding out to thermal equilibrium, which does create the rather large question of where it came from, or the universe is infinite and simply trades energy around, in that what is lost to outward radiation at one place, is replaced by inward radiation from surrounding areas."
False dichotomy, John. There is no argument for where the universe came from; the first law of thermodynamics is conservation. If the universe is infinite, nothing is conserved. The universe appears to us as finite and unbounded.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 09:44 GMT
Tom,
If the universe is infinite, then all other areas are loosing energy as well and so they would all be just trading it around. We get light from all directions and from 13+ billion lightyears away, just as our galaxy equally radiates light away. If there is no outer boundary, this just goes on forever, so ultimately the energy is conserved.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 13:02 GMT
John,
The sign (positive, zero or negative) that describes the curvature of the universe tells us whether or not it is infinite. The data tend very close to zero, a flat universe that is on the border of open and closed.
As they say, watch this space for more information.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 13:43 GMT
Tom, John,
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Can there be an action without a reaction or can there be a reaction without an action? Is there actually a cause and effect principle involved, by which I mean if for action to have a positive value, it must elicit a reaction, then how did the first positive change in the value of action occur?
I hope I am clear. What I mean is, when we walk, which comes first is it the 'moving action' or the 'friction' that permits it, or were the two always there? Or for a bullet, is is the bullet's action or the recoil of the gun or the two simultaneously? And if simultaneously, how so? Indeed, on what basis is one event called an action and another a reaction and not vice versa?
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 16:49 GMT
Akinbo,
" ... on what basis is one event called an action and another a reaction and not vice versa?"
There is none. Motion is perfectly symmetrical. That's why the equations of classical physics are as valid backward in time, as forward.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 19:38 GMT
Tom,
Doesn't "flat" effectively mean the inward and outward curvatures are proportionally equal?
It always seemed to me that if gravity effectively balances expansion, then there is no overall expansion. Only that what expands between galaxies in balanced by what is contracting into them.
So possibly expansion/redshift is not just an effect on radiation, but an effect of radiation. Much as gravity is not just an effect on mass, but an effect of mass.
Then the expansion of radiation is being balanced by the contraction of mass and there is some cycle at work. In a sense, it would be simply a fluctuating vacuum, in which the positive expansion/curvature doesn't immediately vanish, but coalesces into these vortices of mass that grinds them down.
Otherwise there are so many open questions; The Big Bang, Inflation, Dark energy, Dark matter....
It all remains an open question, whether or not particular cultures consider it closed.
Akinbo,
Our intentions are the actions. Nature provides the reactions. Like much of everything else, it all depends on the point of view. Are we moving forward, or does the path go the other direction?
Do we move from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday?
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 11:49 GMT
The math of the future of humanity.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 13:25 GMT
Good article, John. Thanks. It underscores why we should prefer a consciously self-organized system of governance and economics, because it contains within itself the principle of self-limitation.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 14:08 GMT
Tom,
Nature incorporated the necessary cycling by having individual organisms die and just pass on the genetic and cultural code. This problem goes even down to the basis of our religious models, from the instruction to go forth and multiply, to the story of the ten talents. Our national culture is based on expansion, as in; Go west, young man.
So we don't beat nature, we just create larger cycles, with larger downsides. Yet we don't want a perfect equilibrium, as that would amount to a flatline. Just as biology is constantly cycling, building up and breaking down, we need to incorporate a willingness and understanding of letting go to match our desire to acquire. Everything from wealth to life. One where it truly is accepted and not just used by those in power against those who are not.
This is why I keep trying to impress the point that abstract wealth extraction compounds not only environmental, but social destruction as well. If we have strongly networked and organic societies and not just these atomized melting pots of disconnected individuals, than people would grow to understand and appreciate how connected they are to the earth and the larger community and be far more willing to accept what they have and not always obsessively feel the need to get more, in order to feel secure. We are all motivated by that singular sense of self, but if we grew to recognize it is the same sense of self flowing through all of life, it would reduce the sociopathy considerably.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 15:52 GMT
John,
" ... die and just pass on the genetic and cultural code."
The genetic, not the cultural. This irrational belief -- that culture is inherited -- was the problem with Lysenkoism that I addressed in my essay.
Genetic characteristics are redundant, flexible and adaptive; culture is not. This is the argument I apply against genetic tinkering -- eugenics -- which seeks to force cultural norms onto the genome. It is self destructive.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 20:30 GMT
Tom,
Nature and nurture.
My impression is that culture is extremely "redundant, flexible and adaptive," but that may just be the particular culture I live in. Admittedly there are aspects of all cultures which are self important, hidebound and rigid, but that's more of a late stage, than the entirety of the phenomenon.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 04:30 GMT
John,
What culture is it you live in, that is not self-important, hidebound, and rigid?
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 09:54 GMT
Tom,
I suppose in that critical boundary between order and chaos, this situation leans a little bit toward chaos. Not to say that in the world of east coast horse racing and old wasp families, there isn't a lot of order, but you might well be surprised by the degrees of unpredictability. The sister I am in business with had named her first racing outfit the Un Stable. Now we use the parents old farm and original farm name of the
Orebanks. Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 13:17 GMT
That was my point, John. Individuals who the resources and will to control the parameters of their private lives -- whether one calls that a 'culture' or not -- have the built in adaptability and flexibility to grow and flourish.
A political, economic and religious culture, of which individuals and their immediate families form a subset, imposes a hard shell of rules and conformity from which new growth finds it difficult to escape. When difficult becomes impossible, the subset withers and dies within the shell.
In my lifetime and yours we have seen repeated failed attempts to 'protect' societies and cultures only lead to the repression of growth and creativity -- and with it, peace and prosperity.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 19:22 GMT
Tom,
Yes, but how much of that is feedback from physical limitations which the society or organization is encountering, or created, due to the motivating factors?
Too often we view these situations from political, or emotional points of view and expect nature to grant us our wishes.
Often political, economic and religious cultures form to give focus to the desires of the people, or at least those presumably managing or inspiring them. As individuals, we do get caught up in forces far beyond our own control, even those benefiting often do so out of sheer luck and those who are most motivated in stagnant social conditions often don't have the interests of the larger population in mind, as they seek to profit from their situation.
Much of the peace and prosperity you and I have grown up and old in, has been a function of riding this carbon fueled economic boom that has been the "American culture" of the last two centuries.
So we need to change the culture and the best time to do that is when the old culture has broken down, but before everything completely collapses. Given that acquisition of monetary wealth has been a major motivating factor in this culture and that the mechanisms of this process are deliberately obscured by those managing it, for their own benefit, I think a little sunlight on the situation would be quite instructive to how to model our systems of economic interaction.
Change is coming, whether we want it or not.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 22:14 GMT
"Change is coming, whether we want it or not."
From your lips to Bob Dylan's ears.
Sure, I agree we need to change trajectories, though I don't think we can do it by replacing one culture with another. A self organized network of cultures with mutual tolerance and cooperation, however, may have a chance.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 02:02 GMT
Tom,
I certainly agree strength is in diversity and you went much further into that in your essay. The fact remains that the past informs the future and this world spent much of the 20th century in a conflict between communism and capitalism. Which capitalism won because structure is necessary for society. Not all people can be equal, no matter how admirable a belief it might be. Yet we do all function within the same system and now capitalism has reached the point of reductio ad absurdum, with the entire goal of the economic process simply to produce more notational capital, based an assumption of security, to the detriment of the entire social and environmental structure supporting it.
The next time it has one of those periodic heart attacks, it could well be terminal and all the pump priming possible isn't going to revive it.
Then the world will go back to a much more local scale. Yet unless people begin to understand that a monetary system is a public utility, those who will use it as a wealth extraction device are going to end up ruling many of those local economies and if we use the principles of experiment and peer review so much evident in this contest, then that parasitic form of financialization will prevail as the dominant model once again.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 01:02 GMT
Quote from the article John linked to ("It's simple. If we can't change our economic system, our number's up", http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/27/if-we-c
ant-change-economic-system-our-number-is-up):
"
On Friday, a few days after scientists announced that the collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet is now inevitable, the Ecuadorean government decided to allow...
view entire post
Quote from the article John linked to ("It's simple. If we can't change our economic system, our number's up", http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/27/if-we-c
ant-change-economic-system-our-number-is-up):
"
On Friday, a few days after scientists announced that the collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet is now inevitable, the Ecuadorean government decided to allow oil drilling in the heart of the Yasuni national park. It had made an offer to other governments: if they gave it half the value of the oil in that part of the park, it would leave the stuff in the ground. You could see this as either blackmail or fair trade. Ecuador is poor, its oil deposits are rich. Why, the government argued, should it leave them untouched without compensation when everyone else is drilling down to the inner circle of hell? It asked for $3.6bn and received $13m. The result is that Petroamazonas, a company with a colourful record of destruction and spills, will now enter one of the most biodiverse places on the planet, in which a hectare of rainforest is said to contain more species than exist in the entire continent of North America.
The UK oil firm Soco is now hoping to penetrate Africa's oldest national park, Virunga, in the Democratic Republic of Congo; one of the last strongholds of the mountain gorilla and the okapi, of chimpanzees and forest elephants. In Britain, where a possible 4.4 billion barrels of shale oil has just been identified in the south-east, the government fantasises about turning the leafy suburbs into a new Niger delta. To this end it's changing the trespass laws to enable drilling without consent and offering lavish bribes to local people. These new reserves solve nothing. They do not end our hunger for resources; they exacerbate it.
The trajectory of compound growth shows that the scouring of the planet has only just begun. As the volume of the global economy expands, everywhere that contains something concentrated, unusual, precious, will be sought out and exploited, its resources extracted and dispersed, the world's diverse and differentiated marvels reduced to the same grey stubble.
Some people try to solve the impossible equation with the myth of dematerialisation: the claim that as processes become more efficient and gadgets are miniaturised, we use, in aggregate, fewer materials. There is no sign that this is happening. Iron ore production has risen 180% in 10 years. The trade body Forest Industries tells us that "global paper consumption is at a record high level and it will continue to grow". If, in the digital age, we won't reduce even our consumption of paper, what hope is there for other commodities?
Look at the lives of the super-rich, who set the pace for global consumption. Are their yachts getting smaller? Their houses? Their artworks? Their purchase of rare woods, rare fish, rare stone? Those with the means buy ever bigger houses to store the growing stash of stuff they will not live long enough to use. By unremarked accretions, ever more of the surface of the planet is used to extract, manufacture and store things we don't need. Perhaps it's unsurprising that fantasies about colonising space - which tell us we can export our problems instead of solving them - have resurfaced.
...
The inescapable failure of a society built upon growth and its destruction of the Earth's living systems are the overwhelming facts of our existence. As a result, they are mentioned almost nowhere. They are the 21st century's great taboo, the subjects guaranteed to alienate your friends and neighbours. We live as if trapped inside a Sunday supplement: obsessed with fame, fashion and the three dreary staples of middle-class conversation: recipes, renovations and resorts. Anything but the topic that demands our attention.
Statements of the bleeding obvious, the outcomes of basic arithmetic, are treated as exotic and unpardonable distractions, while the impossible proposition by which we live is regarded as so sane and normal and unremarkable that it isn't worthy of mention. That's how you measure the depth of this problem: by our inability even to discuss it.
"
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 04:47 GMT
That is a potent observation, Lorraine.
We had better hope that more people do wake up to what is important, to see what is going on around them, before it is too late to stop the carnage. I remember there was an old Genesis song that talked about the travesty of combining tragedy with nonchalance that pervades the media and our society, but I can't quite recall the title. Perhaps it will pop up.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 07:20 GMT
Hi Jonathan,
Yes, George Monbiot is a brilliant journalist, writer and zoologist, who in my opinion, tells it like it is. When I get time, I am reading his latest book "Feral: Rewilding the Land, the Sea, and Human Life"
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 14:01 GMT
Thanks Lorraine,
I guess I'll have to put Monbiot's book on my reading list too. And the song I was thinking about is titled "Blood on the Rooftops."
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Peter Gluck wrote on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 06:55 GMT
Dear Brendan,
In case this http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20140530 is right, then
the absence of the cheap catch-phraases could add to the value of our essays
greetings,
Peter Gluck
report post as inappropriate
Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 21:33 GMT
Dear Colleagues,
Many of our essays in this contest proposed learning inform of acquisition of knowledge as the means by which HUMANITY CAN STEER THE FUTURE. My view about this is not absolute because we have close to 1.5 billion peole in the world who are stack illiterates (they can neither read nor write) mostly in the developing worlds. The rest billions who have acquired education have reached the threshold-where the law of diminishing return is settin
g in. You found myriads of graduates all over the world without jobs. The rate of unemployment in both the world giants and developing countries have also reached its highest in history. Education is no longer seen as the panacea to social challenges. But we have seen many university drop outs with distinctive skills and in born potentials being the greatest entrepreneurs in the world.
The Chinese received their education from the west and yet during the global economic crunch, it was these Chinese that provided support from the total collapse of the financial and economic system. Many of those economic theories failed during crisis. So to steer the future we need more than getting education.
What is your view about this argument colleagues?
Regards
Gbenga
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 23:41 GMT
Gbenga,
I posit it's HOW we employ our brains that matters. Stuffing them with so called 'facts' is not the answer, we need to learn how to better use them for perception, so in a different way, as Einstein, Bragg and so many have pointed out. Most just dismiss that concept. We must stop doing so.
An example in a paper a few years ago compared a far eastern and African approach with western Industrialised educated responses. Asked; 'where is the truck'? The latter might say; "150 yards to my left and closing to pass 20 yards behind me." Quite precise you may think. The former would more likely say; "south of the river heading downstream towards the bridge".
The first description is on no use to anybody 'else', the second is 'absolute'. At another level western science is similarly self-centric. I suggest we have a lot to learn about different ways to think. I tried to subtly show the massive potential results in terms of new ways to view of familiar things in my essay. Perhaps I was too subtle? Or perhaps the (self apparent) result was too much of a leap? But yes, I agree we do need more than imposing our present 'education' on those who've so far escaped it.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 02:16 GMT
Gbenga,
Knowledge is information. Wisdom is in the editing.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
En Passant wrote on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 23:20 GMT
[I had to resort to formatting that was not intended, otherwise the output was garbled, so please ignore unusual formatting conventions.]
You will have to excuse me if I am a bit clued out. I have not written any essay, nor have I read any. There are so many to read that my time will not permit to even start. But I felt compelled to enter this post after reading many (well, it seemed like...
view entire post
[I had to resort to formatting that was not intended, otherwise the output was garbled, so please ignore unusual formatting conventions.]
You will have to excuse me if I am a bit clued out. I have not written any essay, nor have I read any. There are so many to read that my time will not permit to even start. But I felt compelled to enter this post after reading many (well, it seemed like many) comments on this blog topic. Not that I thought I had better ideas, but rather that I thought what I am now going to say may improve the ideas of others. So this is how it goes:
Whenever you have a question that says How the answer to that has to contain the implied (or explicit) intent of what you are trying to accomplish. I realize that the FQXi question may have been intentionally left vague (open) in that regard, to elicit a wide variety of intents and values. And that is OK. But then I thought that there might be a value that most, if not all, readers could endorse. And that is, ensuring a permanent and infinite survival of humanity. It is a tall order, and we are not up to the task of defining this with any amount of precision. But there are certain generalities that are likely to obtain for a very long time (if not forever). One is that we need to apply science to every aspect of life, and decisions cannot be made on faith (nor based on intuition). That would be the long-term view.
Apart from that, for a much shorter view, we need to balance immediate needs (say, energy) with slightly longer needs (say, environment). There is a right balance, and neither politicians nor billionaires (yes, that Samuel Clemens admonishment applies equally to billionaires, of all things) are smart enough to find that balance. But scientists are, under the right circumstances. In some cases or for some problems not any one of them (there can be exceptions), but a sufficiently large and sufficiently expert group of them might be. The risk under such group circumstances is that personalities and politics will dominate, and prevail over what otherwise could have been a wise consensus, so safeguards against that have to be built in. But it is really only the scientific community that can observe nature, figure out how the aspect they are investigating works, and devise an optimal way to deal with the challenge at hand. It may fail at times, so we will have to go back to the drawing board and figure it out. The only faith I hold is that we can do it. But it is more than hope.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Chidi Idika wrote on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 07:49 GMT
Hi, people.
Hi, En passant.
Just for the record,
this one essay essentially attempts to define the notion “humanity” more rigorously. A herculean task may be!
But in the face of human nature science has been totally tongue in cheek and double-trouble effect. Was it not science that also brought with it the ravaging of the environment or was it rather human nature?
Now that I can think about it, many other essays in the contest are saying something like:
“Had I been present at the creation/big bang I would have given some useful hints as to a better ordering of the universe”What a gut! And look who is talking still—“human nature”.
We urgently need to get around this “hungry matter that thinks it is thinking” (my favorite off Peter Gluck).
It is said that a problem well defined is half solved. The same must apply to this problem of human nature.
Chidi
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 11:26 GMT
Chidi,
There is a saying in racing that 90% of the cost goes into the last 10% of performance. Even almost doesn't count.
Nature already incorporates the wave collapse, by having individuals die, as the sense of self perpetuates itself through others. We just have to accept the need for mortality.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
En Passant replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 15:00 GMT
Chidi Idika wrote (among other things) on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 07:49 GMT
It is said that a problem well defined is half solved.
Chidi,
I normally would not reply to a comment directed at a post I might make, but you mentioned something that is useful for everyone. (Sorry, I cannot take up any other points you make, and your link did not work for some reason.)
If you dwell (perhaps even excessively and obsessively) on analyzing the question to get at what exactly it is asking, you will at minimum know the grammatical form of the answer (could be more than one that is possible). In most cases, you will know what the answer will have to look like (even if you cannot fill in the blanks). This can help in directing you to how and where to obtain the answer. In some cases, this very process will lead you directly to the answer. Are you doing this?
En
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 19:25 GMT
In addition to George Monbiot's article from The Guardian, i also recommend Chris Martenson's presentation of his findings:
Chris MartensonIt's worth to also take a closer look at some other presentations/interviews with this guy.
Thanks John Merryman for putting the link to Monbiot's article into this blog (
'The math of the future of humanity')
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 01:44 GMT
John, Stefan, All,
as I quoted near the start of my essay "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." - Prof. Al Bartlett
It is the maths applicable to growth of any kind, eg. compound interest, growth in use of resources or population growth.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 02:01 GMT
Stefan,
It's been a good fight. These conversations continue among the hard core around here and your voice is certainly welcome.
Georgina,
The irony here is how physics considers 'information' indestructible, yet the only way the exponential function can operate is if there is an equal amount of destruction. You might say the collapse of the wave function is alive and well. No multiworlds.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 20:29 GMT
Stefan,
There are problems with Chris Martenson and his presentation.
1. He is an investment advisor and he is addressing potential clients.
2. For 40 years he has been advising his clients to hop on the exponential curve as a way to make money.
3. Now he is advising clients of certain DOOM because of the exponential curve.
4. But, he has a way to insure that his wife and kids will be safe because of his knowledge.
5. He intimates that he would give this knowledge as part of his consulting to clients.
6. IMHO he is very capable of manipulating markets (making them crash), to his own advantage.
7. I like the free market system. I do not like Chris Martenson.
8. And yes, we need to be aware that oil is running out.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 08:30 GMT
Dear Don,
thanks for your comments.
I wholeheartedly agree with your 8 points.
Anyways, his presentation could put the focus on what is true and reliable in the 'Doom and Gloom'-discussion of the money-system.
Money is loaned into existence. The free market system needs a certain amount of growth to compensate the consequences of the loaned money. The exponential dynamics of certain systems are much worth to consider more deeply. This dynamics is inevitably linked to consume more and more natural resources (even if this means that the natural resource of human manpower must be doubled for 'every' man to serve the demands - surely without monetary compensation). Oil is running out and we have no real alternative for certain services to replace oil-based industry with other forms of energy/materials.
What perplexed me by listening to some of his interviews was, that he seems to advise buying rare metals and the resources to 'salvage' those metals as a form of panic-proof property - for the case of the financial doomsday. This is a kind of imperialistic capitalism that contradicts the wholistic approach to change/enhance the present debt-based monetary system for the good of as many people as possible. The idea behind this 'metal-hoarding' is no other than to further keep short some up-to-day urgently needed materials for the sake of huge personal profits and some kind of power over large amounts of people. An old and sad story, well known in history.
What's the essence of all of it?
Some want and need (due to psychological reasons) distribution fights/wars, because those fights incorporate huge amounts of free energy that can be changed into money (due to our present debt-based system), while others don't need fights/wars because they know that at the end the results always are mass destructions of the one or other kind.
Best wishes,
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 11:21 GMT
Don, Stefan,
Which all goes to show why we need to understand the monetary system has to function as a public utility and nothing more, or nothing less.
Yes, we can have a public debt based system of money, but unless the rewards from this system accrue back to the public and not just accumulate in private hands, it does build up these bubbles and blows up. As it is now, the obligations from these contracts are public and the assets are private.
The circulation system has to circulate. It's not complicated and eventually those doing the accumulating will blow their own golden goose up. That is why there needs to be education of what is happening, so the systems which rise in its wake don't make the same mistakes and fall under the same spell.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 05:03 GMT
John,
I liked the idea you expressed of the money system as a public utility. Of course the devil is in the details. Do you have any references on how to do this?
Thanks,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 07:30 GMT
"our inability even to discuss the depth of this problem".
Well, Alan Kadin's essay has already been unwelcome although he didn't even mention what needs to be overcome: any inhumane because merely patriotic or dogmatic religious perspective. Alfred Nobel and some hopefully benign disasters might guide us to the only appropriate human perspective.
As a hopefully benign disaster in the near future, John Merryman envisioned a non-cyclical monetary crisis. Yesterday Europe introduced for the first time negative interest rates. The next disastrous step could be unlimited emission of debts of estate. Social security is certain to become uncertain.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 09:36 GMT
Dear Eckhard,
the system of interest rates now gets shut down step by step. Europe made the first step in this direction yesterday. The banks run out of solvent defaulters worldwide during the last 3 years. The ECB cannot become insolvent, merely technically insolvent. It tries to delay a stagflation like in the early 1970s. But in constrast to the 1970s, the amount of compounded interests...
view entire post
Dear Eckhard,
the system of interest rates now gets shut down step by step. Europe made the first step in this direction yesterday. The banks run out of solvent defaulters worldwide during the last 3 years. The ECB cannot become insolvent, merely technically insolvent. It tries to delay a stagflation like in the early 1970s. But in constrast to the 1970s, the amount of compounded interests does exceed the worlds 'gross domestic product' by many many factors. As we know, firing on the real estate market or any other market can only work, if there is appropriate demand for it and if there are no remarkable increases in interest rates in the future. So the banks have to lower their interest rates for loans too, for not crashing the next bubble. But by doing this, they would crash themselves. The system, in my opinion, is doomed to crash, because the net profit doesn't exceed anymore the investments (private annuity assurances, modernisations in companies and infrastructure).
The main 'psychological' problem here is, that the system has the immanent factor of distribution fights built into it. We now see this in the fact that obviously the banks furthermore do not trust other banks. Helping other banks may mean to loose money - what is surely a realistic line of reasoning. But only because the system is split into the loose/win, public/private, loaning/working dichotomy. In other words: The diverse elements of society do work against each other, rather than working together.
John is absolutely right in my opinion:
"unless the rewards from this system accrue back to the public and not just accumulate in private hands, it does build up these bubbles and blows up. As it is now, the obligations from these contracts are public and the assets are private".
This is the result of the neoliberal agenda, which Milton Friedman has advocated in the late sixties with his book 'Capitalism and Freedom'. Reagan and Thatcher followed and after them the rest of the world. The key question was and is always, who owns the productivity. If the productivity is largely owned by the shareholders and companies, the wage ratio decays for most people. Result is, the ratio of unemployment rises - and the costs of this dynamics rises with it. What we have taken from the future via loans in the past is now nomore available to even finance pensions for the coming retirement generation Not to speak of those who today are young and are unemployed. These people have no change to generate a private annuity assurance.
What we have taken from the future via loans is existent yet, but is hugely in the wrong hands today (in my opinion).
Best wishes,
Stefan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 09:57 GMT
Stefan, Eckard,
What those who set up this real world game of Monopoly forget is that when one person owns everything, the game is over and you start again. In the real world, this usually involves pitchforks and torches.
I do think the deeper issue is not just how the rewards from this process of abstract extraction of wealth are distributed, but that it fundamentally has to be slowed down, because it does then serve as a siphon to pull value out of the environment and society, as though they were resources to be mined, not legitimate stores of value in their own right. We need to establish a more organic society and that will require reviewing much more than just the vortex currently built into the financial system. As I point out in my entry, even the ideal of a top down deity needs reconsideration, since reality is essentially bottom up and after we trip and fall from this quest for the ideal, it is back to the essential we return.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 10:26 GMT
Don J Chisholm's essay "Our Journey to the next Paradigm" talks about the "the crisis of the 3Es" i.e. Energy, Environment and the Economy. He has this to say about "The Money System":
"
Private and Corporate Control of the debt-based money system:
The importance of monetary system control cannot be overstated. As a means of exchange of goods and services, this human-created tool is essential for any form of civilization beyond hunter-gatherer. It is the master regulator of human activity. It is an integral part of our lives that gives access to life essentials. It influences daily decisions ranging from purchases to procreation. Its importance is well understood by those who control it, as indicated in a quote by Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the House of Rothschild: "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws".
Over the centuries, monetary value has been based on a variety of real commodities ranging from tulips bulbs to gold. In the Nixon era the gold-based world standard US dollar was set free as a "fiat" dollar, based on a shared agreement of value. The primary money supply to the economy is created by banks that demand interest plus loan repayment. This system guarantees expansion of human activity in order to earn the money to pay off the loan plus the interest. A side effect is guaranteed inflation. As economist John Kenneth Galbraith once famously observed, "The process by which money is created is so simple it repels the mind. "
The money system either influences or affects all other elements of this circle of issue and there can be no resolution of our wicked problem until the money system is under the regulatory control of a dynamic science-based system of governance with a goal of eventual sustainability.
"
report post as inappropriate
En Passant replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 10:45 GMT
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 09:57 GMT
What those who set up this real world game of Monopoly forget is that when one person owns everything, the game is over and you start again. In the real world, this usually involves pitchforks and torches.
John, (there is more in what you say, but I only want to take up this particular thought).
Obviously, you know what is going on. The thing is (however) that this time around they think they have got it mastered. [For now this applies to the USA, but it is being worked on in Europe. I can only hope that there are enough people in Europe who are not sociopathic, and the efforts of the sociopaths will fail there.] They have supplied local police with military gear to contain any local uprising(s). They have co-opted the intelligence agencies to their aim as well. And they have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal, right up to the US army.
By all standards, they are doing very well. No pitchfork uprising in the US will succeed unless almost everyone takes to the streets, and the soldiers (who have families and are not a part of the sociopathic group) realize that they cannot shoot their own.
You have no idea (well you may have, but this is just to amplify it) about the gravity of the problem. But you are right in one thing. It will all fold itself upon itself in time. In the interim, a lot of people will suffer. And I am not even going to go into the economics of this.
report post as inappropriate
En Passant replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 11:28 GMT
Just to complete the picture (pertinent to my comment above). You are familiar with the clean-up of the US army? Everyone (at a certain level) who said they would not be willing to shoot at (or order shooting at) American citizens got fired a couple of years ago. Look it up.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 12:13 GMT
En Passant,
This is not something knew. Everyone who accepts employment with the U.S. Department of Defense swears an oath to defend the Constitution, "... against all enemies, foreign and domestic ..." from the president on down.
report post as inappropriate
En Passant replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 14:01 GMT
Fair enough, Tom. But it would have sufficed to leave it at that. It did not require a special initiative to get rid of people whose personal values conflict with the oath. Why was it OK until now? And another thing. At a certain scale you may not know who the enemy is. Once enough people in the US are against the ruling class, who is the USA at that point? At a certain tipping point it may be the 450+ billionaires who are the real enemy. Well, except for Warren Buffet, and another guy who supports the environmentalists. Bill Gates is on the fence. Heck, while I am at it, let me voice a concern about privatization of public functions, especially education.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 14:41 GMT
" ... it would have sufficed to leave it at that. It did not require a special initiative to get rid of people whose personal values conflict with the oath."
Yes it did. Just as one who swears in court to tell the truth and doesn't, is a perjurer, one who swears to uphold and defend the Constitution, and doesn't, is a traitor. I don't know if you have served in the armed forces, but the cohesivness of a fighting unit is based in loyalty; at the point of risking lives in armed conflict, it is the only guarantee of one's willingness to defend not just the law of the land (the U.S. Constitution); it is the only guarantee of defending the life of the person next to you. That's where the rubber really meets the road, where the stakes are far more serious than any politican's or ideologue's drivel.
The U.S. loyalty oath is unique among nations, in that it does not swear fealty to a monarch or a god or an ideology. It swears to uphold the rule of law that preserves freedom for everyone and not just the party in power or the party who wants to seize power illegally.
"Why was it OK until now?"
It wasn't. It never was. You'll notice that "controversy" over the issue has been ginned up by right wing extremists who have abandoned the rule of law in favor of their ideology.
report post as inappropriate
En Passant replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 14:54 GMT
You prove my point. Thank you. And I like your dwelling on real values. In the absence of real values, social order is at peril. And to give credit to American soldiers in WWII, they behaved like gentlemen in Europe at that time. I will not go into details, but if I had a hat, I would take it off right now.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 17:02 GMT
John,
While Nobel was baptized he didn't ascribe any role to e deity. This makes my essay different from mine. I guess, it is likely that humanity will face a monetary crisis as did e.g. Germany after France demanded too much reparations. Seemingly in the end many people lost their fortunes. Unfortunately the very end was more expensive and gave rise to celebrate D-Day up to now. It is difficult to predict what will happen. I see war and irresponsible damage to the earth including all resources the worst scenarios that did even put at risk Jonathan Dickau's play with octonions and the data collected in Goettingen.
Perhaps the best advice to humanity is to ignore all recommendations of futurists and of course those who offer illusory ways out. Instead, everybody is needed to contribute by means of useful activities from genuine and fertile discoveries and inventions up to propagation of appealing ideas including a reasonable number of children and living a satisfactory but not triumphalistic life.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 18:10 GMT
While it's reasonable to frame this issue in political, sociological, class, economic terms, etc. I think there is an interesting dynamic to consider if we really step back and consider it objectively.
Yes, it is currently framed as the 1% and their minions, versus everyone else, but I think that in physical terms, it resembles a vortex and all of us are both caught up in it and feeding it. For one thing, the method of control for the 1% and the political establishment is through that very monetary system which they are actively destroying, in order to preserve the status quo for a little while longer.
If history is any example, when they blow that up, the banking class will find themselves redundant and the power will shift to those actually in control of the weapons. Now there might be certain sociopathic elements in the military, but they don't yet have a strong history of civilian control in this country and so there will be a significant window between the next financial heart attack and the first world society actually sinking into that abyss.
This will be a time when not only significant elements within that 1% will realize positive change is in their long term favor, but, possibly even more importantly, the media breaks out of its various boxes and really starts asking questions and actively seeking answers. That is when real change will be possible.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
En Passant replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 18:43 GMT
John,
I realize that you did not ask for approval of your position, nor of who you are. I know you are self-aware of your place in the world, and of everything I will yet say. That internalized fairness that came with the original English aristocracy (even if it meant to apply to the upper classes) was a good way to run the world. It only needed to be adopted by everyone. You are aware that the view you adopt is an idealized form of our actual world. But that is how we need to proceed. Form an idealized picture of what we want the world to be, and go for it. What matters is the intellectual honesty. That alone will get us there. It is that simple. If anyone is wiser than you (and this is really doubtful), they will never take advantage of you. So you may as well go for it!
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 20:53 GMT
En,
Thank you very much! Encouragement and agreement are always welcome, as it's a job for much more than any one person, to get that ball rolling.
Don,
The main one I can think of is http://publicbankinginstitute.org/, though when you consider the situation, it's a bit like asking for references on democracy in 1776.
Society consists of individuals and necessarily...
view entire post
En,
Thank you very much! Encouragement and agreement are always welcome, as it's a job for much more than any one person, to get that ball rolling.
Don,
The main one I can think of is
http://publicbankinginstitute.org/, though when you consider the situation, it's a bit like asking for references on democracy in 1776.
Society consists of individuals and necessarily government and banking originate as a consequence of the initiative of particular individuals, so it is natural they would originate as private functions.
Many public functions, such as roads, police, courts, don't necessarily generate profits, so there is a strong initiative to make them public functions. Often throughout history, such as in this country, prior to the creation of the Fed, private banks would issue their own currency and be responsible for maintaining its legitimacy and value and for this, would reap the rewards of the community's use of it.
What happened with the creation of the Fed, is that the responsibilities and risks of creating the currency essentially became public, while the rewards remained private. While this does seem to be a rather clever maneuver on the part of the banks, especially JP Morgan, it also opened the door a crack to having a completely public monetary system, given this model is effectively designed to blow up, even though it's taken just over a hundred years to do so. Otherwise the alternative is to go back to private banks issuing their own currency.
Yes, the devil is in the details, but as Churchill said of democracy, "It's the worst form of government, except for all the others." As I argued in my entry, it should logically be bottom up, with local community banks using profits generated from that community to fund local projects and then being shareholders in more regional systems. Though these are the sorts of ideas which need to be tried before they can be properly evaluated.
Keep in mind, they were not completely sure democracy would work, when they were writing the Constitution.
Regards,
John
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 22:08 GMT
Dear Eckard,
i wholeheartedly agree with your statement
"Perhaps the best advice to humanity is to ignore all recommendations of futurists and of course those who offer illusory ways out. Instead, everybody is needed to contribute by means of useful activities from genuine and fertile discoveries and inventions up to propagation of appealing ideas including a reasonable number of children and living a satisfactory but not triumphalistic life."
The triumph of such a live lies in what the Jews wrote into the ring they gave Oscar Schindler:
"Whoever saves one life saves the world entire"
what means to me changing one's life to the better is the triumph of love over death and destruction. It is the only everlasting thing that has a benefit beyond death. Near-Death-experiences, for me, seem to prove this, so it is not only a believe for me. It's the bottom-up approach John spoke of. Reductionism is at its end, so is the monetary system. Not because the latter is reductionistic, but because it's wholistic and only a few do recognize it.
John, i also wholeheartedly agree with your statement
"Yes, the devil is in the details, but as Churchill said of democracy, "It's the worst form of government, except for all the others." As I argued in my entry, it should logically be bottom up, with local community banks using profits generated from that community to fund local projects and then being shareholders in more regional systems."
Democracy begins with a democratic monetary system (bottom-up, local, public).
Readers who may will think about the last statement a bit longer are appreciated.
Best wishes,
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
En Passant replied on Jun. 7, 2014 @ 00:25 GMT
Stefan,
Amazing command of the English language. You are thinking in English. There are a million things I could tell you, such as that bach is related to creek, and weck is related to waking. But that would not be the important point. The right thing to tell you is that you are asking the right questions.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 7, 2014 @ 11:31 GMT
Don,
I would also add that much of this is covered in
Modern Monetary Theory, but I would add the strong caveat that allowing politicians to spend money into existence should only be considered with the strongest of reservations. This goes to my device of having the legislative set priorities, while the executive sets levels.
This all might not save us from ourselves, given the inherent tendency to expand and our increasing talent for enabling it, in an ultimately finite context, but it would slow the process and make it more mindful and organic.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 10:50 GMT
Dear Stefan,
The perspective of humanity in the sense of mankind may differ from the perspective of those who feel human. I consider the question of the necessary perspective a very basic on in physics too. Those who did not understand my essay did perhaps fail to understand this.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 14:35 GMT
A note to all..
I've been contemplating the relevance of various essay themes to the question of what humans should be doing to steer ourselves collectively toward a brighter future, and I see that like myself, others have chosen to present meta-solutions rather than direct answers to the question. That is; if we don't deal with the issues that would allow or prevent us, decisions we might make about how to steer toward a better future will become irrelevant before they can be implemented. So we present solutions to the roadblocks.
In
my essay, I primarily answer the question "what is it that makes a mind good at science?" that was posed by Flavio Mercati on the page for
Hoekstra and Estep's essay on how expanding human brain power is key to humanity's success or survival. "Make our brains better" is another meta-solution, but if we don't improve our solution making capacity, we may not find all the answers we need in time - so that brain power might well be needed - and until the technology exists for computational assistance (or likely even then), the best way to do that is to encourage playful exploration. I will go further to state that the prospect of our creating true AI rests with our ability to understand and mimic the playful experimentation and exploration of human infants, because that is what we must teach our machines to do, if they are to be capable of subtle reasoning at all - more like R2-D2 and C3PO - instead of being brutes - like the Terminator.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 20:49 GMT
Jonathan,
I am going to quibble with you about the prospect of our creating true AI. Ever since the computer was invented AI was the rage in science fiction and in government funding. However as things stand at present, humans still rule, AI comes in second.
Computers have been most effective in the augmentation of human intelligence, at this they excell.
Let's not overinflate the prospects of AI. And yes, to steer the future we should concentrate on making humans more playful.
Playfully yours,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 00:27 GMT
Respectfully Don,
The computers of today are brutes, as compared to the more adaptive and accommodating machines of even a few year's in the future. But if a critical mass of networked computing power is inevitable, which would be a sort of AI 'singularity' event, then it would be to our extreme benefit to make them less brutish sooner.
To the extent that computers will influence or control human decision making, we need to make them capable of subjective and qualitative reasoning, as well as the objective and quantitative kind. This is the R2D2 and C3PO vs Terminator analogy incarnate. I have learned key portions of how to impart this kind of subtlety, but much work remains to make that a reality. Meanwhile; the machines keep getting smarter.
However, given a choice; I'd rather have my research on playful exploration liberate human beings, and give them more fulfilling lives - instead of giving machines the benefit of insights into human reasoning that human beings were never given the opportunity to benefit from. Let's help people learn and grow first, then help the machines to learn better.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 00:39 GMT
What I am talking about is..
Levels of abstraction turn out to have some interesting connections with internal regularities in Math. I see the octonions playing a key role in how abstraction is encoded in algorithmic terms, due to their connection with projective geometry. Something called the Hopf periodicity results in a repeating structure in higher-dimensional spaces, that is loosely like the octaves in a musical scale.
I'm behind on my academic writing, of papers to document my work on that topic, but I have worked all of this out in detail.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 03:18 GMT
Hi Jonathan,
The future is a fabulous place to play. I may be bowing down to some of your AI creations there. And I think you will have fun making them.
Wishing you the best,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 13:29 GMT
Jonathan,
What about perception of octaves, I would like to point you to some work of mine. Although there is much physiological evidence for tonotopically arranged cells in CN, IC, A1, etc., there is also evidence that confirms the cepstrum-like direct perception of intervals by means of coincidence detection.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 14:34 GMT
Jonathan,
Let me add: The theorem by Wiener and Chintchine does not require the additional degree of freedom provided by complex numbers.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 15:52 GMT
On the perception of octaves...
I think the fact we perceive musical octaves as a repetition of the same tone is an apt way that the correlations within waves and their waveform is reproduced in our natural perceptual processing. One areas of my interest where this makes a difference is in the 'ringing chords' in barbershop music (which my girlfriend Caroline greatly enjoys). If done correctly; people can hear the missing fundamental; for example, a true-harmonic A7 chord is 440, 550, 660, and 770, which implies a low A 110 (all the chord tones are harmonics of that note).
But perceptual coincidence-detection is a reality Eckard, regardless of evidence that would indicate otherwise. And your comments are appreciated.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
En Passant replied on Jun. 9, 2014 @ 18:07 GMT
Jonathan,
Is there a place where I could see what you are working on in terms of AI. There is a chance that I might (be able to) help you.
If we need to converse about it, you should give me your email address, so we don't drag down this topic.
E
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jun. 9, 2014 @ 18:21 GMT
Hello En,
Too much unfinished business right now, but communication is welcome. Mail will reach me, if sent to jonathan at jonathandickau dot com (spelled out to avoid spambots).
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 06:44 GMT
Dear Brendan,
My attempts to vote are still failing. Moreover, I am not always happy with decisions not to show all postings, and I even got the impression that some postings were deleted. Otherwise I could not understand why the indicated number of postings decreased. Getting logged out is perhaps annoying to others too.
The topic of this contest was of course a temptation to ignore the scope of foundational questions. At least I got the impression many essays demonstrate the directions into which the thoughts of US citizens are steered by science fiction.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 18:49 GMT
Hello Eckard -- I will send you an email and we can try to figure out your vote problems.
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 15:33 GMT
At this critical point in the contest [36 hrs left to vote!], we'd like to remind all voters of the rules as specified in our FAQ:
FQXi expects community evaluators to vote based solely on the quality of the essay. Voting collusion or bartering, mass down-voting, and other such forms of "voter fraud" will not be tolerated, and participants in such will have (all) their votes discarded or in extreme cases their essays disqualified. Entrants should alert FQXi with information if they witness such activities.
We have recently elected to discard the votes of one entrant on these grounds, and our algorithms will continue to be on the lookout for further anomalous activity.
Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 02:15 GMT
I am interested in knowing whether I can have a corrected version of my paper submitted. One reader found a misquoted equation, a sort of typo error, in my paper. I was wondering if it were possible to submit the corrected version before the final judging takes place.
Sincerely,
L. Crowell
report post as inappropriate
Brent Pfister replied on Jun. 7, 2014 @ 17:54 GMT
Lawrence,
James Dunn also suggested allowing essay revisions on May. 21, 2014. If you do not get an official response, I'm guessing revising essays are a problem. Software changes would be needed to store and view the original and revised essay versions. Revised essays would probably need to be screened again (by volunteers?). Essay authors could make major changes based on feedback from others, which could raise issues of fairness, especially since revisions are not in the contest rules. But it appears documents can be attached to posts, so you might try posting an unofficial revised version of your essay.
Thanks,
Brent
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 21:59 GMT
As many are aware, the contest voting deadline ends tonight, and as many are also aware, we have had last-minute issues in past contests. So, I want to clarify that we will make an official announcement of the finalist pool, here in this forum, when we have determined that there are no issues.
This means, the finalist pool may not necessarily be clear immediately at the deadline; however, we will make the announcement as soon as possible, ideally by Saturday morning.
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jun. 7, 2014 @ 02:36 GMT
Thank you Brendan,
I am glad that will be made clear. Good luck to all. And thanks to all the participants for your great essays and for kind and engaging interactions.
Warm Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jun. 7, 2014 @ 08:05 GMT
Hi Brendan,
Re Community voting:
I noticed yesterday that if I had entered the Community Evaluator code a while ago, and I entered a rating for an essay, then although everything looked more or less normal (i.e I was prompted "are you sure you want to rate this essay..." (or whatever it said)), the message confirming that I had rated the essay didn't appear. And when I checked, the rating and the number of ratings hadn't been updated.
So I had to close all FQXi windows, and start again: after I re-entered the Community Evaluator code, and entered a rating for the SAME essay, the message confirming that I had rated the essay appeared, and the rating and the number of votes had been updated.
I had been on the lookout for this sort of thing, so none of my ratings were lost. But I'm concerned that some people might have thought that they had rated essays when in fact their ratings never got through.
Why not require community evaluators to enter their code every time they rate an essay?
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Peter Gluck wrote on Jun. 7, 2014 @ 19:56 GMT
Dear Brendan,
Community and public voting being over and resulting in two different pre-taxonomies (preliminary evaluations) of our 153 essays,
perhaps it would be useful and ethically correct to evaluate these two methods of evaluation. Both are forms of “wisdom of crowds”
- an external crowd, in principle unlimited and unregulated; in practice relatives, friends,...
view entire post
Dear Brendan,
Community and public voting being over and resulting in two different pre-taxonomies (preliminary evaluations) of our 153 essays,
perhaps it would be useful and ethically correct to evaluate these two methods of evaluation. Both are forms of “wisdom of crowds”
- an external crowd, in principle unlimited and unregulated; in practice relatives, friends, supporters, personal enemies of the participants plus the usual e-mob from nice people to sadistic trolls-and e-bravos
- the internal crowd of participants who get the possibility to evaluate their peers’ opuses
In an ideal world this is fine and promotes meritocracy.
In our real world- realism is enhanced by the Prizes, money- I dare to think we have to analyze the results. From practical reasons I think first we could take a look to the extremes- say 3 essays judged as the very best vs. the 3 worst essays – verdicts of public and of the community.
I want to emphasize that based both on my research and life (including politics!) I have a very negative enthusiasm for the
Wisdom of Crowds and I have criticized repeatedly Surowiecki’s book- illo tempore. In the shortest formulation, one of my Septoes
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/100-septoes.h
tml says:
15. Wisdom of crowds lies in their diversity. Not more, not less and it is not fair to oppose Experts who are not replaceable with a populist slogan in action .In overly complex, intractable and not predictable situations, both the experts and the crowds do the same stupid things as mixing dissimilar or incompatible things, ideas and abusing of false analogies, logical fallacies combined.
PUBLIC VOTING:
The 3 ‘very best’ essays are:
Higgs Field and Quantum Gravity by George Rajna
Public rating 8.6 – 252 (!) votes vs. community rating only 3.2 by only 12 votes- can we apply democracy here- majority always right?
Actually it is a pure physics paper and I don’t see how the uber-popular Higgs Boson and the Graviton are related to the Subject of the essays. Strange situation.
Open Peer Review to Save the World by Philip Gibbs
Both the public (8.4 from 34 ratings) and the community (53 ratings) seem to like the idea: yes, classic peer review is flawed. So is democracy and marriage too- however I hope you will agree, nothing better was invented! The author masterfully shows the features of the problem. As regarding the solution it is like having a hole in the bottom of the ship where water flows in, and you make a second hole nearby for letting water to flow out. It does not! We see what has done the Internet with its genuinely open peer review: amateurs will discuss aggressively with experts, science smatterers will judge scientific papers, technology illiterates will release expert opinions. Open peer review, open to WHOM? As a constant reader of Scientometrics I dare to tell that open peer review will not save anything. Mainstream science is still using peer review with success- and troubles, but will not accept to open it.
LIVING IN THE SHADOWS OF THE SUN: REALITIES, PERILS ESCAPADES MAN, PLANET AND KARDASHEV SCALE. MAKING THE GREAT TRANSITION by Michael Muteru
Also a more unanimously appreciated paper: public rating: 7.4 (10 ratings) community rating: 4.9 (12 ratings)
Clearly a good, smart, multi-cultural (it is about scientific cultures) paper well written that has to be compared with other similarly good papers. My unique objection- too much emphasis on solar energy that makes great progress but cannot solve the global energy problem.
The worst papers:
Our Fictions and the practicable Way out by David Levan
Community Rating: 4.2 (6 ratings) Public Rating: 1.3 (3 ratings)
Symptomatically few ratings, who knows why? The negative catch-phrase in the Abstracts: “substantially reduce their food consumption”? Most simple explanation, the author has no friends around.
“Our illusions”- good classification. It happens- an other solar energy lover- see please the former essay. Summa summarum. a quite decent essay
The Arrow of Time by Andrej Rehak
Public rating: 1.3 (4 ratings), community rating: 4.9 (15 ratings)
Perhaps Time is not a popular subject. More than trying to change the “paradigm of linear notion of past, present future” we, poor mortals want plenty of time. If possible kairos not just chronos. It seems this author has offended a sacred cow.
About the possibility to solve the main problems of theoretical physics by Murat Asgatovich Gaisin
Public Rating: 1.0 (3 ratings), community Rating: 4.7 (13 ratings)
I like this because it is about high level problem solving, however it is restricted to the main problems of physics. We also need solutions for biology, psychology, sociology and technologies. - all in global sense and full diversity all these being necessary in order to steer the future.
COMMUNITY VOTING
The 3 best papers
Not surprisingly, two of these are about metaknowledge and education, indeed we need to be much smarter in order to be able to steer ourselves toward a bright future. Education (to teach people to cope with any situation) is both the way and the vademecum to the desired future, but it has to be supported by and associated with actions as technological progress and by avoiding the deadly perils of counter-education as systemic dumbing down by fanship see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/07/dirtiest-f-word.html
Undeniable, as an other Septoe says: The 21st Century is the 12th, resurrected. Education is necessary but not sufficient.
I have stated – in my essay, the inexorable principle of the priority of the negative- in this case counter-education is so harmful that the first task is removing anti-intellectualism, celebrity cult, fundamentalisms and the similar destructive memeplexes- education will be able to prepare the future only combined with these actions. Do not forget: proper education is not only for elites.
To Steer Well We Need to See Clearly: the Need for a Worldwide Futurocentric Education Initiative by Marc Séguin
Community Rating: 6.5 (31 ratings), public Rating: 3.8 (9 ratings)
IQ > 180 essay, the Futurocentric Curriculum is a treasure. It would be fine to add advices how to explicitly help education to climb much higher on the DIKWP scale (data-information-knowledge- wisdom- prediction).
How to avoid steering blindly: The case for a robust repository of human knowledge by Jens C. Niemeyer
Community rating: 6.5 (36 ratings), public rating: 2.6 (13 ratings)
This essay describes a very necessary action- the creation of a modern equivalent of Borges\s Infinite Library. Is this really a problem? Or the formidable development of the World Wide Web
the fast and reliable development of information storage makes it
possible and somewhat natural? Or is not sufficiently robust? Again, I think we have to focus on the DIKWP scale. The most important thing we have to learn from the past is how to not repeat
errors and how to not make, new ones even greater ones. Errorology has to be taught in schools.
Societal Path Integral by Douglas Alexander Singleton
Admirable creative bisociation between the quantum path and our societal paths. A great idea, fundamental physics used for a fundamental problem. For me it is easier to admire it than to understand how it can be applied in the real world.
The worst papers:
Light Without Energy by John-Erik Persson
Community rating: 3.7 (11 ratings) public Rating: 2.7 (10 ratings)
This essay is about relativity. Quantum theory of light and tries to convince us that the ether exists and is quite special. Fine but not relevant for this contest.
The Spiritual Big Bang: Origin of Universe by Damon Joseph Sprock
Community rating: 2.9 (9 ratings), public rating: 3.8 (5 ratings)
From the start of the abstract: “Humanity cannot steer the future without understanding our origin and how God consciousness has a quantum connection to human consciousness via the subconscious mind hologram, giving humanity all preexisting potential originating from Spiritual DNA” it is obvious that the author mixes immiscible and incompatible things. Or- mea culpa! I do not understand them.
Higgs Field and Quantum Gravity by George Rajna
Community rating: 3.2 (12 ratings) public Rating: 8.6 (252 ratings)
The great star of public rating! No more comments on this.
Raw conclusions: public rating not fair, community rating better
however more correlation factors have to be calculated.
For example a strong correlation between the rating and the number of ratings would suggest that the ratings are quasi-random and not very honest and objective. Only rating by professionals can distinguish between good and excellent essays.
Peter Gluck
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 7, 2014 @ 23:22 GMT
Peter,
A very interesting analysis, but it raises one very large question. Who would qualify as experts on steering humanity for the future?
I have a saying that the truth is, while answers are what people will pay to hear. Priests and politicians provide answers, while philosophers seek truths. That is why far more people can make a living as priests and politicians, then as philosophers.
Regards,
John Merryman
report post as inappropriate
Peter Gluck replied on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 05:26 GMT
Dear John,
You are right! In a different formulation, based on problem solving, we speak about the "main rule of Probletence":
" A problem will NOT be solved if the number, influence and/or power of the people living, taking profit from the problem, is greater than the same characteristics of the people who want solve the problem."
I think the concept of "probletence" is easy to understand- probles stay unsolved for ages. I will not speak about philosophers only but about genuinely professional scientists and tehnologists seeking both truth and value. Solutions.
Steering the future is actually an unsolvable problem- an extreme case of what is called "wicked problems" (see Wikipedia for example)and I think the Judges
are aware of this. Some of the participants seem to take their "solutions" so much superior to others that they use voting as a weapon.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 11:22 GMT
Peter,
I wanted to post Aldous Huxley's comment about How no man will understand that which he is paid not to, but I came across several even more applicable;
"The course of every intellectual, if he pursues his journey long and unflinchingly enough, ends in the obvious, from which the non-intellectuals have never stirred."
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
What I think should be considered is whether there are issues which our natural tendencies toward group think are purposely ignoring. As anyone even remotely interested in the processes motivating humanity must eventually come to realize, a system of economic exchange, in which obligations and risks are predominately public and all assets and rewards are largely private, will not only serve to compound the otherwise inevitable resource destruction, but will eventually blow up, given this system of circulation doesn't effectively circulate, since it is purposely designed to pool wealth.
Some of the regulars are debating this issue further up this thread;
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 19:25 GMT
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 11:30 GMT
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 11:36 GMT
I think the above quote should go out to those endlessly debating how to explain the essentially holographic nature of reality in terms of quantum point particles and whether they are local or non-local.
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 12:06 GMT
Let me join John M, and say interesting post from Peter Gluck. Also interesting those from Brent Pfister on May. 27, 2014 @ 20:56 GMT and Luca Valeri on May. 30, 2014 @ 14:10 GMT.
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 15:40 GMT
"Never give children a chance of imagining that anything exists in isolation. Make it plain from the very beginning that all living is relationship. Show them relationships in the woods, in the fields, in the ponds and streams, in the village and in the country around it. Rub it in."
This is one of the best quotes i read so far concerning the contest issue. Beautifully done, John!
Best wishes,
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
En Passant replied on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 16:05 GMT
Well, on that note, I can go back to my gardening. The mosquitoes are unusually persistent right now.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 22:10 GMT
Stefan, En,
It rang a lot of bells for me too. This focus on frames, models, objects, measurements, etc. is an academic bias. How can they logically be more fundamental than the context and processes from which they were extracted? Reality is bottom up, even if we observe it top down.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 9, 2014 @ 06:48 GMT
John,
Agreeing with your view I would like to slightly correct the perspective.
Insn't what you are disliking as academic much elder than the academies? Weren't Donar and all other gods comparable tools? Yes: They cannot "logically be more fundamental than the context and processes from which they were extracted", in other words, they were abstracted from.
You wrote: "Reality is bottom up." Hm. I rather consider it the bottom itself; even if the property to be real is a conjecture, and yes "we observe it top down".
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 9, 2014 @ 11:29 GMT
Eckards,
To quote Huxley;
"It is man's intelligence that makes him so often behave more stupidly than the beasts. ... Man is impelled to invent theories to account for what happens in the world. Unfortunately, he is not quite intelligent enough, in most cases, to find correct explanations. So that when he acts on his theories, he behaves very often like a lunatic. Thus, no animal...
view entire post
Eckards,
To quote Huxley;
"It is man's intelligence that makes him so often behave more stupidly than the beasts. ... Man is impelled to invent theories to account for what happens in the world. Unfortunately, he is not quite intelligent enough, in most cases, to find correct explanations. So that when he acts on his theories, he behaves very often like a lunatic. Thus, no animal is clever enough, when there is a drought, to imagine that the rain is being withheld by evil spirits, or as punishment for its transgressions. Therefore you never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion. No horse, for example would kill one of its foals to make the wind change direction. Dogs do not ritually urinate in the hope of persuading heaven to do the same and send down rain. Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies. Nor do cats attempt, by abstinence from cat's meat, to wheedle the feline spirits into benevolence. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, intelligent enough."
We do constantly push upward from that ground state of awareness, through all those multitudes of details, obstacles, mutual transgressions and all around limitations. Often our follies are bound up with our accomplishments, as our quest for the heights leads to falls and our falls teach us our more profound lessons.
To Huxley:
"Why did it occur to anyone to believe in only one God? And conversely why did it ever occur to anyone to believe in many gods? To both these questions we must return the same answer: Because that is how the human mind happens to work. For the human mind is both diverse and simple, simultaneously many and one. We have an immediate perception of our own diversity and of that of the outside world. And at the same time we have immediate perceptions of our own oneness."
So now even one universe is not large enough to contain our suppositions. Human folly knows no bounds. Yet wisdom is in the judicious pushing of those bounds.
Regards,
John
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 8, 2014 @ 11:25 GMT
Brendan,
Are there complications?
Regards,
John Merryman
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 9, 2014 @ 18:38 GMT
Brendan,
Curiosity runs rampant.
Hope all is well.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 11, 2014 @ 20:47 GMT
For a contest that was supposed to be announced Saturday, the silence is deafening.
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Jun. 11, 2014 @ 21:21 GMT
Greetings everyone -- As promised, I'd like to make an official statement about the finalist pool now. Apologies for the delay--there were no unexpected issues. Thus, the finalist pool is as you can calculate from the official rules and the ratings info on the list of essays.
In short, the official finalist pool of 40 consists of the 39 essays with a Community rating of 5.6 or greater, plus the entry from Member Dean Rickles.
But don't forget that, as always, the Expert Panel has the option of awarding up to 2 additional discretionary prizes, for whatever reason they see fit. All entries, finalist or not, are eligible for those. Last year, for instance, the panel chose to award two interesting entries from students, who did not make the finalist pool.
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Jun. 11, 2014 @ 21:25 GMT
Having said that, on behalf of FQXi, I want to thank everyone who entered -- we appreciate all the time and effort and energy it takes you to prepare the essays. I hope the contest was worthwhile to even those of you who did not make the final pool.
In my personal opinion, having read every single one of the entries for the past I don't know how many contests---this was the overall strongest pool of entries we have ever had, in terms of both the average quality and the number of [in my opinion] excellent quality entries.
Thanks to everyone, and stay tuned for results from the panel, later this summer.
Don Limuti replied on Jun. 12, 2014 @ 18:30 GMT
Thanks Brendan,
Here are two ideas for the future:
1. Edit the abstracts for obvious typos. There were entries that were sloppy looking. A preview window ability at time of submission would probably help. (sometimes plain text isn't plain text)
2. Many of the entrants do not have english as a first language. Occasionally this makes for difficult reading, particularly after reading 150 plus essays. Perhaps entrants can get help from FQXi.org volunteers for doing an english usage edit? This edit would be returned to the author for their information before the formal submittal.
You have read all the essays of all the contests! High Marks,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Alex Hoekstra replied on Jul. 31, 2014 @ 23:08 GMT
Thanks so much for the update, Brendan. Have there been any further developments, or any news to announce, regarding the contest? I'm sure all of the authors are eager to know what's on the minds of the judges, or at least when we might get a glimpse into the future.
Thank you again, for all of this!
Best regards, and hopes to hear more soon.
Alex Hoekstra
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Aug. 4, 2014 @ 21:08 GMT
Alex -- yes I can report that the Panel is in the midst of deliberations now. This process usually plays out over a few weeks via emails and conference calls. We are still on track to announce the results by the end of August---or possibly earlier if all goes well.
And Don -- thanks for the suggestions. I suppose the likeliest group of volunteer editors would be other entrants. In your opinion, do you think that would be a workable solution?
hide replies
KoGuan Leo wrote on Jun. 13, 2014 @ 04:34 GMT
Dear Brendan, FQXI's team and sponsors,
Congratulation!
To all contestants,
I am grateful for your kind praises and critiques.
Thank you and I wish all of you well,
Leo KoGuan
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 15, 2014 @ 12:04 GMT
FQXi Contest 2012-2014: general conclusions. Extremely hot topic of the Contest FQXi Essay 2014 "How Should Humanity Steer the Future?" gives the chance to sum up the results of Cotests 2012-2014 and discussions in which I took part.
Today is a very serious time for Humanity. 100 years passed since the beginning of the 1st World war. 75 years passed since the beginning of...
view entire post
FQXi Contest 2012-2014: general conclusions. Extremely hot topic of the Contest FQXi Essay 2014 "How Should Humanity Steer the Future?" gives the chance to sum up the results of Cotests 2012-2014 and discussions in which I took part.
Today is a very serious time for Humanity. 100 years passed since the beginning of the 1st World war. 75 years passed since the beginning of the 2nd World war. For the period of "Cold war" 1946-1991 occurred 108 local wars and the military conflicts. For the last 23 years - 23 wars and the conflict. In 1962 the Mankind endured "Caribbean Crisis". Here is a message to start a
new Cold war .
The world and Humanity is again on the verge of a split that could lead to nuclear war, "nuclear winter", death of humanity and all life on Earth. Homo ludens again prepares the "big game", as Homo sapiens sapiens was asleep again. Humanity must remember today all earthlings killed in all the wars in history.
In basic science "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T.Romanovskaya), "crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin).
FQXi Essay Contest 2014 gives the chance to answer a question immemorial and especially actual today: "What to do?"
I. Global security. Creation of new Global System of Existential security on the new principles, overcoming of the closed block mentality XVI-XX centuries. Restart the UN from "UN 2.0" to "3.0 UN.". Revitalization of the UN towards global nuclear disarmament, national cultures, international cooperation and public diplomacy. Creation of the World Programme of joint exploration of outer space and the World Ocean. Introduction of Esperanto as the official language of the UN and the international language. Relocation of the UN headquarters in Iceland. Deepening of democracy, conscious transition from "Democracy 2.0" to "Democracy 3.0" - democracy of the Information age. Creation of system of global existential taboos. I completely agree with Flavio Mercati
"U-turn or u die".
II. Science. Refouding of Knowledge. The transition from "Paradigm parts" ("paradigm segment") to integrative paradigm ("over generalizing") - "The whole paradigm" ("The Great Paradigm"). New return to the sources and primordial senses: logos-topos-ontos-eidos-ethos-nomos, "grasp" primordial structure of space, understanding the nature of time and information. Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory - core, the semantic attractor of the new conceptual structure of the Universum. Creation of the "general framework structure"(
D.Gross, an interview "What is in the space-time") establishes ontological foundation, framework and carcass of knowledge. Creation of a new eidos of the Universum ("Sky eidos"), new scientific picture of the world of the Information age in the spirit of the great philosophers of the 20th century Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Edmund Husserl, which will include the limit meanings of the "LifeWorld" and Human: «The true physics is that which will, one day, achieve the inclusion of man in his wholeness in a coherent picture of the world." Overcoming the semantically poor picture of the world based on the hypothesis "In the Beginning was Big Bang ..." and the transition to the picture of the world on the basis of ontological Superaxiom "In the Beginning was Logos ..." ("Metalaw," «Universal law». «The law of laws", "Law sky"). Conscious transition from "Closed science" to "Open Science" with open competitive basis and principles aimed at accelerating the development of knowledge.
III. Education. The transition from the medieval closed system of education to the creative open education system of the Information age, forming an open ethical personality. Introduction of the principle of historicity in fundamental education. Philosophy and Ethics should be basic disciplines in the education system. I support the great idea of
«the Worldwide Futurocentric Education Initiative» by Marc Séguin.
IV. Economy. Transition from an economy of existential chaos, opposing Nature to the Ethical Eco-Economy, that saves the environment and people.
V. Europe - peace outpost. Creation of a New European Security System on new existential principles, promotion and development of the idea of "Greater Europe" as a "union of the peoples"(E.Kant) from the Azores in the west to the east of the Diomede Islands.
John Wheeler and Henry David Thoreau left all Earthlings good covenants to more reliably steer the Future: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers". "It is by a mathematical point only that we are wise, as the sailor or the fugitive slave keeps the polestar in his eye; but that is sufficient guidance for all our life. We may not arrive at our port within a calculable period, but we would preserve the true course."
We need a Big Dream and Great Common Cause for reliable steer the Future, to save Peace, Nature and Humanity. Great Dream always go alond with
Freedom without fear,
Hope,
Love,
Justice.
Philosophy is very good and faithful navigator on the way. New "Generation SkyPe» says all Humanity:
"We start the path...".
I thank all contestants, FQXI's team and Contest Partners for the opportunity to participate in the Contests.
Sincerely,
Vladimir Rogozhin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 15, 2014 @ 20:33 GMT
Vladimir,
In contrast to the last one, all previous contests were devoted to basic questions of physics. I felt challenged by the last topic to also ask for possibly overlooked because very basic questions concerning mankind, and I was perhaps the only one who dared addressing the appropriate perspective on WWI, WWII, and holocaust. Alan Kadin contributed a likewise rather unwelcome analysis of population growth. The majority including you made well-meant suggestions.
I didn't understand all of them. For instance I have to admit being ignorant of the Diomede Islands. Wasn't Diomedes a king of Argos? Also, I am not sure whether you meant Immanuel Kant with E. Kant.
Let me clarify: I consider any nationalism, any military or economic block, even an European nation something to be subordinated below the interest of mankind as a whole. Yes, you may blame me for an in principle un-American attitude too.
In the interest of people, environment must be protected against people's imprudent interests.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 16, 2014 @ 02:18 GMT
Vladimir, Eckard,
Keep in mind that when we have a financial circulation system based on public debt and private wealth accumulation, the money pools in the private sector and has to be borrowed back again by the public sector, to keep it circulating. This borrowed money than has to be spent and the most productive for those in control, is on a military to keep the rest of the world subservient to our dollar based financial system.
Unfortunately for them, their greed far exceeds their strategic abilities, so they have mostly irritated large parts of the Eurasian continent and this will likely cause these other countries to use other exchange systems.
Karma is a bitch.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 16, 2014 @ 10:55 GMT
Eckard,
Yes, solution of the fundamental questions in physics and mathematics are very important for a reliable steer the Future. But physicists and mathematicians - the inhabitants of the Earth, who invented the atomic and hydrogen bombs. This must remember all the generations of physicists and mathematicians and actively participate in Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. It...
view entire post
Eckard,
Yes, solution of the fundamental questions in physics and mathematics are very important for a reliable steer the Future. But physicists and mathematicians - the inhabitants of the Earth, who invented the atomic and hydrogen bombs. This must remember all the generations of physicists and mathematicians and actively participate in
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. It was founded by the great scientists of the XX century, Max Born, Percy W. Bridgman, Albert Einstein, Leopold Infeld, Frederic Joliot-Curie, Herman Muller, Linus POLLING, Cecil Powell, Joseph Rotblat, Bertrand Russell, Hideki Yukawa with the active support of the Canadian public figure and billionaire Cyrus Eaton. I read
The Russell-Einstein Manifesto from 1955, the outstanding scientific, philosophical and political document, sponsored by 11 prominent scientists of the world. It has the following words: «We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt.» Today is necessary to activate the Pugwash Movement. Necessary to carry out the World Congress every year and more widely to cover them in the media. I looked Site Pugwash Movement and at me as the simple inhabitant of Earth, had many questions..
Obviously, we all need to "reboot" the Pugwash Movement for the XXI century, the new Information era.
Contest FQXi - is Open World Intellectual Olympiad on fundamental questions of Science. For Humanity and its future, they are as important as sports Olympics. But why in this contest only 155 participants? A should be at least 1550 or better yet -15,500.
You're absolutely right, Eckard. We need to remember all the victims of all wars, especially the victims of the most brutal wars of the 20th century. If we remember and know our history, then we can more reliably steer the Future. I highly appreciated your wonderful essay.
Diomede Islands -are islands between Russia and America in the Bering Strait. "Great Europe" - the Union of the peoples as the advanced post of peace and cooperation. Then it can join the peoples of America and Canada. This Union should be an example of peace and cooperation for all peoples of the Earth. Iceland is the small country can be the Great Unifier of Europe and America, all Humanity.
I'm sorry for the typo, of course, Immanuel Kant.
As for the blocks and nationalism, then I agree with you completely. We, inhabitants of our beautiful and unique Mother Earth, must act together to overcome the force thinking, which is unacceptable for the XXI century. This is necessary for the American people, and for the people of Russia and all nations of the Earth. Therefore, Philosophy, Ethics and History are extremely important to the education system, which should change radically.
Vladimir Rogozhin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 16, 2014 @ 11:42 GMT
John,
The global financial system is a part of the problems of the world economy existential chaos. Unfortunately, too many people live by the principle "after us the deluge". Therefore, changes need integrated. It is necessary to begin changes in consciousness with an education system plus hope for Information revolution. It is also obvious in view of the perceived need more reliable steer the future, politicians, presidents and prime ministers must make reports not only in Davos and United Nations General Assembly, but also at the annual World Congress of Philosophy.
I remember the other great and optimistic words:
Tired in my way I asked the destiny:
"Who pushes me in my back so ruthlessly?" -
"Look back!" - I look - and the complaint ceases:
It is my past who pushes me forward. (Rabindranath Tagore)
and optimistic
song again...
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 17, 2014 @ 17:27 GMT
Vladimir,
I mistook Isis for the wife of Osiris instead of an Islamic state and Diomedes for a Greek hero against Troja instead of a Christian martyr. Nonetheless, my reasoning might hopefully be correct when I dislike your vision of a Great Europe ranging up to the Bering street even if such border toward America would certainly not imply the risk of a war. Perhaps, you are better aware...
view entire post
Vladimir,
I mistook Isis for the wife of Osiris instead of an Islamic state and Diomedes for a Greek hero against Troja instead of a Christian martyr. Nonetheless, my reasoning might hopefully be correct when I dislike your vision of a Great Europe ranging up to the Bering street even if such border toward America would certainly not imply the risk of a war. Perhaps, you are better aware than I of Russian nationalists to whom the USA is the enemy and of Ukrainian nationalist to whom Russia is the enemy, etc. I learned from history that patriotism, heroism, and mutually intolerant religious groups are to blame in time for wars. While such human, in the negative sense i.e. animal, behavior is mostly related to social discrepancies, I see the necessity and trust in the possibility for sufficiently enlightened and accordingly organized people to peacefully solve all conflicts of global relevance, provided patriotism, heroism and claimed orthodoxy are treated in time as unacceptable, and the need to restrict population growth on voluntary basis is also accepted in time.
You got me wrong. I don't think that the "solution of the fundamental questions in physics and mathematics are very important for a reliable steer the Future". I see the strength of offering a more attractive life based on discoveries and inventions eventually superior to indoctrination by fanatics who even mutilate the fingers of those who dared voting.
The Pugwash Conference was worried about the risks for the existence of mankind. Elsewhere I explained in what I disagree with Bertrand Russell. However, my main objections are more basic ones: As did A. Nobel, let's trust in the force of real circumstances instead of preaching; Let's add human obligations to the human rights, in particular the obligation to restrict the consumption of limited resources by restricting population growth and the level of excess luxury. This complements more ecologically economic technology of production, consuming, and recycling. Eugenics and leaving a destroyed earth are to me no alternatives.
Russians will remain a nation of losers as long as they celebrate military victory by showing intercontinental atomic rockets on the Red Place instead of coffins and lamenting mothers.
Eckard Blumschein
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 11:40 GMT
Eckard,
"Great Europe" - is primarily a unity of mind and spirit, the unity of the European peoples, unity of diversity of European cultures on the basis of the Cartesian
"I am thinking, therefore I am". The 21st century demands still such conclusion
"We think, therefore we exist". If we Europeans are not going to think deeply and think about the future of humanity, as it...
view entire post
Eckard,
"Great Europe" - is primarily a unity of mind and spirit, the unity of the European peoples, unity of diversity of European cultures on the basis of the Cartesian
"I am thinking, therefore I am". The 21st century demands still such conclusion
"We think, therefore we exist". If we Europeans are not going to think deeply and think about the future of humanity, as it requires time, we earthlings will cease to exist. At us, at Europeans, most of all weapons of mass destruction. "Great Europe" - is primarily a "union of the peoples", and then the union of states, economies and currencies. This union, based on deeper principles of the mind and spirit - "Democracy 3.0", clear and distinct feedback "an open power open - an open society". The Information revolution gives Humanity a unique chance to conscious move to "Democracy 3.0". "Democracy 3.0" assumes change of a medieval paradigm of education, system dogmatism, that gives the chance to bring up deeply conceiving, dialogic identity, to overcome ignorance and fanaticism in all spheres of "LebensWelt".
With regard to the Pugwash movement, it totally agree with your proposals. Reinventing the Pugwash movement of scientists and the new "Manifesto for peace of the XXI century" should contain ample "human obligations" before Nature as well as for society.
Your last phrase, Eckard, reminded me of a book O. Sumin - "Hegel as the fate of Russia". Why Hegel? Because he was a great dialectician to connect the unconnected?... German and Russian people have gone through two wars with each other. Therefore, we must maintain a deep dialogue on all problems of our time and show an example to other peoples such a deep dialogue. We, Russians and Germans, have to begin such Great Dialogue for «Great Europe», for peace and prosperity around the world. Our nations have one good place in Europe for such a deep dialogue. As for the "memory", this concept - core, semantic attractor in my conceptual structure of the Universum. Without memory European humanity can again slide into war. Memory of victims in two world wars and thoughts about the future of children and grandsons force us to think deeply and act quickly. Contest FQXi «How Should Humanity Steer the Future?» helps to organize a good global brainstorming for such thoughts and actions.
Vladimir Rogozhin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 17:01 GMT
Vladimir,
Are there ""human obligations" before Nature as well as for society"? I beg to differ: Mankind is primarily not responsible for Nature. This argument of believers in God demands obedience to God and, having equated God with Nature as already did Spinoza, believers demand to obey Nature too. I see this a perversion. Mankind is just responsible for itself, and therefore it is well advised to not endanger the basis of its own existence. I reiterate:
"Protection of environment and conservation of flora and fauna are subordinated to the logical priority of mankind's point of view. They must not be generalized as independent goals."
Of course, one must mot confuse individual, group or even national profits with the interest of mankind as a whole. Reckless exploitation of natural resources is an undeclared so far crime against mankind. For this very basic reason I am supporting Paul Ehrlich and Alan Kadin.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 01:11 GMT
Eckard,
You say in your essay, and in the above post: "Protection of environment and conservation of flora and fauna are subordinated to the logical priority of humans' point of view. They must not be generalized as independent goals".
But this sentiment is a perfect example of one of the problems our planet faces: our patronizing attitude towards the rest of reality. To me, you seem to have an outdated picture of reality: it's as if you picture a man in a suit and hat standing next to a wide and deep gulf which separates him from the rest of living reality.
But as I commented on your essay, we humans are not separate from the reality we are a part of: the human body is itself an ecosystem where bacterial cells, viruses, fungi, archaea, and single-celled eukaryotes, essential for human functioning,
far outnumber human cells .
Also, as I contend in my essay, the universe did not develop completely new fundamental properties when humans came on the scene. The underlying fundamental properties of reality, i.e. experience of information, subjectivity of information and creativity of information, are things that can never evolve or arise ex nihilo out of complexity. Humans like to think they have special properties, but these "special" properties are not due to humanness, but are due to the existing nature of reality.
I know you are obsessed with "God", but please don't insult me by bringing up your "God". I am claiming that humans are not as special, not as independent of the rest of reality, not as different as you might like to think.
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 09:13 GMT
Lorraine, that was interesting... Didn't know immigrants were more than citizens in my body.
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 10:02 GMT
Lorraine,
Humans ARE special animals. No other part of nature can collectively and consciously steer the future. That's why the point of view matters. What you called my obsession with God is just consequent reasoning.
What looks reasonable from a national perspective may be a serious crime against future generation of mankind.
Likewise, I blame self-declared good people who feel entitled to liberate animals for taking an irrational and often ridiculous perspective.
As a human is not a number of cells that would loose voting in a democracy against "immigrated cells" but it is an idealized entity, humanity is not simply the majority of souls which will be possibly Muslim in near future.
Sorry for hurting your feelings by addressing basic questions. I reiterate: "Alfred Nobel's legacy might guide us to the appropriate perspective."
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 16:41 GMT
Eckard,
Humans are not quite as special as you make out. Other animals are subjectively aware of themselves and their environment, and are steering their own individual futures all the time, in a very similar way to the way we do, i.e. within various limitations. So it is incorrect to say that "No other part of nature can collectively and consciously steer the future".
Living things are subjects that experience reality and create physical outcomes, so your human-supremacist views are completely unjustified.
But apart from that I think I basically agree with your essay that "ethically acceptable" "discoveries and inventions were and are valuable indirect contributions to peace and beyond".
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 20, 2014 @ 09:17 GMT
Lorraine,
The topic includes a special perspective: "How Should HUMANITY Steer ...". I don't understand humanity as love for God's creatures but as mankind. Those who love their pets are loving themselves.
I don't see Human supremacy meaning that humans are the crown of God's creation. Abilities of mankind are something permanently growing and also something that implies growing responsibility of mankind for the basis of future generations.
Seguin reiterated the old controversy between naive optimists who are expecting the scientific and technological progress to automatically solve all problems and the pessimists who also irresponsibly ascribe a gloomy future to that progress.
My humble opinion demands to accept the appropriate perspective, i.e. the point of view of mankind including necessary global completion of ethics, and to actively find the best way ahead instead of cheating ourselves by orienting on illusory mere conservation.
Let me say it quite bold: Even the most advanced genetic modification of agriculture and the most risky nuclear technology cannot feed a limitless growing population. Mankind is forced to adapt to its own progress as also did flora and fauna during evolution. The war between Sunnites and Shiites must not last for another thirty years.
Cheers,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 13:45 GMT
Dear Lorraine, Eckard, John and all the contestants,
This week I read an important document Pugwash and two articles: «Hiroshima Declaration of the Pugwash Council», «Dünyanin direksiyonunda kimse yok..»/«The wheel of the world doesn't have anybody» and «Indications...»...
The first stage of the Contest FQXi "How Should Humanity Steer the Future?" completed. But all...
view entire post
Dear Lorraine, Eckard, John and all the contestants,
This week I read an important document Pugwash and two articles:
«Hiroshima Declaration of the Pugwash Council»,
«Dünyanin direksiyonunda kimse yok..»/«The wheel of the world doesn't have anybody» and
«Indications...»...
The first stage of the Contest FQXi "How Should Humanity Steer the Future?" completed. But all global existential risks for Humanity only increased. The main danger for Humanity, created by man - weapons of mass destruction and nuclear war.
2014 is a year centuries since the First World War beginning, this 75-year anniversary since the beginning of the Second World War. Humanity split again. The Earth is becoming more like a spaceship without a rudder in the Ocean-space. The Information revolution has a chance to Humanity, to all people of the Earth be heard. All people of the world can hear
the voice of the Earth. 59 years ago was published
The Russell-Einstein Manifesto. The world for these years very strongly changed, but danger of nuclear war remains.
This week I wrote a letter to the Russian Pugwash Committee to initiate a convening of the Extraordinary Congress of the Pugwash movement of scientists and creation of the new manifesto - "Manifesto of peace for the XXI Century". This manifesto, which should be open for signature by all the people of Earth. It is open to ideas and to sign the manifesto has a deep and comprehensive synergistic effect. Scientists of the world, all people of the Earth must act today more actively. There are all possibilities. Now there are already many organizations and people who need to act jointly. Many participants in the Contest FQXi, which represent these important organizations for the world.
And what is your opinions on the idea of "The Open Manifesto of peace for the XXI century"? It may be necessary to create a special FQXi blog?
Sincerely,
Vladimir Rogozhin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 14:08 GMT
Vladimir,
When I offered inherited books to second-hand book shops in Berlin, they were not interested in good books but bought school books from the time of emperor Wilhelm II which I considered worth to be burned because they horribly glorified patriotism and war.
I was even more disgusted in 1980 in a train from Moscow to Leningrad when a man told me that he admired Hitler for his allegedly extraordinary memory. In the same year in Moscow, I lived together with a young Tunisian who managed to sleep with many Russian girls after he gave them a jeans. He invited me to see a hatred film of Palestinians, and I heard them wishing an atomic bomb against Israel. From these and many other examples I infer the need for revealing and outlawing ideology that led even to global wars. The Palestinians don't just feel a nation of losers, they don't live up to the chance of benefiting from the high qualification and worldwide connections of Jewish immigrants. Annual military parades with atomic missiles in Moscow gave them the wrong orientation. Do Pugwash congresses address the question of responsibility for consequent condemnation of any military heroism, revanchism, religious orthodoxy, and Chauvinism?
More importantly, do they at least strive for acceptance of the insight that wars were among the mechanisms that stabilized the size of population and need therefore to be replaced by efficient measures towards voluntary birth control?
FQXi offers a chance to address such truly basic questions from mankind's perspective. Just winners of contest have been omitting any taboo question.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 04:55 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Have you heard of
The Earth Charter ? More than 10 years ago, I attended Earth Charter meetings, and helped with Earth Charter stalls at Sustainability Festival events. I have also been involved with other environmental organisations.
The Earth Charter says it all. It can be downloaded in 60 languages: Russian, Belarusian, Azerbaijani , Yoruba etc. You can click on a button to endorse the sentiments in the charter. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
The Earth Charter has a preamble, and 16 principles divided into 4 sections headed:
I. RESPECT AND CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF LIFE,
II. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY,
III. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE,
IV. DEMOCRACY, NONVIOLENCE, AND PEACE,
and it concludes with "The Way Forward".
Re "How should Humanity Steer the Future": I would think that The Earth Charter might be an appropriate subject for discussion and endorsement by the FQXi community.
Best wishes,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 05:01 GMT
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 09:58 GMT
Thanks Lorraine for the link. And hello Vladimir and Eckard. I have often wondered whether it would be good or bad to remove ALL restrictions to human movement across borders. Capital and money moves across borders with little restriction. Entrepreneurship, information and ideas move similarly. But human movement is restricted by strict visa permits, discretionary granting of residency status, deportation of immigrants, etc. If as is claimed in the Earth charter, humanity is one family, why then can one member of the family not visit another without government permission? If such restriction is abolished, will the wealth of the world not become democratized? I admit though that the rich may lose some of their wealth and the poor become a bit richer as a result. We have an example when the Berlin wall fell, and East and West German humanity became one family.
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 13:49 GMT
Eckard,
Examples that you brought, say that the peoples should to seek common ground. Earlier, I made reference to a book by Oleg Sumin "Hegel as the fate of Russia." I will add two other German philosophers - Kant and Fichte. Kant, Fichte. Hegel - the fate of Russia. Can we say that this triad of great philosophers - Germany's fate?
To achieve greater understanding between the...
view entire post
Eckard,
Examples that you brought, say that the peoples should to seek common ground. Earlier, I made reference to a book by Oleg Sumin "Hegel as the fate of Russia." I will add two other German philosophers - Kant and Fichte. Kant, Fichte. Hegel - the fate of Russia. Can we say that this triad of great philosophers - Germany's fate?
To achieve greater understanding between the peoples need to radically change the medieval education system. Need new principles, new ideas. At the heart of the whole system should be the philosophy and ethics. In the first half of the 19th century in Russia under Tsar Nicholas I was the Minister of Education (!) prince, the member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, writer and poet Plato Shirinsky-Shikhmatov. In 1850, on his instructions in Russian universities (except the University of Dorpat in Estonia) were closed schools and departments of philosophy. Russia's famous phrase it: "The use of philosophy is not proven and possible harm from it."
Such an attitude towards philosophy can largely be attributed to the modern era, and not only in Russia. Philosophy is the mother of all sciences. Nature speaks to us in the language of philosophy. Mathematics - this is just one of the dialects of the "language of Nature." If humanity and above all scientists and political bureaucrats change their attitude towards philosophy, while new generations of earthlings will be much easier to reach mutual understanding. "The crisis of understanding" in basic science called disregard many physicists covenant Einstein: "In our time, the physicist has to deal with philosophical problems to a much greater extent than it had to do physicists previous generations. Forced physicists to this the difficulties of their own science."
The permanent "crisis of understanding" in international relations and in the relations between nations and people. Philosophy as a rigorous science and how joyful science - that's the key to achieving an understanding of nature and human understanding. Philosophy as a rigorous science and how joyful science - that's the key to achieving an understanding of nature and human understanding.
Pugwash movement of scientists aims politicians and Humanity at solving the main problems of our time - to overcome the danger of nuclear war and weapons of mass destruction. Other problems we have to overcome jointly. Serves this purpose this contest FQXi. Who needs broad action. Information technologies allow to do it effectively. It is first necessary to develop public diplomacy and making wider cultural exchange between countries and people.
With regard to the need to develop existential taboo, I wrote about this in an essay in the "minimum program". Revolution in education that meets the requirements of the information age - is the key and the first practical step towards a decisive turn consciousness to the values of the "LebensWelt", to Nature.
As for the "overpopulation" of the Earth. I worked for three years in Egypt and constantly wondered how to live in such a small area such friendly people?
Eckard! Your opinion - is needed for Humanity new "The Open Manifesto of peace for the XXI century", which could be signed not only by scientists around the world, but every person in the world?
Sincerely,
Vladimir Rogozhin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 14:31 GMT
Dear Lorraine,
Many thanks for the link. Very broad and important document - «The Earth Charter». I read it and I support all the ideas and principles. It is important that the document is opened for signature. But why this phrase: «Endorsers are expected to: ...» ?
I think enough phrases:
"We, the undersigned, endorse the Earth Charter. We embrace the spirit and aims of the document.»
Unfortunately, I could not find in the list of individuals. What is your opinion on the organization promoting the ideas and principles of «The Earth Charter» among all people of the Earth?
Sincerely,
Vladimir Rogozhin
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 18:31 GMT
Vladimir,
Fate and destiny certainly play a role among conservativistic defenders of humanistic values in the Izborski club and at the World Congress of Families that stated: Every child is a gift.
I appreciate the role of Prussian philosophers of the beginning 19th century. Kant and Laplace were the pioneers of cosmology. I am just an engineer who felt forced to question even most basic philosophical views. Already Nobel estimated the natural sciences including their peaceful use and "literary work in an ideal direction" more appropriate to advance pacifism than theology, philosophy, mathematics, and other art subjects. So do I.
To me, the risk of a nuclear war is perhaps the most serious but not the only challenge to mankind. I tried to reveal with my examples some non-ideal directions: glorification of loyal heroic patriotism, supermen, demonstration of military power, intolerant orthodoxy, encouragement of getting as many children and consuming as much as possible, and other irresponsibilities against mankind.
What about Egypt and similar countries, religious conflicts tend to arise from social unbalance. I see several problems: The number of people is still growing. The rate of unemployment grows too. The poor ones will increasingly demand participation in luxurious life while the environment gets poisoned. Even worse circumstances are causing a mass migration into richer countries.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 00:52 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
I signed The Earth Charter when it was on paper (if my memory is correct), a long time ago, so I don't know about the phrase: "Endorsers are expected to: ...", and I don't know why lists of those who have signed is not available. Why don't you ask them? Look up The Earth Charter on Wikipedia. I have the highest opinion of all the people that were and are involved, and of the guiding principles they have arrived at.
Dear Eckard,
I agree with what you say about "nuclear war...glorification of loyal heroic patriotism, supermen, demonstration of military power, intolerant orthodoxy, encouragement of getting as many children and consuming as much as possible, and other irresponsibilities against mankind...religious conflicts..."
But your essay talks about "ethically acceptable" "discoveries and inventions were and are valuable indirect contributions to peace and beyond". But surely what is "ethically acceptable" requires some sort of internalized guiding principles?
Regards,
Lorraine
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 11:49 GMT
Ekard,
All centuries-old experience of joint historical life of the German and Russian people on the European continent, all tragedies which we endured, speaks about need of search of deep and reliable existential "point of support" and deep ideas for comprehensive joint cooperation, for the cause of peace throughout the world. In a concept «destiny» («fate» or in Russian - «sudba») ...
view entire post
Ekard,
All centuries-old experience of joint historical life of the German and Russian people on the European continent, all tragedies which we endured, speaks about need of search of deep and reliable existential "point of support" and deep ideas for comprehensive joint cooperation, for the cause of peace throughout the world. In a concept «destiny» («fate» or in Russian - «sudba») in conclusion
"Kant, Fichte, Hegel - destiny of Russia" I see a deep sense of inevitability of rapprochement of our people, broad joint cooperation of our people for the benefit of the whole world. Our people need reliable existential support, which will unite the spirit and mind of people thinking about the future of their children and grandchildren, the future of Humanity. We must all work together to find ways to overcome the crisis of European humanity, the crisis of European sciences(Husserl).
If you have other ideas for deep existentil spirit and mind, then we can discuss them. It is important to move the nations toward greater cooperation. This is the "people's diplomacy". Contest FQXi - this is a common call to action for more reliable steering the future.
With all the great significance of the Nobel prizes, including the Nobel Peace Prize, they can not replace broad public diplomacy in fight for peace around the world. I too simple engineer, but I think that it is a profound philosophy and ethics provide an opportunity to
create a global existential taboo, choose the right direction and more reliable steering the future.
With the your observation last I completely agree. I hope that the new generation, including politicians and businessmen will be more deeply understand the need for creation a
Just World .
Philosophy - the most rigorous and joyful science can help the new generations to create the secure future.I believe that is necessary to select all the ideas FQXi Contest this year and make a
separate blog for discussion and creation of common program of action contestants - Common Cause of the world. Contest can not be completed August 31, 2014, the more that
"September 1, 1939" - Memorial tragic day for the whole world.
Vladimir
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 17:23 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Let me try and translate: When you wrote "I too simple engineer" you meant "I am a simple engineer too".
Because I was unable to hear the message of "Just World", I can only guess that the text "Dit lied dragen we op aan alle mensen die slachtoffer zijn van mensenrechtenschendingen wereldwijd" is written in Dutch and might possibly mean: We devote (?) this song to all...
view entire post
Dear Vladimir,
Let me try and translate: When you wrote "I too simple engineer" you meant "I am a simple engineer too".
Because I was unable to hear the message of "Just World", I can only guess that the text "Dit lied dragen we op aan alle mensen die slachtoffer zijn van mensenrechtenschendingen wereldwijd" is written in Dutch and might possibly mean: We devote (?) this song to all people who are affected (?) by violations (?) of human rights worldwide.
I don't consider any Nobel prize relevant for peace. Instead I share Nobel's rational attitude including his conviction that discoveries, inventions, and literary work in ideal direction are contributions that will steer humanity toward peace. He wrote to Bertha von Suttner: "Perhaps my factories will put an end to war sooner than your congresses" and "The savants will write excellent volumes. There will be laureates. But wars will continue just the same until the forces of the circumstances render them impossible".
I added what I found out when asking myself who was responsible for WWI and all of its consequences including WWII. I got aware of horrible patriotism in Germany and France. German industry intended to colonize a lager share of the world. The British empire felt threatened by German competition and allied therefore with France. Poincaré manged to attract Russia to this Entente Cordial. Why did Russia support Serbia? Was it just because of their common orthodox religion? Or did they take the opportunity of a preventive war with Austria because a spy in Vienna had provided to them Austria's military plans? Anyway, there was no bad relationship between Germany and Russia. Wilhelm II had called Nikolaus II my dear Niki. Germany and Russia had and will now hopefully continue to have close relationships. That's why I wonder why you see "an opportunity to create a global existential taboo". In my understanding, taboos are outdated instruments of religions that hinder rational thinking.
Eckard
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 15:39 GMT
Dear Lorraine,
Thank you very much! I sent a letter today to the Earth Charter International Secretariat with three questions that in my opinion limit to promote the principles and goals «The Earth Charter» in all countries and on all continents of Mother Earth. We live in the Information age and the promotion of the noble goals and principles «Earth Charter» should be more open and active.
I believe that regardless of «The Earth Charter» is a new actual «The Open Manifesto of peace for the XXI century" in which there may be other accents in light of all the activities of the Pugwash movement of scientists, ideas and proposals of all participants of the Contest FQXi « How Should Humanity Steer the Future? »
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 16:34 GMT
Hello Akinbo,
I think the lack of visas between the states - it's a great goal for the future of Humanity, when the level of confidence between peoples and nations will grow significantly and will be overcome extreme inequality in living standards in different countries. The problem of terrorism and social unrest as a result of unlimited streams of residents of different countries with different mentalities and cultural traditions are still very high. Any transformation of the society, especially across the Earth, must proceed deliberately, gradually, "clearly and distinctly", as taught by the great Descartes.
When Humanity has Great Dream and the Great Common Cause, then move to the great goals much easier. Hope for a new "Generation SkyPe», which will steer the spaceship called Earth more focused and confident. Tragic memory of the XX century and the Information revolution is pushing us in the back and pulls confidently forward to a safer future. But the Information revolution requires urgently a profound revolution in education, which should start as soon as possible worldwide.
I think, as for an order of issue of visas, it can be simplified considerably taking into account achievements of information technologies.
Sincerely.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 19:07 GMT
Vladimir, the problem of terrorism and social unrest is directly proportional to the height of the barrier between the 'haves' and 'the have nots' in my opinion, which may be wrong. For any system to achieve equilibrium barriers must be removed. This obtains for physical and chemical systems as well as possibly for humanity. It is however true that when barriers are removed, initially the rich will become poorer and the poor will become richer. Also the safe will become less safe, and the less safe will become safer. Life expectancy will drop for rich people and rise for poor people. There is a resistance to this, for example that is why last year's Greek riots in the EU.
However, whether barriers are politically removed or not, whether visas are liberalized or not, the system of humanity will strive inexorably and obediently towards equilibrium, according to its form of the second law of thermodynamics. We can see this in the desperate immigrants risking their lives travelling by sea to Europe from North Africa, many dying at sea as a result. It is not their fault. The second law of thermodynamics is at work and is firmly in control.
Regards,
Akinbo
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 28, 2014 @ 09:42 GMT
Dear Akinbo,
Physics is the fundamental sign system without the ontological justification. But like all knowledge. In fundamental physics "crisis of understanding". Pierre Teilhard de Chardin has a wonderful conclusion:
'The true physics is that which will, one day, achieve the inclusion of man in his wholeness in a coherent picture of the world'. I believe that the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl) rules are not "the second law of thermodynamics" but
the Dialectical Logos - «metalaw of the Universum», «the law of laws», «law of justice». Therefore, the opening of borders without deep reforms in developing countries - a global existential chaos. Therefore it is necessary a thorough reform of education and seriously tackle corruption, the transition from "Democracy 2.0" to democracy of the Information Era - "Democracy 3.0".
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 28, 2014 @ 11:56 GMT
Vladimir,
"
Therefore, the opening of borders without deep reforms in developing countries - a global existential chaos. Therefore it is necessary a thorough reform of education and seriously tackle corruption"
I accept your right to hold your opinion. While not agreeing that developing countries have monopoly of corruption. Global financial crisis originated from developed countries. Printing of money, without any backing from commodity like gold but backed by word of mouth and promise from Federal reserve and virtually forcing the world to accept this piece of paper as a global currency also looks like corruption.
But let us assume you are correct, if 'corrupt' people migrate and mix with 'people that are not corrupt', will global sum of corruption reduce or increase? I think global sum of corruption will reduce. So no need to wait for deep reforms in developing countries. Initially, there may be difficulty but within a short time it will be overcome and there will be only one world citizenship. Remember, lesser animals have achieved this. Birds migrate from one country to another without visa! So human race is lagging behind.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 29, 2014 @ 09:31 GMT
Yes, dear Akinbo, deep reforms should be carried out in many areas of human activity, including the global financial system, one of the mainstays of the economy existential chaos. Modern information technology press on humanity from all sides. A closed society is gradually opened - no other way. "Democracy 2.0" is a hindrance to the movement (fall?) Humanity in the future.
Requires a conscious move towards "Democracy 3.0": "Open authority - Open Society" with clear "clear and distinct" (Descartes) feedback. Otherwise - existential explosions in the form of social revolutions and wars. Unfortunately, the consciousness lags behind the development of technologies. Need a turning of the consciousness as too much existential risks in the way of modern Humanity. So first of all requires a deep reform of education.
You, Akinbo, as a citizen of your country, can be controlled through the Internet daily spending budget of your State?
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 2, 2014 @ 11:38 GMT
Dear Lorraine,
Today I signed
THE EARTH CHARTER . That statement, which came to me:
«Thank you for your endorsement to the Earth Charter! We hope you can actively engage in the dissemination and implementation of the Earth Charter values and principles in your area of activity.» Thank you very much. that told me the address of The Earth Charter Initiative!
This organization is a very important activity for the benefit of Humanity and Nature!
If the people of Earth will unite, then steer the future of Humanity will be much easier.
I also got a reply to my letter in The Earth Charter Initiative.
I believe that the individual person should also have the right to choose - to be open or closed list of signatories to the Earth Charter. Now individual lists are closed. Philosophical "why?". I plan to send another letter to the Organization on this issue. I think that openness is very important to promote the ideas and principles of The Earth Charter.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 12:11 GMT
Dear Lorraine,
I heartily congratulate you and the American people on The Independence Day!
I remember in 1998 when I visited BOSTON TEA PARTY SHIP, Brig Beaver II and learned the story of the beginning of the struggle for independence of the people of the United States. The ship is very symbolic.
Today, we, humans, are sailing together in the ocean - space on a spaceship...
view entire post
Dear Lorraine,
I heartily congratulate you and the American people on The Independence Day!
I remember in 1998 when I visited BOSTON TEA PARTY SHIP, Brig Beaver II and learned the story of the beginning of the struggle for independence of the people of the United States. The ship is very symbolic.
Today, we, humans, are sailing together in the ocean - space on a spaceship called "Earth". Max Tegmark in the article
Life As We Know It notes very precisely:
«Although life as we know it gets a lot of flack, I worry that we don't appreciate it enough and are too complacent about losing it. As our "Spaceship Earth" blazes though cold and barren space, it both sustains and protects us. It's stocked with major but limited supplies of water, food and fuel. Its atmosphere keeps us warm and shielded from the Sun's harmful ultraviolet rays, and its magnetic field shelters us from lethal cosmic rays. Surely any responsible spaceship captain would make it a top priority to safeguard its future existence by avoiding asteroid collisions, on-board explosions, overheating, ultraviolet shield destruction, and premature depletion of supplies? Yet our spaceship crew hasn't made any of these issues a top priority, devoting (by my estimate) less than a millionth of its resources to them. In fact, our spaceship doesn't even have a captain!». And who could be this «responsible spaceship captain» for all Humanity, which can reliably steer the Future?
In my opinion, this can only be the UN. But the UN requires a deep and all-encompassing rebooting. While in "command" of the ship is a struggle for the position of first assistant. And who is the navigator of the ship called Earth? Sure, it's with the global scientific community. Unfortunately, the same ship resembles a "cosmic Titanic."
I fully agree with the philosophical conclusion of Max Tegmark:
«What we should be worried about is that we're not worried.» I wish the American people in this Day of great aspirations for
Freedom, Justice and Understanding among all peoples of the world, Peace that our sole spaceship Earth and Humanity moved more securely into the Future!
The American people can and should believe poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko:
The Russians do they want war?
Ask the silence that hovers
On our plowed fields and our plains,
Ask birches, poplars.
Just ask the soldiers
Who lie beneath the birches!
Their son will tell you:
The Russians do they want ...
The Russians do they want ...
The Russians do they want war?
It is not only for our country
That soldiers fell in this war,
But so that all the people of the earth
Can sleep peacefully at night.
Just ask those who fought,
To those who kissed you on the Elbe.
We believe in that memory.
The Russians do they want ...
The Russians do they want ...
The Russians do they want war?
Yes, we can fight.
But we do not want
Soldiers to die in combat again
On our saddened land
Ask our mothers,
Ask my wife:
And then you will understand
The Russians do they want ...
The Russians do they want ...
The Russians do they want war?
The docker will understand, and the fisherman,
The worker will understand, and the peasant,
The people of each country will understand:
The Russians do they want ...
The Russians do they want ...
The Russians do they want war?Let in the World no weapons and armies, and will only
military choirs and orchestras !
Great Dream and The Great Common Cause: We Earthlings, have to start The New Renaissance-Enlightenment.
In the United States there is a great project and program
Philosophy for children. First step: Such a program tailored to national cultures, it is necessary to spread worldwide. It is time we, the peoples of Earth, together take up the people's diplomacy!
God Bless America! Maybe Hegel - the destiny of Russia and America?
God bless America!
God Bless the U.S.A.!Happy Independence Day!
I wish you good luck!
All the Best,
Vladimir
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 01:42 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thanks very much for your good wishes - and all the best to you too. Good on you for signing the Earth Charter!
Regards,
Lorraine (in Australia)
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 09:15 GMT
Eckard,
Sorry, of course "I am a simple engineer too". GOOGLE not yet captures all the freedom of the Russian language. Perhaps once international contest will in Esperanto.
Yes, I saw the inscription in Danish only now. Ibid in English: «This song is dedicated to all victims of human rights violations worldwide» Lovely, deep song. It gives hope for a more just world for new...
view entire post
Eckard,
Sorry, of course "I am a simple engineer too". GOOGLE not yet captures all the freedom of the Russian language. Perhaps once international contest will in Esperanto.
Yes, I saw the inscription in Danish only now. Ibid in English: «This song is dedicated to all victims of human rights violations worldwide» Lovely, deep song. It gives hope for a more just world for new generations of earthlings.
Yes, indeed, Eckard, history of XX century and our historical memory makes us take a new look at the present and future of mankind. You wrote the beautiful words: «Germany and Russia had and will now hopefully continue to have close relationships.»
Yes, Eckard, our people need as much as possible to make large and small joint projects to promote peace throughout the world. We, the common people, must and can help governments to build a new larger Europe, as bequeathed Immanuel Kant - "union of peoples» This will be the most extensive public diplomacy in action.
In 1968 I was a student of diplomacy program in Germany. I remember how we, together with our German friends were singing: «Sag mir, wo du stehst und welchen Weg du gehst?» ... In the new structure of the Universum of the Information era concepts "topos" and "path" one of the main. It's time - time for the nations of Germany and Russia to start a new path. The past, the memory of the XX century have very strongly «pushes me forward":
Tired in my way I asked the destiny:
"Who pushes me in my back so ruthlessly?" -
"Look back!" - I look - and the complaint ceases:
It is my past who pushes me forward.(Rabindranath Tagore)
I
hope that the new generation will make a "great turn" and start
the new path.... Otherwise, who will help us, if we do not help ourselves? Extraterrestrial intelligence?
As for the "existential taboo" that eg prohibition of nuclear weapons and its complete destruction - I understand it as "existential taboo."
Vladimir
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 21:00 GMT
Eckard,
June 28, 1914 - a tragic day, which led to the beginning of World War I. I have read
the correspondence of Wilhelm II with Nicholas II. Yes, indeed, friendship and kinship monarchs of Germany and Russia could not be a reliable guarantor of peace in Europe and throughout the world. Obviously, the "war party" in Germany and Russia had a strong pressure on the Monarchs. All events from June 28 to August 1, 1914 forced all of us earthlings, once again rethink answers to the question «« How Should Humanity Steer the Future? ». To think and act more actively. To the people gradually come to understand that in the XXI century to solve international problems by force of arms is extremely dangerous. World War remains today the main danger for Humanity. World war remains today the main danger for Humanity. Therefore need a powerful global movement of people's diplomacy, reboot Pugwash. Theme FQXi Essay Contest 2014 is extremely actual.
Vladimir
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 28, 2014 @ 02:26 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for pointing to the telegrams that reveal in which weak positions both Willy and Niki were. Were they aware of e.g. Poincaré's trap? Shouldn't we ask who were those who put pressure on Nicholas because of claimed indignation?
I guess, in contrast to revanchist Frenchmen, to Germans who strove for more colonies, and to Englishmen who feared growing German power, neither Serbia nor Russia had anything to fear or win.
Let me try to distill most fundamental lessons to learn:
- The tragedy already begun much earlier with patriotism, tin soldiers for boys, heroism, military parades, and alliances. Shouldn't Pugwash more consequently focus on clear condemnation of all that?
- Wilhelm was wrong when he insisted "that all the persons morally responsible for the dastardly murder should receive their deserved punishment. In this case politics plays no part at all." Isn't moral subordinated to the interest of mankind?
- Those who urged Nicholas to mobilize the Russian army against Austria proved narrow-minded. They didn't imagine that a war will damage the Russian empire and its orthodox church. Perhaps they believed in support by God and holy icons. Maybe, some advisers were additionally motivated by knowledge of Austria's military secrets. Religious fundamentalism and naive patriotism are irrational and therefore fundamental to most serious conflicts.
- Worldwide use of discoveries and inventions might be the most promising way to overcome religious and nationalist intolerance.
- The world needs a neutral authority in charge of punishing terrorists like the Serbians. Germany as a non-orthodox empire was unable to mediate.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jun. 28, 2014 @ 13:21 GMT
Dear Eckard,
I agree with you completely on all counts.
As for Pugwash, it requires deep reforms. Pugwash movement must become an open mass movement of people on Earth, not just scientists. Scientists should be the core and the engine of the Pugwash Movement. FQXi may be initiated reforms. Pugwash Movement should lead the process of creating of the Global System of existential security of Humanity and bring together all non-governmental organizations around the world that support the principles of the Pugwash Movement that support principles and goals of the Pugwash. The Information revolution and memory XX-century pushes Humanity to make more decisive steps to a higher and deeper level of democracy - "Democracy 3.0". At the same time need a "reboot" of the UN.
Lee Smolin described the system of bureaucracy and domination in science in the book «The trouble with physics: the rise of string theory, the fall of a science, and what comes next». Today serious "troubles" both in fundamental physics, and in fundamental policy. These "troubles" can overcome all together, if we follow the conclusions and recommendations of Lee Smolin in a spirit of profound Cartesian doubt:
«To the educated public: Be critical. Don't believe most ofwhat you hear.»... «...ask the new questions, find the new answers, and lead revolutions.». The revolutions of the Mind. The Philosophy here is a good helper.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 1, 2014 @ 13:42 GMT
Yes, Eckard, Humanity needs both in the air in a fast reboot Pugwash and the creation of a new Global Age of Enlightenment. Will
«schoolyard bullies» reliably steer the future of Humanity? Philosophy should be taught from the first grade of school to move the «schoolyard bullies» to understanding:
«Zwei Dinge erfüllen das Gemüt mit immer neuer und zunehmender Bewunderung und Ehrfurcht, je öfter und anhaltender sich das Nachdenken damit beschäftigt: Der bestirnte Himmel über mir, und das moralische Gesetz in mir.»(I.Kant)
You are absolutely right, Eckard:. «Peace via Discoveries and Inventions ... Humanity must cope with its own behavior». Discoveries and Inventions in all fields of human existence, overcoming all existential risks. Today confrontation Homo sapiens vs Homo ludens reached the an extremely dangerous high, more dangerous than it was before the Second World War. Again go "big game" in the war. And Humanity asleep again ...
Good idea and a good
argument for all Humanity in the nuclear age:
« In a post-deterrence world , so the argument goes, the logic of schoolyard bullies can give way to that of diplomats and mediators. Brinksmanship would wither and multilateralism would flourish. It posits a world where leaders and governments are enlightened enough not to need to be deterred.» Best
Mediators and
Guides of peace and understanding - it's non-governmental organizations, such as Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, International Peace Bureau, The Club of Rome, The Centre for Study of Existential Risk, The Future of Humanity Institute, The Global Catastrophic Risk Institute and many others.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 06:41 GMT
Vladimir,
I just heard a new Ukrainian minister of defense promised a parade of victory in Sewastopol. What disparate, dangerous, irrational and inhuman illusion! Neither Russia and Ukraine nor the rest of the world have anything to win by means of a military adventure. Shouldn't at least the orthodox Ukrainians and Russians obey the patriarch of Moscow whom I see obliged to learn from 1914 and condemn patriotic feeling and fanatic belief on both sides. In 1914, the churches and governments didn't live up to their obligation. I hope, the UN will be strong enough as to condemn and exclude from cooperation both Ukraine and Russia until their conflict has been peacefully resolved, even if such peacekeeping behavior endangers Europe's energy supply.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 15:05 GMT
Dear Eckard,
The whole experience of Humanity, especially XX century, says that the war started politics. Unfortunately, politicians are not very fond of philosophy and history. And do not even respect their fundamental legal documents. The source of power in a democracy - the people. Article 5 of the Constitution of Ukraine states: "The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power...
view entire post
Dear Eckard,
The whole experience of Humanity, especially XX century, says that the war started politics. Unfortunately, politicians are not very fond of philosophy and history. And do not even respect their fundamental legal documents. The source of power in a democracy - the people. Article 5 of the Constitution of Ukraine states: "The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in Ukraine is the people." Has anyone asked the entire Ukrainian people, whether he wants to join the European Association? A referendum must be because it deep existential question for any nation, not just economic. Referendum - it is one of the main pillars of "Democracy 3.0" - the deep Democracy of the Information era.
Modern information technology it could be done very easily and inexpensively. In a referendum must be at least 75%. Otherwise, the split of spirit of the people as a whole. Modern information age requires the deepest, clear and distinct (René Descartes) democracy, and not just a lot of talk and beautiful words about democracy. Otherwise total destructive process begins, that the events in Ukraine and in the Arab world. All weapons accumulated by mankind keeps everyone on earth in their hostage. And the process of the arms race continues. This is the global existential risk number 1.
Do you remember who was the guarantor of the "Agreement on the settlement of the political crisis in Ukraine" on February 21. Outcome "guarantees" - violent revolution and all subsequent existential destruction of Ukrainian society. XXI century, the Information age requires a transition to the "Democracy 3.0". Otherwise Humanity will not be able to reliably steer the Future.
UN must also change radically in the XXI century, taking into account the entire memory of the XX century. War must be stopped. Now is no time to look for who is right and who is wrong. Ordinary people and children should not die because of ill-considered actions of politicians. Need to develop public diplomacy to a new level. Necessary to build a Greater Europe on a completely new basis, as bequeathed Immanuel Kant - "union of peoples."
Vladimir
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 15:26 GMT
Vlad & Eckard,
Unfortunately, U.S. foreign policy since 1991 has been driven by the myth that 'Ronald Reagan won the Cold War! To the victor go the spoils!' and the underlying intent is to make the Mediteranean an 'American Lake'. Ukraine and Syria are part of the same policy. The Russian lease of a Naval base in Syria is what U.S. imperialist factions want first to depose. And Russia is seen as a storehouse of natural resources. Putin knows it was the shock wave from the catastrophic explosion of the Unit 4 reactor at Chernobyl that knocked down the Berlin Wall, not the vibration from sabre rattling by Reagan and Thatcher, but you don't hear that from any of the Talking Heads that provoked the tragic events unfolding now from Kiev. Nor do they quell fascist fires with the truth that ethnic Russians suffered as greatly as any peoples under Stalin's purges, forced labour and starvation from selling even the seed grain to finance his industrialization program. Complacency here in the U.S. is purchased by 'consumerism' with free apps and cheap gas, and the nearly 17 trillion dollar national debt requires exploitation of other people and resources to sustain the exponential increase in money supply necessary to continue to provide 'quantitative easing' for further extension of irrational consumer debt which has given rise to a 'Nouveau Riche' concentrating wealth and controlling corporate corruption of our political process and infrastructure. Any time a nation starts calling itself 'the Homeland' instead of 'the Country' every other nation better Wise Up! jrc
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 07:43 GMT
Vladimir,
The appropriate perspective is that of mankind, not that of any local democracy. The merchant of death was strictly neutral and rational. He trusted in the (growing by means of discoveries and invention) forces of the circumstances, in other words of worldwide cooperation and belonging growing responsibility. He did certainly not by chance ignore religion and Mittag-Leffler's mathematics. I asked myself who was mainly responsible for what begun in 1914. On top of my list are patriotic and/or religious irrationalities combined with glorification of heroism. Let's condemn all demonstration of military force. Let's condemn e.g. the movie "They called him Sarajevo". Let's not just condemn but hurt all those who don't live up to their obligation to hinder support for aggressive patriotic or religious parties. Mankind first! There is no reason for a war. Non-indoctrinated people are against war.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 10:59 GMT
Dear Eckard,
Humanity is now fragmented in spirit and mind. Who will lead the movement for the Perpetual Peace on Earth? Who will promote the great idea of Sully -St.Pierre - Rousseau - Kant in politics, education of new generations of Earthlings? Pugwash Movement of scientists? The United Nations? Nobel Peace Prize laureates?...
Bombs continue to fall on children...
«U-turn or u die» (Flavio Mercati).
Earth groans and screams. Earthlings do not hear
the Voice of the Earth.
Children need Peace, not a
"war of ideas".
In the nuclear age, war can't be national interest.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 19:13 GMT
Hello John,
How «better Wise Up» in the nuclear age?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 20:56 GMT
Greetings Vlad,
Imperialists have cropped up in every nation state that has been successful in enlarging it's population and productivity, so it's nothing new. The nuclear proliferation we have witnessed changes the equation for sure, and sad as it may be the 'doctrine' of Mutual Assured Destruction did in fact work during the Cold War. I think one of the great untold stories of history is...
view entire post
Greetings Vlad,
Imperialists have cropped up in every nation state that has been successful in enlarging it's population and productivity, so it's nothing new. The nuclear proliferation we have witnessed changes the equation for sure, and sad as it may be the 'doctrine' of Mutual Assured Destruction did in fact work during the Cold War. I think one of the great untold stories of history is that of the unprecedented international effort when the Soviet State collapsed in finality, which dismantled and removed from the former southern Republics the many nuclear facilities located there, not only stationary launch installations but also various processing and other risky technological facilities. The invasion of Kuwait by Saddam was only a partial occupation of that country in 1991, and was no doubt anticipated by NATO for what it was, a feint. The intent was to draw military response from primarily the U.S. into a stand-off on Iraq's south flank to tie up forces while mobilizing sufficient Iraqi strength to seize the nuclear capabilities in those regions which would obviously become dysfunctional with the impending collapse of Soviet governance. But then, G.H.W. Bush was an 'Eisenhower' Republican, and people like Colin Powell and Schwartzcoff were Viet Era soldiers whom had committed themselves to reform of the U.S. military from the bean counting 'body count' corporate management that so tragically played out in Viet Nam, and which is still killing friends of mine. The Chicken Hawks that Reagan had surrounded himself with, notably Chenney, Wolfowitz and others whose ambition made them seek positions in civilian control of the military during Nam, dusted off that previous contingency plan to respond to Saddam's feint by a coalition in great strength to prevent both Iraq and Iran from making a move on the vulnerable nukes yet not to take ownership of regime change. The Chicken Hawks simply wanted an accuse for military adventure, the nukes had already been removed from harms way.
So where do we stand today? and what best can be done? Firstly, there are cooler heads that are raising their voices however belatedly in the U.S. and E.U., these should be acknowleged and encouraged. Much depends on regaining reasonable regulatory constraint on the rampant, laisez faire financial industry globally, and the IMF has only recently begun to caution that economic disparity is counter productive to both productivity and sustainability. Growing awareness of the potential for totalitarian exploitation of 'Information Technologies' requires that we seek both an international framework of checks and balances, and also a completely new machine language that would not require a 'software fix' to prevent hijacking of the operating system from intrusion from the data storage and retrieval side of the chip architecture. I also suspect that the Machiavellian political response by national interests which seek multipartite balance of power which do see and fear the unilateralism currently prevalent in U.S. policy, and emerging in China's, will be to operate financially to crash the derivatives markets. In an earlier era, a derivative by definition is a differential coefficient; that is graphically, a line tangent to the lowest value of a curve. Given that the curve in a financial investment vehicle is a VaR (Value against Risk) the lowest value is the actual number of dollars paid for the bundle and the line tangent to that is horizontal. A financial derivative is not only an unsecured side bet, coupled to an equally unsecured default swap, it's value does not increase with the base rate of inflation. The same number of dollars is paid in redemption as were originally paid in purchase, they just aren't marketed for what they really are, funny money for large financial institutions and embedded in bond issues largely held by indexed funds. That's why the big bankers don't want regulation and ran Shiela Baird out of office. The news media has stopped mentioning derivative markets and at the time they stopped, it was estimated to be larger than the world gross annual product. That is why the 143 billion dollar Ukrainian national debt is such a worrisome problem for both the E.U. and Russia. Sorry for the length of this, jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 01:35 GMT
John C,
While societies are infinitely complex, there is still basic physical processes at work and often complexity is counter-productive to the singular actions of large bodies, such as countries.
If I was to predict the next several years, the largest political move under way is that many of the countries on the Eurasian continent are getting fed up with the US attitude, spying etc. and are starting to find ways to avoid using the dollar and the US banking system in their transactions. Even Germany and France are starting to move in that direction and we will likely start to see Latin America join in, as well.
After the last decade of war many of the soldiers are disillusioned, many large projects, such as the F-35 are being built more as pork barrel projects, than effective weapons systems, along with the fact that potential adversaries, such as Russia and China, seem far too aware to get into a direct conflict, along with the Muslim civil war that we instigated, I suspect that when the bubble of leverage finally comes unwound, there is going to be a bit of an American implosion, rather than some global war and then we will see what strengths, good and bad, emerge from that.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 05:26 GMT
John Merryman,
I know you dwell much on Humanitarian issues, and often have deep insights. I do hope you are correct in that human folly will not again subject the world to global war. You and I are perhaps lucky to be of a generation that experienced social unrest and governmental anti-progressive reactionism, at least we know what to expect. I put my faith in the working poor, they're not deceived so easily by wishful thinking. I caught just a bit of a program featuring an elder community activist, she said "outrage does not constitute revolution". How true. Numbers of people finding common cause do that. Kind regards, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 09:41 GMT
Dear John R. Cox,
I recently read documents "Cold War". Conclusion: our generation is fortunate to have avoided Humanity risk of nuclear war. But humanity must again rely on luck? Yes, nature conservation - the great problems of Humanity, but the problem remains the number 1 is the same - nuclear war to self-destruct. Elimination of these existential risk is the first item of the «Great Common Cause» of Humanity.
Humanity - a team of the most beautiful spaceship called "Earth", steers again as 68 years ago, to the self-destruction of a nuclear war. Captain of the ship named "UN 2.0" asleep as captain by the name of "League of Nations" before World War II. Pugwash - the watchman on the spaceship "Earth" - also fell asleep, despite the covenant of the Russell-Einstein to all the people of Earth in their Manifesto:
«Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.»...
«There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.» What should do Humanity today? How should steer Humanity not to collide with «GNW-iceberg" - "Global nuclear war"?
Homo ludens again very carried away in the war games, while
Homo sapiens sapiens is sleeping on the "Post peace."
Yet again the question: How «better Wise Up»?
What is "Common Cause" of Humanity in your opinion?
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 10:32 GMT
John C,
I tend to look at it in terms of basic physics and there doesn't seem to be a real state based conflict building. Not to say there are not some other drastic possibilities.
The fact is that the US has had a mechanism, with the dollar as the world's reserve currency, to essentially tax the rest of the world for the last 40 years, backed by a rather aggressive military and far more actual effort put into supporting friendly despots, than humanitarian efforts, for all our preaching. Now we are reaching the blowback stage, as the Old World doesn't need either resources or manufacturing from us, the conflict with Russia is undermining their need for our banking, since Europe is far more dependent on Russian gas, than US banking and probably most militarily significantly, those mis-adventures in the Middle East were a huge strategic failure and while we like to think the world is smaller and distance doesn't matter, our ability to project over there will become ever more difficult and pressure in likely to build in many of those countries where we have bases, to start restricting them.
I suspect though, that things in this country will get more both chaotic and authoritarian, given lots of guns/security forces and an increasingly fragmented political structure.
I think people will find that developing a strong community network is their best hope for the future. When the big tree falls, there is sunlight for the little ones.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 16:27 GMT
Vladimir & John M.
I never bought into the idea that "Government is the problem, not the solution" which is what people in the States mean when they say Reagan was a 'transformative' President. I have always had the same problem with that notion of non-regulation as I have with the Communist Manifesto; both assert that left to itself, human nature will become changed into a wholesome,...
view entire post
Vladimir & John M.
I never bought into the idea that "Government is the problem, not the solution" which is what people in the States mean when they say Reagan was a 'transformative' President. I have always had the same problem with that notion of non-regulation as I have with the Communist Manifesto; both assert that left to itself, human nature will become changed into a wholesome, benevolent, and utopian agent. BUNK!
One of the consequences of Cold War politics was that the proper meaning in the definition of political terminology was corrupted by propagandizing all around. All organizations devised by human endeavor, whether political, religious, civic or economic are susceptible to being corrupted. There are only two ideologies which naturally issue from this human condition, Conservatism and Liberalism. Proper definition means:
Liberalism argues that because government is corruptible and government as a collective agent is more powerful then the individual, the best assurance against tyranny is for the individual to be granted the liberty of prerogative to pursue anything that is not expressly forbidden by law.
Conservatism argues that because government is corruptible by individual excess, the best assurance against tyranny is for the prerogative to guard individual liberty to be conserved by the government.
This is why democracy is such a messy business. And it is commonly believed that democracy has been around since antiquity. It was originally conceived in antiquity but was a flash in the pan, being in fruition only during the Age of Pericles in ancient Athens. But even the philosophers that refined and codified the democratic idea were themselves sons of the Greek aristocracy and argued against it. Knowledge of democracy was kept from falling into oblivion by the scholars and libraries of the Islamic Empire, and it was unheard of in Europe after the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, which was nothing of what we would call a democracy but more like buying a seat on the stock exchange, a councilor oligarchy. Catholic Europe in rediscoverying it with the capitulation of Toledo with its vast library, universally condemned democracy as a threat to stability of governance, prosperity and peace. It was not until 800 years ago that an absolute monarch was compelled by his nobles to accept the Magna Carta, and it was only 400 years ago with the ascension of King James to the English throne that the modern march of democracy began becoming enshrined in law. And it was not in the Platonic form, but an amalgam of the ancient forum of debate in logical argument, with the Celtic idea that the individual should have as much right as the law itself to appeal to law in ones own defense of personal legitimate interest.
This is at the core of my belief system. My maternal Grandfather was a direct descendant of that red haired ancient bearded Celt that went a-Viking up the Rhine, hauled his ships over the hump and down the Danube, across the Black Sea and up the Dnieper where he established the trading center of Kiev, and giving his name to the land that would become called Russia.
How should Humanity steer the future? The only way possible, get political. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 10:26 GMT
John C,
Government is a response mechanism and a feedback loop. As such, it is the central nervous system of a community. The simple forms tend to be somewhat exclusively top down and the more complex ones have more developed feedback loops with the rest of the organism/community. The brain listens to the feet.
The problems start when it starts constructing its own version of reality and doesn't listen to those signals, becoming largely top down. The problem with the US government is that it is riding, or rather the individuals pulling the strings at any one time, are riding a multi-generational wave of good luck and think they are ordained to whatever they so please. In people it would be narcissism and egomania. It doesn't usually end well.
This was my entry in the contest.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 11:17 GMT
Dear friends.
Yesterday I read the report of Zbigniew Brzezinski «Confronting Russian Chauvinism» at the Munich Security Conference , which this year celebrates its 50th anniversary. Then I went back to work of Edmund Husserl from 1939 «Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology» and the book of Lee Smolin «The trouble with physics: the rise of string theory, the...
view entire post
Dear friends.
Yesterday I read the report of Zbigniew Brzezinski
«Confronting Russian Chauvinism» at the
Munich Security Conference , which this year celebrates its 50th anniversary. Then I went back to work of Edmund Husserl from 1939 «Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology» and the book of Lee Smolin «The trouble with physics: the rise of string theory, the fall of a science, and what comes next».
As in 1939 is extremely relevant today conclusions of Edmund Husserl:
"The true struggles of our time, the only ones which are significant, are struggles between humanity which has already collapsed and humanity which still has roots but is struggling to keep them or find new ones. The genuine spiritual struggles of European humanity as such take the form of the struggle between the philosophies, that is, between the skeptical philosophies-or nonphilosophies, wich retain the word but not the task – and the actual and still vital philosophies. But the vitality of the latter consists in the fact that they are struggling for their own true and genuine meaning and thus for the meaning for a genuine humanity." The overall conclusion: Science and Humanity is undergoing a profound existential crisis. «The trouble with physics ...» and «The trouble with Humanity ...» .
If physics for their entire period of formation always overcame the "crises of understanding" that Humanity has faced for the first time with such a deep crisis, which threatens the survival of life on Earth. Promethean long way from the first fire to thermonuclear bombs and environmental disaster may be interrupted. Today, it is necessary not alarmism, but extra alarmism. Otherwise Homo ludens will continue their great war games.
To more reliably steer the future, humanity must return again and again to a better understanding of the Cartesian «Cogito, ergo sum». The overall conclusion - we need the most profound turning point in science, education, politics and economics to the deepest philosophy of the "LifeWorld"(Husserl). When will mankind, there will be Physics. Necessary to establish an annual «World Intellectual Forum» on the birthday Immanuel Kant, author of a treatise «Zum ewigen Frieden» in his homeland. Along with the creation of the "artificial intelligence", it is necessary to deepen the human mind, create the new «Rules For The Direction Of The Mind» for the XXI century. There, in the homeland of Immanuel Kant set the Big Philosophical Bell of Peace. Also needed urgent reload of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 14:52 GMT
John Merryman,
Quite right. The big nuts always jiggle to the top of the can. jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 17:53 GMT
John M.
Allow me to elaborate a bit. One of the principle reasons that I have objected to the simplistic Reagan rhetoric of "Government is the problem, not the solution" is that it has effectively discouraged political participation by many individuals. And as you would recall, it was a pretty easy sell in the wake of Viet Nam, Watergate and the culture of bigotry in J. Edgar Hoover's...
view entire post
John M.
Allow me to elaborate a bit. One of the principle reasons that I have objected to the simplistic Reagan rhetoric of "Government is the problem, not the solution" is that it has effectively discouraged political participation by many individuals. And as you would recall, it was a pretty easy sell in the wake of Viet Nam, Watergate and the culture of bigotry in J. Edgar Hoover's witch-hunting.
I find myself returning to Machiavelli, and while many would condemn the blatant Machiavellian tactics used by the reactionary right-wingers, they only used that which suited their attacks on 'The New Deal'. The end result has been to produce policies which in fact violate nearly all of the principles that Machiavelli so succinctly laid out. We now have a surveillance society we fought WWII and the Cold War against. We have the very 'military industrial complex' Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against in his farewell speech to Congress, and consequently a overblown dysfunctional government presiding over an irrational monetary system which is being projected abroad in a manner that is continually eroding U.S. credibility and legitimacy, while also disenfranchising more and more of the American citizenry.
Read what Machiavelli says about armies and the danger of reliance on mercenaries. And are not all these 'Defense Contractors" just that?
See what he says about the differences between Principalities and Republics, and how each can be expected to react to a new ruler. Do we not see that in the Mid-East and E.U.? Here it is essential that the historical context must be taken into account, because the 'Republic' Machiavelli was speaking of was the Roman model on Platonic lines. The liberties where-in only extended to those who could purchase a position to influence the policy of governance while any such policy which despoiled any individual left the individual without legal recourse. Is that not the model we are seeing being entrenched in Kiev with U.S. support and "F**k the E.U."?
I do not know of the Brzezinski report Vladimir has mentioned, but I would be surprised if it did not reinforce the 'to the victor go the spoils' mentality that entirely misinterprets Vladimir Putin as pretending to be Joseph Stalin. What might be called chauvinism in the west, is charisma in the Russian psyche.
Putin survived his office as a Colonel in KGB which had a relatively small officer corps and which was very much a creature of Yuri Androvpov (who crushed the 1968 Prague Spring) at the time of the Soviet collapse. Make no mistake, it was no small feat. The next rank up was in the General Staff, and they had the rubles to convert to any currency that would float and only wanted to 'get out of Dodge' after Chernobyl exploded. Any organization operating such a facility that failed so catastrophiccly would be doomed, and without the stern resistance of the Old Guard Stalinists the push by Gorbachev and the reform socialists fell headlong in front of their goals. Putin very conspicuously had consciously and deliberately remade himself out of necessity, not into a 'young Stalin the Bolshevik' as President Obama stupidly, publicly and ignorantly called him, but into a 'new Djugashvili the Decemberist'. There was no such thing as 'contract law' in the Soviet Union, in its collapse such things as who would operate the heating plant for residential blocks was decided by the gun not the pen. The rise of the oligarchs was perhaps inevitable without an enlightened 'Marshal Plan' type of response from the west.
The road to war is always shorter, and the steps quicker and seemingly easier, than the exploration to survey a path to peace. We might not find a suitable one to forward the strategic goals that most readers and participants in this forum recognize as necessary from what the advance in the sciences leave little doubt about, if we do not also carry a chart of the reality of history which marks the causal events that result in todays effects. That ineffable quality in the Russian sense of self that is expressed in the poem Vladimir Rogozhin presented, is one such indispensable chart. Who remembers the Elbe? Not todays young. God! I wish he and his like the most luck, the germ of the seed of equalitarian democracy has lain so long in the soils of Mother Russia. And we may greatly need it to sprout and flourish, to provide fresh rootstock for what has become blighted here in 'the west'. Best Regards, jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 00:32 GMT
John C,
In the outline I laid out in my contest entry, I observed that the dichotomy of energy and information is reflected in the physiology of central nervous system and digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems. This is then further reflected in government as society's central nervous system and finance as its economic circulation system.
Naturally governments are an...
view entire post
John C,
In the outline I laid out in my contest entry, I observed that the dichotomy of energy and information is reflected in the physiology of central nervous system and digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems. This is then further reflected in government as society's central nervous system and finance as its economic circulation system.
Naturally governments are an expression of the society and for a long time, they tended to hierarchal and personal, as in monarchies. While it somewhat fulfilled an emotional need for charismatic and strong leaders, there wasn't much in the way of a system for selecting that leader and we gradually shifted to government as a public trust.
Right now, we are in a similar situation with the financial circulation system, where the focus of those managing it are far more on their own benefits, than the larger public services and as more and more people try to get on the gravy train, so to speak, the result amounts to a global vortex, as this financial siphon seeks to drain any and all value that it can, from everything it can. In many ways, it is completely blind and mindless, just an enormous vortex pulling in and tearing up whatever it can.
The underlaying premise here is that money is a form of commodity, representing real value, overlooking the fact that every asset is back by an obligation, which makes it a contract. In reality it is a public medium, which needs to circulate in order to function. Which means those pooling this wealth then have to get the public, in the form of government debt, to borrow it back.
As it is, they have hijacked all forms of government that they need and turned them into tools to serve this purpose. At this point, its not so much a matter of political intrigue, but physical dynamic, given that money as a commodity is sufficiently abstract to serve as bait for enormous numbers of people. Think for a moment how much people are devoted to their retirement accounts. Like a wave, while the crest is most evident, the real power is under the surface.
That is the tidal wave Putin dares to stand against.
I tried explaining this in the essay, but didn't have much luck.
Regards,
John M
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 17:16 GMT
Yes, John, your thought is good: «The road to war is always shorter, and the steps quicker and seemingly easier, than the exploration to survey a path to peace.» We are all earthlings together should review the entire existential basis of our "LifeWorld ". The Information revolution offers a chance to Humanity to steer the more reliable future. Core and semantic attractor of the conceptual...
view entire post
Yes, John, your thought is good: «The road to war is always shorter, and the steps quicker and seemingly easier, than the exploration to survey a path to peace.» We are all earthlings together should review the entire existential basis of our "LifeWorld ". The Information revolution offers a chance to Humanity to steer the more reliable future. Core and semantic attractor of the conceptual structure of the world of the information age - the ontological (structural) memory.
So good you noticed for the right path to peace is very important to remember not only the main existencial repère-point (existencial extremum) in becoming of Humanity, but their deepest needs analysis, primarily existencial repère-point of XX century at all levels of the "LifeWorld " (global, regional, national). Impossible not only to forget the near and distant history, but also distort it. Distortion of the history - is causing conflicts, existential tension between nations.
American and Russian peoples, America and Russia should move towards each other, towards a common goal, to eternal peace (Kant), to a more sustainable future of humanity. Between
the island of Big Diomede (Russia) and Little Diomede (United States) the distance of 4160 meters, you can see here "line change time" and reach out to each other. America and Russia have the largest nuclear arsenals, nuclear disarmament must therefore start again our country. To do this, we need mutual understanding. Requires deep reboot «Friendship Society Russia - USA». Such projects such as
The International Relay Swim Across The Bering Strait require extensive support and coverage in the international media.
I looked again Andrei Tarkovsky film "The Sacrifice" (1986). April 23, 1985 at a press conference Andrei Tarkovsky, answering a reporter's question, said that the new film will address the problem of man's responsibility before the world as a whole and individually. Hero of the film prefers not to expend energy talking about life, hoping to influence her, he wants to do something concrete. His response to inaction - active and creative participation in a protest against the empty talking shops and passive absorption of imposed truths. Thus the hero defends the right to participate in society and takes responsibility for the fate of the world as opposed reigning around irresponsibility and indifference. "(Leila Alexander - Garrett" Andrei Tarkovsky: The Collector of Dreams")...
The world premiere of "Sacrifice" was held in Stockholm on May 9, 1986, 14 days after the Chernobyl disaster...
Nuclear war remains today for Humanity existential risk number 1.
«What we should be worried about is that we're not worried.» (Max Tegmark
«Life As We Know It» )
"The crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin) in basic science also requires in-depth analysis cogital repère-point, all the formative period of fundamental knowledge (mathematics, physics), search the base, carcass and framework of knowledge. The hypothesis of the "big bang" - not a reliable idea for Universum, Knowledge and Society.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 02:29 GMT
Vladimir,
I think that on a certain level, war can be considered a form of social plate tectonics. The friction and heat caused as different societies push and rub against each other, as they try to grow in a finite world.
As it is, Russia is a fairly homogenous society, especially in today's world, where massive immigration flows have created enormous social flux in many...
view entire post
Vladimir,
I think that on a certain level, war can be considered a form of social plate tectonics. The friction and heat caused as different societies push and rub against each other, as they try to grow in a finite world.
As it is, Russia is a fairly homogenous society, especially in today's world, where massive immigration flows have created enormous social flux in many countries. This, along with the fact that it has had a strong dose of economic trial by fire over the last several generations and has survived with a fairly solid manufacturing base and lots of natural resources, makes it a solid and resilient society. One which is fairly confined by age old neighbors and so has a very realistic sense of place.
Now compare this to the wast, with the United States as its leader and example. These are fairly atomized and culturally mixed societies, in which the significant glue holding them together as functioning systems, is a financial system which is increasingly corrupted and unstable.
If I may make a very simple comparison, it is that at the moment, Russia is a rock and the west is a bubble.
My interest, being in the west, is what happens after, but I don't really see a direct conflict. Russia would be foolish to get in one and seems to sense its advantage is waiting. While the lunatics running foreign policy in this country might want one to double down on their previous miscalculations, they really don't have the degree of backing necessary. Remember how much effort they put into creating the momentum to attack Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11? There just isn't any front to focus this popular anger on Russia and Europe needs Russian gas much more than US markets or financial services. As it is, the US has much more pressing problems in the Middle East and since a lot of oil comes from there, really cannot afford to create more problems than it already has.
As it is, it really looks like we are going to have another credit bubble popping this fall and then it will be much more about civil disturbances, than international conflicts.
Regards,
John M
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 04:14 GMT
John M,
Why WERE Russia, Germany, France, and England foolish to get in the conflict in 1914? The altogether had only to lose and actually even the winner lost a lot.
Let me tell a story: A while ago, an unfortunately always drunk young man stood at the entrance of a supermarket as usual with a beer bottle in his hand and told to everyone: We have won.
Someone who didn't understand him asked: Who is we?
He replied: We, Germany.
Of course, he meant the soccer team.
I see the primary risk in irrational group behavior. Mankind must not be drunk with patriotism or religion, and the Russian soul must not be hurt.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 10:33 GMT
Eckard,
As I keep pointing out, the brain has two hemispheres and they correspond to a vector and a scalar, because the two measures of action are sequence and thermodynamics.
The leadership of 1914 was quite 19th century and thought of war as calvary charging about battlefields, not how industrialization had changed the equation. The reason the Cold War never did get hot was because the leaders were quite aware of the consequences.
Similarly, you can't just say its all irrational today, but have to appreciate that there are very real factors pulling and pushing on the populations and their leaders.
Sometimes these factors are thermal, such as heat, pressure, etc and sometimes they are directly linear. Oftentimes the triggers are linear, as one action leads to another, but the resulting explosions are due to thermal pressures and energy which have built up and are seeking release. If we could better understand these relations, it might help to mitigate them. When you have a problem in physics, you don't say its irrational and just throw up your hands, you look for all the hidden causes in order to better understand it.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 10:43 GMT
Eckard,
"The reason the Cold War never did get hot was because the leaders were quite aware of the consequences."
As well as the fact that the two main opponents, the US and USSR, didn't have direct pressure points and had plenty of proxies through which to release and express pressure.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 12:07 GMT
Dear John Brodix Merryman,
You give very good images and concepts, underwent deep analysis of the global situation in the world. Concept «tecton» very heuristic. Tectology - "universal organizational science", the forerunner of cybernetics. developed A.A.Bogdanov at the beginning of XX century. In his main work "Universal organizational science. Tectology" the first volume of which...
view entire post
Dear John Brodix Merryman,
You give very good images and concepts, underwent deep analysis of the global situation in the world. Concept «tecton» very heuristic. Tectology - "universal organizational science", the forerunner of cybernetics. developed A.A.Bogdanov at the beginning of XX century. In his main work "Universal organizational science. Tectology" the first volume of which appeared in 1912, A.A.Bogdanov anticipated many of the ideas of cybernetics, systems theory, synergetics, and other sciences.
Early feeling "very strong and deep the rational need for order," the future "tectolog" as a child to make a "rationalist", thanks to the "family criticized the authorities" and "bookish penetration into life" (Bogdanov, 1995, p.26).
Today
International A.Bogdanov Institute develops the ideas of A.Bogdanov.
Very relevant today for science, economics and politics A.Bogdanov words:
" ... The way elemental- organizational creativity of nature and methods consciously- organizational working of man, taken separately and together, can and should be subject to scientific generalization "
The main idea tectology (title borrowed from Ernst Haeckel ) is the unity of structure and development of a wide variety of systems (" complexes "in his terminology), regardless of the particular material from which they are composed. This system all levels of the organization - from the atomic and molecular to the biological and social.
Tectology Bogdanov - comprehensive science about universal types and regularities of structural transformation of any systems, the general theory of the organization and disorganization. For creation of the grandiose building of the general organizational science Bogdanov used a material of the most various sciences, both natural, and public. Bogdanov managed to lay the foundation of the new synthetic science covering all areas of human knowledge.
Bogdanov anticipated not only the theory of systems of Bertalanfi, but also some main concepts of cybernetics. So, one of the basic principles of cybernetics - the principle of feedback - completely corresponds to "the mechanism of double mutual regulation" of Tectology, or the principle of a biregulyator. But the Bogdanov principle of double mutual regulation is broader than the concept of feedback borrowed from equipment. Any democratic political system, any healthy economy assumes a biregulyation, mutual control. Formulated cybernetics Ross Ashby "theory veto" actually represents nothing other than the most important tectological "principle of least," according to which "the stability of the whole depends on the relative resistance of the least of all its parts at any moment." Bogdanov believes this pattern which had a huge living and scientific value. Tektologic quite some basic ideas of the theory of catastrophes French mathematician René Thom, as well as several provisions of the so-called synergetic.
Revival of interest in tectology explained interests of both science and practice. Ever increasing desire to integrate overly differentiated modern science, the search for unifying principles and models. Equally important is the more progressive complexity of organizational processes in engineering, economics and social relations. It becomes more difficult global economic system.
Yes, today the global scientific community must organize themselves more effectively. World problems ever increasing. One of the sources of instability - the global financial system.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 12:26 GMT
Hi everyone,
Re WW1 :
you may be interested in a series of
10 special broadcasts on Australia's Radio National to mark the centenary of World War One. This series explores 10 critical questions about the war.
e.g.:
--- "The Contested Beginning: After 100 years the causes and origins of WW1 are as contested as ever - why?"
--- "Lions and Donkeys: How accurate is the view that the General Staff in WW1 were bumbling incompetents, out of touch with the reality of the trenches and unable to comprehend the destructive power of industrial warfare?"
--- "The View from Berlin: Did Germany engineer the war for its own territorial ambitions, or was it a victim of the complicated diplomatic web that bound it to an unstable Hapsburg empire?"
--- "Endgame: The Hundred Days offensive brought an end to the stalemate in the trenches and saw the collapse of the Central Powers. Should the allies have occupied Germany at the end of the War, and if they had, could they have prevented WW2?"
Cheers,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 12:29 GMT
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 16:57 GMT
Yes, John M,
I agree with what you wrote twice:"The reason the Cold War never did get hot was because the leaders were quite aware of the consequences." Doesn't it confirm Nobel's trust in discoveries and inventions?
I am rather unhappy with Australian superficiality to which Lorraine pointed us: "Europe simply slid into war". Instead I see it our responsibility for the sake of mankind to clearly reveal which behavior and also who was to blame.
The Australians are perhaps not aware of Poincarè's revisionism, of pandemic orthodox nationalism, and of the Austrian officer who shot himself in Vienna after he had provided military secrets to Russia.
Each time I visit Wernigerode castle, a place loved by Wilhelm II, it reminds me of the Graf von Stolberg-Wernigerode who was the German ambassador in Vienna and who failed to stop the escalation.
If the forces of ratio are strong enough then irrational adventurers like Bin Ladin or Streltsov have no chance.
However, don't forget, readiness for peace begins with appropriate toys and games for children, and with condemnation of demonstrated military power, of glorified heroism, etc.
Militant Palestinians are not yet intelligent enough as to learn how to get humble and happy as did those who lost territories around Germany, Austria, and Hungary where their ancestors lived for centuries.
The French partial occupation of Germany after WWI and huge reparations that enforced the inflation of Reichsmark did certainly delay that development back to peace between France and Germany. They contributed to WWII.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 19:02 GMT
Vladimir,
The concept I was referring to is plate tectonics. It is the observation that the surface of the earth consists of various fairly stable plates, which bump into and slide past one another and that earthquakes and volcanos mostly occur on these boundaries. Just as wars occur on the boundaries between societies, as the various pressures within and between them shift and...
view entire post
Vladimir,
The concept I was referring to is
plate tectonics. It is the observation that the surface of the earth consists of various fairly stable plates, which bump into and slide past one another and that earthquakes and volcanos mostly occur on these boundaries. Just as wars occur on the boundaries between societies, as the various pressures within and between them shift and conflict.
Eckard,
I wouldn't totally dismiss an elemental physical concept, such as societies "sliding into war." As you list and the programs Lorraine links refer, the details, personalities, events, proceeding conflicts, etc. are too numerous to organize and it also goes back to the fact that events are subjective and one's interpretation is highly dependent on one's point of view. As I keep arguing, there is no such thing as an objective point of view. It's an oxymoron. Even arguments over such reasons and views can fester and lead to further conflicts.
As I also keep arguing, our three dimensional view of space is coordinate based and multiple coordinates can be used to describe the same space, from different frames, using different narratives. Essentially opposing sides of a conflict very much see things differently and naturally assume their point of view is the more logical, objective and correct view. Every soldier prays to their vision of the universal God.
So rather than arguing over the details of a particular war, I think we should step back and look at the physical dynamics and laws of nature that compel such actions. We are no more going to outlaw war, then we could prevent earthquakes, but if we study the dynamics, we could better construct our societies to deal with the inevitable pressures and conflicts. Just as we learn to build buildings to withstand earthquakes.
Rather than a top down religious model that promotes an unattainable ideal, we might consider a bottom up model that emphasizes we all arise from and are manifestations of the same source and sense of being. Then the fanatics won't have that cudgel of visions of perfection to dismiss cooperation as compromise and smash all that is good for not being perfect.
Regards,
John M
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 12, 2014 @ 11:22 GMT
Yes. John, I understand your deep analogy
"plate tectonics" in nature and society - social tectonic plates. I paid special attention in my comments on the critical importance of the concept of
"tecton" for science. «Tektos» in Greek means "dispensation". In the Russian language is «stroenie», that is a compound of "three» - «s-troe-nie». The word "tecton" in Greek means...
view entire post
Yes. John, I understand your deep analogy
"plate tectonics" in nature and society - social tectonic plates. I paid special attention in my comments on the critical importance of the concept of
"tecton" for science. «Tektos» in Greek means "dispensation". In the Russian language is «stroenie», that is a compound of "three» - «s-troe-nie». The word "tecton" in Greek means "carpenter", "builder".
In my conception of philosophy of consciousness I apply the concept of «archae-tekton», as first-organizing.
A.Bogdanov considers the Tectology, as the science, which is in close connection with the three main cycles of scientific knowledge: a mathematical sciences, natural (physical and biological) and the public. "Tectology is, in fact, developed the generalized methodology."
Criticizing the peculiarities of thinking, brought on specialization, A.Bogdanov laid universal generalized methodological foundations of the science linking organizational experience of mankind. He considered part of the universe and himself Universum thinking means, engendered during organizational disclosure being the most usual objects in usual environments, but in ways that should give very general conclusions.
Showing the appropriate symbols, according to A.Bogdanov, one of the main conditions for success Tectology. He believed that in order to go to the actual Tectology, it is necessary to escape from real life situations, replace them with neutral symbols and express their connection abstract schema. This scheme should be compared with other similar schemes and obtained in this way to produce the tectological generalizations.
But A.Bogdanov limited only a text description deduced of tectological laws. Probably the lack of visual imaging regularities in abstract terms, led to misunderstanding its contemporaries. A.Bogdanov has not developed the abstract symbolism in Tectology.
According to Bogdanov the task of Tectology as empirical science, systematize organizational experience. Tectology must find ways of organizing in nature and human activities; then - to generalize and systematize these processes; further - to explain them, ie work out abstract schemes their tendencies and laws, determine the direction of development of organizational methods and their role in the global process.( on materials of the
International A.Bogdanov Institute )
Contemporary
"crisis of representation and interpretation" (T.Romanovskaya) in basic science says that today there is no ontologically grounded the symbol of base, carcass and framework of knowledge. This is a fundamental
"crisis cogito". It also manifests itself in art, culture, economics and politics.In spite of tragic experience of the XX century, Humanity continues to slip on the bottom face of the abyss of being, falling into the future. Captain and the lookouts of the spacecraft named "Earth" to be found in the sky sometime lose a star...
Tectology tells us directions out of planetary crisis. I noted in the comments the utmost importance for the steering the future of
«The Universal Organizing Science» - Tectology. Today it needs further development, because the problems facing Humanity, become more complex. It is also important creation "The General Theory of measures", "The General Theory of structures", the further development of the "General Theory of Information."
Science itself, the scientific community needs a modern management system. This was well demonstrated Lee Smolin in his book «The trouble with physics: the rise of string theory, the fall of a science, and what comes next». Undoubtedly, the "artificial intelligence" is a good helper of Humanity for a reliable steering the future. But artificial intelligence will never understand the deep meaning of a
"Under the sky of blue a golden city stands" and "Ficus religious".
Under the sky of blue a golden city stands,
With gates of pure transparency, where starlight never ends.
Its gardens are in bloom with flowers, and within
These beasts are walking slowly, of beauty never seen.
A yellow lion with a fiery mane,
The other - ox, expressive with his eyes;
There is a golden eagle flying,
Gazing at the world so unforgettably.
And in the sky of blue the only burning star;
My Angel, it is forever yours, you see it from afar.
The loving are the loved, and holy are the bright;
You let the star to lead you there, the garden is in sight.
The lion meets you with his fiery mane,
The ox of blue, with his expressive eyes;
And the golden eagle,s flying closer,
Staring with his gaze so unforgettable.( Henri Volokhonskii)
But I can not deny the soul of of the atoms. (K. Kopeikin
"Soul" of the atoms and the "atoms" of the soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "the three great problems of physics")
Regards,
Vladimir
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 13, 2014 @ 02:06 GMT
Vladimir,
An organizing concept which might be considered is of thermodynamics and convection. Then take this cycle and put it in the essential relationship of mass and energy. In that energy expands out and while mass is ordered and structured, as it becomes so and ever more so, in a process of distillation, consolidation and contraction. So within this relationship exists the process of convection, of matter heating up and expanding out, then cooling off and contracting in.
Then consider that plate tectonics is an aspect of this, in the relationships of the various spheres making up the earth, the energy rising out of the planet causes these plates to push apart and fold back, like currents of air or water rising and falling.
Then consider how human behavior and beliefs mirror this process. The elemental energy pushing us outward and forward, while the thoughts and beliefs we come to hold are the forms this energy takes and we are constantly trying to organize and structure them in ever more effective and description patterns, yet invariably some energy bubbles up, or some larger, more energetic/massive outside entity pushes through, upsetting that structure and like a wave, we either rise up with it, or get tumbled underneath. Like those plates that get pushed up as mountains, or sink beneath the surface.
Then we try and make up stories to explain all this activity, yet those too are just more form to eventually be pushed and pulled by the nonstopping energy of life.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 13, 2014 @ 12:04 GMT
John,
I have a question: how from the chaos of tectonic "plates - nations" to create a rational order on a spaceship called "Earth"?
We have to "ship" a lot of existential threats that we Earthlings have created yourself, plus serious threats from Space - larger asteroids. Scientists warn that the asteroid threat to Earth is seriously undervalued. Researchers believe that many of...
view entire post
John,
I have a question: how from the chaos of tectonic "plates - nations" to create a rational order on a spaceship called "Earth"?
We have to "ship" a lot of existential threats that we Earthlings have created yourself, plus serious threats from Space - larger asteroids. Scientists warn that the asteroid threat to Earth is seriously undervalued. Researchers believe that many of the meteorites like Chelyabinsk humanity simply "skips". Between 2001 and 2013 into the Earth's atmosphere exploded
26 asteroids...
You write:
«The elemental energy pushing us outward and forward, while the thoughts and beliefs we come to hold are the forms this energy takes and we are constantly trying to organize and structure them in ever more effective and description patterns, yet invariably some energy bubbles up, or some larger, more energetic / massive outside entity pushes through, upsetting that structure and like a wave, we either rise up with it, or get tumbled underneath. Like those plates that get pushed up as mountains, or sink beneath the surface.» You have the key concepts of the "LifeWorld" -
«thoughts» and
«beliefs». They are connected with the concept of "memory". In the physical world has not yet updated this concept. In biology, it is. Richard Dawkins introduced the very heuristic concept -
"meme" (from the English "memory") when describing the evolution of biological and other developing systems. In the case of systems consisting of conscious subjects, «meme» can be regarded as a set of beliefs, concepts, ideas that survives and develops only when it is becoming more and more supporters, selecting them from the competing "memes".
In social life, we can talk about "memes" religions, socio-economic theories, political movements. It is obvious that today humanity is experiencing tectonic collision of different "memes." "Memes" as tectonic plates, "memes" as icebergs. But as captain of the spacecraft named "Earth" firmly steer the future, if there is no "meme", which will unite Humanity - the team of the Spaceship?
In the physical picture must be entered as a central category - the concept of
"memory" ("ontological structural memory"), which gives insight into the nature of information, time, and all the forces at all levels of existence, gives access to the new heuristic model Universum as a whole. Without such an heuristic ontological model Humanity can not reliably steer the future. How Humanity - team spaceship named "Earth" will find unifying "meme" and select the reliable path to the lost
POLAR STAR - "The main Tsarina of the Sacred Sky"?
Henry David Thoreau and
Immanuel Kant gives the answer to Science and Humanity:
"
It is by a mathematical point only that we are wise,
as the sailor or the fugitive slave keeps the polestar in his eye;
but that is sufficient guidance for all our life.
We may not arrive at our port within a calculable period,
but we would preserve the true course."(Henry David Thoreau)
«Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.»(Immanuel Kant)
Sincerely,
Vladimir
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 13, 2014 @ 18:10 GMT
Vladimir,
That's why I think we need to first understand this relationship between energy and structure, before trying to construct the necessary cultural concepts. Nature is very good at pushing the reset button and having individuals die, as the species continues on to new individuals. We, on the other hand, just try to re-enforce these cultural and civil entities, making them more...
view entire post
Vladimir,
That's why I think we need to first understand this relationship between energy and structure, before trying to construct the necessary cultural concepts. Nature is very good at pushing the reset button and having individuals die, as the species continues on to new individuals. We, on the other hand, just try to re-enforce these cultural and civil entities, making them more rigid, inflexible and uncomfortable for the majority of members. This is because there is that tension between the energy flowing through reality and the forms it manifests and if we better understood this, we could possibly build more resilient societies, which could possibly appreciate how to cooperate across large populations, balance long and short term needs, know when to let go of what is old, etc. As I pointed out one aspect of this is how our religious models assume a top down control and spiritual source, when the spirit is necessarily bottom up and only expresses top down order as feedback loops of progression and consolidation. Or as we call them in politics, liberal and conservative.
The object orientation of our models, be it an individual God, or the universe as a singular entity, is very much a consequence of our perceptive bias toward distinctions, rather than the dynamic connectivity flowing through them. If we better understand the other side of this relation, then the fact that all those particular entities are not only embedded within their networks of connections and processes, but their objective distinctions are very much an illusion, we can be part of that larger flow of reality.
Now we just act like puppy dogs chasing our tails, trying to isolate out some irreducible property that will be the foundation for everything else, be it God or some physics particle.
Inside the pearl of life is just another grain of sand. It is what goes on around it, which we are always trying to see through, that makes it valuable. Only than will we understand the earth is all we have, not just something to be wasted as we try to find some secret formula.
The forms and thoughts come and go, like waves on the beach. It is energy and the element of being which is constant.
Regards,
John M
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 12:29 GMT
Dear John,
I understand you, but I have a question again.
You write in the conclusion of your essay: «I realize this essay has likely scraped more than a few feelings and ruffled enough feathers, but the status quo has its limits and we are reaching them.»
Imagine that you are the captain of a spaceship called "Earth".
What a turn to do? Which course you choose to exclude the main existential risk for Humanity - a nuclear war?
Situation in the world has become extremely tense.
What need human energy and what kind of structure should be constructed?
Sincerely.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 22:14 GMT
Vladimir,
That is a tough question. The reason they haven't been used yet is because it would be MAD/mutual assured destruction. By that, they really don't mean so much of the world population, which people in positions of extreme power seem to pride themselves in ignoring, but destruction of the power of those individuals. It is safe to say this conundrum still exists. While there might be that someone without anything to lose could get hold of one, that would not necessarily start a larger conflagration.
I do think the likely situation in the near future is going to be another financial heart attack and one which will not be so easy to pump a bunch more credit into the system and kick it down the road for a few more years. In this case, there could well be serious civil unrest within countries, possibly spilling over into conflict between countries, but that will likely be more local, than global.
The issue will then be what powers arise in this situation, much as Hitler arose in the chaos of Weimar Germany and other tyrants arose in times of turmoil.
That's why I think it is so important to really examine the dynamics at work, because just projecting tribal frustrations and anger outward and against chosen scapegoats, will be falling into that much greater of an abyss.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 12:32 GMT
John,
The problem of the modern world with the economy of the existential chaos balancing on the bottom edge of the abyss of being that one "doctrine" without ontologic justification replaces another. So in politics, and in science. Schools do not teach philosophy and «schoolyard bullies» continue to create the very dangerous concept ion for the future of Humanity . No open science, no...
view entire post
John,
The problem of the modern world with the economy of the existential chaos balancing on the bottom edge of the abyss of being that one "doctrine" without ontologic justification replaces another. So in politics, and in science. Schools do not teach philosophy and «schoolyard bullies» continue to create the very dangerous concept ion for the future of Humanity . No open science, no open society.
Global "times of turmoil" began in the XX century, August 1 - 100 years of the beginning of these "times of turmoil".
Outcome "democracy 2.0" in the Weimar Republic - nazi coup in 1933. But at that time there was no Internet and sleeping Humanity adopted for granted the outcome of
"Munich Agreement" in 1938:
«My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.»Modern information revolution offers a chance mankind has realized the transition from "Democracy 2.0" to "Democracy 3.0" as a more reliable system of steering the Future. The first step towards a global sustainable future: fundamental existential reboot the UN from "UN 2.0" to "3.0 UN" with regard to the tragic memory of the XX century. The ideology of rebooting UN should be formed in two reciprocal directions - the "top" and "bottom". UN need a global authority, based on the global mind, but not the "cosmetic reforms" in the spirit of the XX century.
Humanity needs a new global system of the "steering the Future" corresponding to the new Information age. Modern tense situation in the world requires a consensus in the Security Council in all regions: Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea. The entire amount of global existential risks require shifting "national interest" is not the second but the third level. Today, the main "national interest" - to save Humanity and life on the spaceship "Earth".
Actual Contest FQXi 2014 enables summarize ideas for a global program of all Humanity: "Global existential risks and Program of the reliable steering the future".
Sincerely,
Vladimir
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 15:30 GMT
Vladimir,
Given the seemingly endemic levels of corruption, worldwide, among the powers that be and the extent to which nations have been hollowed out, both in terms of social cohesion and economic value, I think the 21st century will be known more for civil strife, than international conflict.May well be wrong on that one, but the various structures seem to be crumbling and the usual replacements don't seem to have a lot of impetus currently.
Having some good discussions on the various aspects of civilizational order over on the Utopia, vs, dystopia thread.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 12:17 GMT
Remember, John, civil unrest in Ukraine led to civil war. Outcome a weak "Democracy 2.0" - coup existential chaos, destruction, international tensions. Cause of the disturbances in Kiev - the only unsigned paper on association with the European Union. Nuclear Age and Information Age require deep Cartesian clarity and distinctness in politics. Always needs a deep philosophical- economic analysis of each political step, the more so important as the association of a large country with a complex historical past with a large international economic and political union… In the age of the Internet to fight corruption should implement the program "open budget". I have read carefully the history of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and it's some of the current and fundamental documents. "Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe requires deep and fast reboot, as well as the UN.
Yes, John, I have been closely following the debate blog «Utopia or Distopia». Necessary structuring of ideas FQXi Contest 2014 to develop a concrete action plan. "The crisis of understanding" in science and society earthlings should be overcome by joint efforts. Global existential risks ever increasing. . Deep philosophy, deep mind and active steps, based on mutual understanding - the way to be saved from complete destruction of Humanity. Need to change the education system and move on to the "Democracy 3.0". Well, if every morning politicians will listen to
the Voice of the Earth and the
Justice Song .
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 17:22 GMT
Vladimir,
What is going on in the Ukraine is very much an example of civil tectonic plates slipping by one another. The Ukraine, like many countries from the Caucasus, through the Middle East, to North Africa, sit on that major fault line between east and west, yet which manifests in many different forms. Because nations can no longer afford to go to war directly, because of the fear of nuclear war, these limited proxy wars keep flaring up.
That is still a different situation from what will happen when the financial system really starts to come apart.
The irony here is that it would have been to the benefit of the status quo to have allowed the system to go through more of the consequences of an economic shakeout on occasion and let those who made bad, or unlucky choices to fail. That is the premise of a free market. By trying to save all the connected crowd from their follies, they have essentially socialized the costs, while the benefits remain privatized and the eventual destruction will be that much more severe..
None of us get out of here alive anyway, but its likely only the very longest lived of the youngest generations will live to see stability return.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 19, 2014 @ 13:21 GMT
John,
Now we are left with the main question: "What to do?" Or question of Contest: «How Should Humanity Steer the Future?». We have with you the concept one: "tecton", but different ways and conclusions: You go to the analogy of "tectonic plates", I go from "proto-tecton" ("first organizing") to better understanding the Cartesian "Cogito, ergo sum» ("Je pense, donc je suis"). In the...
view entire post
John,
Now we are left with the main question: "What to do?" Or question of Contest: «How Should Humanity Steer the Future?». We have with you the concept one: "tecton", but different ways and conclusions: You go to the analogy of "tectonic plates", I go from "proto-tecton" ("first organizing") to better understanding the Cartesian "Cogito, ergo sum» ("Je pense, donc je suis"). In the nuclear age and the Information age Humanity must move to the planetary mind, the formation of the noosphere:« We think, therefore we exist».
If we. earthlings, do not learn to think together, we will cease to exist. The Internet enables Humanity to global "brainstorming". Humanity can not be eternal hostage of the «schoolyard bullies», which are poorly studied philosophical heritage of Humanity. From the "paradigm part",
the paradigm forces in politics, culture, science, we need to move to a "super generalizing", "Great whole paradigm", - the paradigm of the deep calm mind.
I'm optimistic. My favorite song from the time of his youth -
«Hope»John, what is your favorite song?
Yes, there is a danger of collapse of the global financial system. But if there is a joint political will and "Great Common Cause" for the benefit of everyone on earth, the collapse can be avoided through the transformation and creation of a new robust and just system. Necessary to overcome the total "crisis understanding" in science, politics, and society. To do this, we need a new conceptual structure of the Universum. Picture of the Universum based on the hypothesis of "In the beginning was the Big Bang ..." and "inflation" is not euricability and semantically poor.
Science and Humanity must return to the ancient inference: "In the beginning was the Logos ...". "Logos" - a strong foundation of knowledge, society, and politics. In modern scientific picture of the world too much naivety unsteadiness, insecurity. It is time to return to a stable cosmos ancient Greeks, but on a new level of knowledge, extension of the space, understanding of time as the polyvalent phenomenon of the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. "Cosmos" for the ancient Greeks - this is the order.
Obviously, for more reliable course selection spacecraft named "Earth", the global scientific community should consider
all competitive models of
the Universum. The younger generation, going forward, has the full right to the reliable Future.
Sincerely.
Vladimir
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 20, 2014 @ 15:00 GMT
Vladimir,
Sometimes hope can be another false promise. Like the carrot and stick, hope and fear are both tools of those seeking control.
My mother's favorite poem was Kipling's
If.
I haven't been listening to much music lately, though I'd say Leonard Cohen's
Closing Time is a song for the age.
As I see it, the spiritual essence, the state where we are all one, is the elemental, not in the complex details. It is is the details where the distinctions, complications, conflicts, etc. exist.
As a family of beings, we all push out in different directions, some further than others. We are not going to stop much of the crap hitting the fan. Our hope is to stop it all from completely falling into the abyss.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 21, 2014 @ 05:49 GMT
The
timeline shows several steps of escalation. The question "When did the war begin?" relates to the question "Who was ultimately responsible?" Austrians should be ashamed about July 28. Russians should be ashamed about July 31. Germans should be ashamed about August 1 and 3. Britain should be ashamed about August 4. Let's not just blame those who were unable or even unwilling to appropriately deal with the crime of Sarajevo that already happened on June 28. They underestimated risks mainly due to
- revanchist attitudes in France
- military alliances
- opportunities to benefit from espionage or an unexpected preventive attack.
Nobody envisioned all consequences.
Already the glorifying celebration of military traditions and veterans as heroes with corresponding education were and still are to be condemned.
True examples of extraordinary strength are people who managed to bear losses. Emperor Franz Joseph lost his son. Did this justify the loss of tens of millions of lives in two WWs? The World Trade Center was destroyed. A civil airplane from the Netherlands was perhaps shot down near the border between Russia and Ukraine. Keep calm. Discoveries and inventions will continue providing to mankind options of responsible reaction.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 21, 2014 @ 06:35 GMT
I realized that Nicholas invoked God's help and God's mercy. Irrationality might still be an underestimated risk even if it is often just used by those in the background who pretend patriotic or religious feelings, sometimes just as to strengthen their position.
Those who naively applauded when Sudety and Austria were led back into the Reich didn't have more reason for being excited than today those who celebrated a victory of their national soccer team. Khomenei's aim of 150 millions Iranians reminds me of the aim to form a solid block of 100 millions Germans.
Competition in sports seems to be a good substitute for the strive of nations or even of blocks for military or economic superiority. Contraception may substitute the natural mechanisms of population stabilization including war.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 24, 2014 @ 10:57 GMT
John,
"Hope dies last." Hope as transcendental. Violence, lies, indifference - the enemy of Humanity in the way of reliable steering Future. Overcoming them is possible through openness and education of the young generation, since kindergarten.
Yes, J.R. Kipling poem «If» is very strong and relevant for contemporary Humanity and especially for young people. One of the Russian...
view entire post
John,
"Hope dies last." Hope as transcendental. Violence, lies, indifference - the enemy of Humanity in the way of reliable steering Future. Overcoming them is possible through openness and education of the young generation, since kindergarten.
Yes, J.R. Kipling poem «If» is very strong and relevant for contemporary Humanity and especially for young people. One of the Russian translations made M.Lozinsky called
"Precept" . Indeed, the poem «If» - is the Precept for Humanity.
I also love the song Leonard Cohen. In these songs - the whole history of becoming of the spirit of Humanity:
Who By Fire And who by fire, who by water,
Who in the sunshine, who in the night time,
Who by high ordeal, who by common trial,
Who in your merry merry month of may,
Who by very slow decay,
And who shall I say is calling?... Everybody knowsEverybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows... WAITING FOR THE MIRACLE ..When you've fallen on the highway
and you're lying in the rain,
and they ask you how you're doing
of course you'll say you can't complain
If you're squeezed for information,
that's when you've got to play it dumb:
You just say you're out there waiting
for the miracle, for the miracle to come. The Partisan ..Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing,
through the graves the wind is blowing,
freedom soon will come;
then we'll come from the shadows.Now I listen to his songs over and over again... Leonard Cohen - Ambassador of the spirit of peace, the spirit of love and the spirit of freedom for Humanity.
Poetry and music need to be more widely introduced into education. It is also necessary to change the system of teaching basic subjects - mathematics and physics. Need a more integrated approach plus historicity. Music and poetry can and must do more to serve the cause of unity of Humanity, including in the creation of a new UN XXI century - "UN 3.0." The information revolution, modern means of mass communications give Earthlings a new great chance.
In 2020... Iceland. The world Center "UN 3.0" - the captain's bridge of the spaceship by name "Earth". Boardroom of the World Council Existential Security. There is video straight line translation for the whole world (the channel "UN 3.0", Internet translation on an UN portal) a public meeting of the World Council Existential Security of "UN 3.0". Daily 15-minute philosophical- musical prologue. On the big screen music video of Michael Jackson's
Earth Song. Then Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary representative of Great Britain (First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs) reads a poem «If» by J. R. Kipling. Then Chairman of the Board begins to open discussion of The Existential agenda of Humanity. At the next meeting, another poem (by choice) reads the representative of another member country of the World Council of Existential Security. Earthlings are watching with interest and reflect deeply, and then express their opinion in the Forum of UN. Daily session ends philosophical- musical video epilogue "Earth and Space"
for example . Council meeting is broadcast in all official UN languages, including
Esperanto . .
Humanity appears more hope for a more reliable steering the Future, its preservation from falling into the abyss of being...
"Sail on, sail on.
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on." (Leonard Kohen)
In the captain's cabin of the spacecraft named "Earth", between peoples and countries need to overcome the "crisis of understanding" through a
comprehensive deep dialogue. No other way.
John, You agree, what is necessary
"to think critically" to all people of Earth, and first of all politicians that it is together reliable to steer the future?
Sincerely,
Vladimir
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 25, 2014 @ 10:43 GMT
Hello Eckard,
I looked at your link. I believe that the blame for the one who first declared war and the first fired. This is the absolute fault, ie unconditional fault. But it is not the fault of the people - it's his trouble. Trouble as an existential catastrophe. Should also be considered the beginning of the Second World War. History should be as open and truthful. It is necessary to know the new generations so that it can make deep implications for creation of a new "LebensWelt" in the transitional nuclear-informational era.
In order that irrationality didn't suppress "ratio", the reorganization of all dogmatic education system is necessary. First of all, it should create a deep thinking person. Here the paramount importance of Philosophy and Ethics.
Sport - is a good brake for wars, but remember how started "The Football War". Yes, deep calm mind-guarantee more reliable steering the Future. And this calm mind is necessary at all levels of "LebensWelt".
Yes, diskoveries and inventions are extremely important for a sustainable future, but most vital for Humanity today - it's a deep restart the UN and the OSCE.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 27, 2014 @ 09:09 GMT
Dear Eckard,
Do you think that
such a view of the history of World War II, promotes mutual understanding between peoples, to establish eternal peace on Earth?
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 28, 2014 @ 07:27 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Does the world need a "deep restart" of UN? Well, questioning the outdated veto right for core members of the security council might be an even better idea than economic sanctions in order to stop illegal actions instead of delivery of weapons for defense.
What about Fahrenkamp's article in Die Welt, first of all I am unhappy with anything that distracts from the...
view entire post
Dear Vladimir,
Does the world need a "deep restart" of UN? Well, questioning the outdated veto right for core members of the security council might be an even better idea than economic sanctions in order to stop illegal actions instead of delivery of weapons for defense.
What about Fahrenkamp's article in Die Welt, first of all I am unhappy with anything that distracts from the responsibility to avoid any step of escalation that led to war including speculations on military strategies.
Of course, victims of terror by RAF and USAAF consider the "moral bombing" amoral and possibly motivated by the understandable feeling of revenge. The men who gave the order to send to the bottom a ship with 9000 refugees, mainly woman and children from Danzig, might have thought on the estimated 500 000 victims in Leningrad.
The article mentions Berlin-Lichtenberg. The nearby Osthafen was not hit but instead the adjacent to the east about 1500 m long and 300 m wide area where thousands of people lived. Was this a mistake or were some targets deliberately omitted in order to protect property of the allies?
I wholeheartedly agree with you that education against revenge and other irresponsible behavior is a key.
I don't understand what you meant with wine. Wine is an alcoholic drink made from grapes. If you meant that we must blame only the one who declared war and fired first, I strongly disagree. Supporting fighters with weapons, money, and propaganda is likewise an unacceptable act of aggression. Occupation of Ukraine and paying there twice as much pension as before guaranties destabilization of the region if not the world.
What about so many rockets in the hand of PLO, I wonder where they were made. The German vice chancellor Gabriel was more responsible than the local politician Seehofer who argued for not harming the industry that manufactures weapons. If I recall correctly, USA, China, and Russia were among the countries who even manufactured land mines.
Eckard
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jul. 28, 2014 @ 20:42 GMT
Dear Eckard,
The problem of UN reform and especially the Security Council today, the most important for a reliable steering future. But, unfortunately, many politicians think the doctrines of the 19th century. And on the street the Information Age. Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General and Nobel Peace Prize winner, a board member of the UN Foundation said last year in Moscow during the...
view entire post
Dear Eckard,
The problem of UN reform and especially the Security Council today, the most important for a reliable steering future. But, unfortunately, many politicians think the doctrines of the 19th century. And on the street the Information Age. Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General and Nobel Peace Prize winner, a board member of the UN Foundation said last year in Moscow during the presentation of his book «A Life in War and Peace": "I hope that the reform will happen as soon as possible, in otherwise, do not avoid the negative effects ... Why such countries as India, with more than a billion people, Latin America, Africa will not represented in the Security Council? ... I hope that the Security Council members wake up and begin the process of reform." (
Kofi Annan: It is impossible to hesitate with reform of UNSC more ).
So restart the captain's cabin of the world - the UN Security Council. First of all, expanding its functions and powers. They should include all the existential threats and risks to humanity. So his new name must contain all of the risks and threats of the modern "LifeWorld" -"World Council Existential Security."
Modern information revolution provides an opportunity to improve the efficiency of the Council Existential Security. Information technology must be used more actively in the work of the Council. Quantity members of the Council should be increased to 25, including 20 constant and five temporary members.
WORLD COUNCIL EXISTENTIAL SECURITY of "UN 3.0"
1. United Kingdom
2. China
3. Russia
4. USA
5. France
6. Germany
7. Japan
8. Italy
9. India
10. Brazil
11. Mexico
12. Egypt
13. Nigeria
14. South Africa
15. Indonesia
16. Australia
17. Canada
18. Turkey
19. Pakistan
20. Argentina
5 countries plus non-permanent members. Total 25 countries.
Each year, the five permanent members with the right of "veto" added one new permanent members with the right to "veto". The first year - Germany, the second year India, the third year Japan. And so on. Now Security Council and its representatives are torn off from opinion of citizens of the countries at decision-making. For establishment of effective feedback of members of Council Existential Security with citizens of the countries is created Internet system "Open Forum -World Open Society".
Council meetings are broadcast in the official languages, including Esperanto. Every citizen can assess the position of representative of his country, "plus" or "minus". Thus members of the Council have the opportunity to assess the attitude of the citizens of their countries to their positions in the Council on each issue Existential agenda. Only the openness of Council worldwide provides a real opportunity to improve its effectiveness and more reliable steer the future. Veto and feedback from citizens must become the engine to respond effectively to global threats and risks, a stimulus for a deep calm mind of all earthlings and not be an obstacle for the movement towards a safer world. The right to "veto" and feedback from citizens must become the engine effectively to global threats and risks, be a strong incentive for deep calm mind of all earthlings to move towards a more sustainable future.
The open responsible "veto" in the captain's cabin of the spacecraft named "Earth" - a memory of the tragedies of the 20th century, the high responsibility of all earthlings to future generations and guarantee a more reliable steering the future.
Thank you Eckard that you found my mistake.
In every conflict of the modern world must seek the origins of the crisis and to establish sustainable world through the most profound understanding of the causes of destruction. Besides the priority problems of war and peace Humanity faces many other existential threats and risks. And this should do the reformed Council Security.
To overcome the "crisis of understanding" in basic science must go to the source of knowledge, as it is called Edmund Husserl in "Origin of Geometry." Likewise, it is necessary to do in politics: it is necessary to look at the earth and human society as a whole, which now faces the threat of complete destruction and total chaos.
Existential Security Council should seek the source and cause of of destruction (local, regional, global), and joint solutions to overcome it. Now, unfortunately, the origins of crises and destruction no one is looking for - dominated by "interests". The most reliable harbor for the spaceship by name "Earth" - harbor
"Justice" , the course to which specifies the star "Justice". As in Physics - symmetry. But, unfortunately, there are few willing to be just. And this - the big existential risk to Humanity. Also in Ukraine. There need just peace, dialogue, polylogue. This is the highest principles of a democratic society. And who is right and who is wrong - it is easy to install by the Ukrainian Constitution, international law and the principles of "Democracy 2.0". Ukraine now need peace. What be Ukraine - unitary or federal as Germany - this is the second question that should be solved at referendums. War is the first ban of the united nations, the first existential taboo of the united Humanity.
I believe that at this critical moment in the history of Humanity
such articles do not help mutual understanding between peoples, achieving eternal peace on Earth. Now every earthling should remember the covenant of Immanuel Kant to all Humanity:
«Zwei Dinge erfüllen das Gemüt mit immer neuer und zunehmender Bewunderung und Ehrfurcht, je öfter und anhaltender sich das Nachdenken damit beschäftigt: Der bestirnte Himmel über mir, und das moralische Gesetz in mir.»Today more than ever need a deep calm mind and constructive ideas for the edifying of a sustainable future.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 1, 2014 @ 13:03 GMT
Dear friends,
Seven months have passed since the beginning of the current FQXi Essay Contest 2014 «How Should Humanity Steer the Future?». During this time, the world has changed dramatically. International tensions in the world has risen to the level of "the Cuban missile crisis." All of this suggests that, after the end of the "Cold War" Mankind has not created a reliable security system. Today in the world there are many international organizations, but their effectiveness is clearly inconsistent with the nuclear information age. The whole amount of the existential threats and risks requires a radical revision of the entire security system for Humanity.
Today marks the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War. But, unfortunately, politicians and people make the same mistakes, like a hundred years ago, which could lead to a global nuclear disaster. Need a deep and comprehensive
dialogue on all levels . Today the special responsibility of
the media and the international scientific community, especially the Pugwash movement of scientists. Humanity require for Great Common Cause. To do this, we need a new philosophy, including the philosophy of Science. Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory – core, the semantic attractor of the conceptual structure of the Universum of the Information age. Today more than ever actual covenant John Wheeler for Science and Humanity: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers".
Dear friends! Let's act together actively for peace and security to all Humanity, for the good of future generations.
Thanks to all the organizers of the contest that gave a good impulse to our collective brainstorming and action in this tense 2014.
Sincerely,
Vladimir Rogozhin
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 2, 2014 @ 14:03 GMT
Dear friends,
What is the current estimate of existential risk Number 1 for Humanity?
GRAHAM ALLISON makes the conclusion in the article
«Just How Likely Is Another World War?»:
As argued by Samuel Huntington in his Clash of Civilizations, deep differences in values and worldviews between civilizations are a significant systemic factor favoring conflict. On this dimension, 2014 is more dangerous than a century ago.We Earthlings continue to fall into future. In the captain's cabin continues the dispute - "who is right? - Who is to blame? "The prevailing thought of the XIX century. Without a deep calm mind, without a deep philosophy, we all perish ... Then will not have to answer the fundamental questions of science: How many dimensions space is the Universum? What is the nature of time and information? Is Universe digital or analog?
If Humans will now steer, the new World Council Existential Security of "UN 3.0" must be entered for all members of the Board of existential taboos - the ban on the mutual accusations, which lead the world to the total destruction. Only constructive suggestions on all existential threats and risks. The proposals are open to all Humanity. The transition from th "closed veto" to the "open veto".
All Earthlings must be connected to the process of creation of the eternal peace on Earth. It will be real steps of Humanity to the "Democracy 3.0", to a more sustainable future. But can Humanity to concentrate and escape from today's existential funnel?
Sincerely,
Vladimir Rogozhin
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 5, 2014 @ 06:06 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
I quote from theatlantic:
"There is no smoking gun in this story; or, rather, there is one in the hands of every major character.”
While I was aware of 1890, and my essay mentions the role of Poincaré, I learned that Stolberg-Wernigerode failed to distance themselves from and refuse support for Austria's anti-panslavism.
"Chinese or Russian miscalculations about the relative balance of power pose potential risks."
Who were and who are what you called the "war parties"? Those who recently demonstrated for an occupation of Ukraine were mainly mislead by orthodoxy and Cossack tradition. Unfortunately, even pretended irrationality did e.g. in 1914 or in 1938 and will continue to emotionally attract irrational support from the majority who have to pay for their naive patriotism.
I maintain that discoveries, inventions, and literary work in an ideal direction may increasingly contribute worldwide to a more reasonable, more responsible behavior, i.e. to peace and voluntary birth control.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 5, 2014 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear Eckard,
I fully agree with you:
«I maintain that discoveries, inventions, and literary work in an ideal direction may increasingly contribute worldwide to a more reasonable, more responsible behavior..»This is the real course of action Humanity for a more sustainable future. But today we need effective mechanisms, especially at the international level, to prevent wars and violent coups. The world is becoming more and more violence and
extremism . Has the Humanity
smarter in 2014 compared to 1914?
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 6, 2014 @ 07:37 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Did the world really become more violent? There is one picture in gallery in Moscow that I will never forget: a heap of cut off heads of Tamerlan's enemies. The word hurrah came from these fighters; it originally meant: kill! A German GI told me that each time their tee was mixed with rum, the GIs were led into an attack.
Your example for authoritarianism seems rather to be anti-American. Russians told me that the huge extension of Russia needs a authoritarian ruler.
In summer 1948 a nurse told to me and other ill children a poem that I didn't forget up to now: "Stalin, you are the light of the world. Who gave peace to the world? Stalin ...". I see Nobel standing for strict neutrality.
If you really understood me than peace must be enforced by those who cannot really be interested in war but were mislead by patriotic, religious or other propaganda. Are fascists our enemies? Are Zionists our enemies? Are Muslims our enemies? No. Our irrationality is our enemy. At least this is the result of my foundational logical analysis.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 6, 2014 @ 12:35 GMT
Dear friends,
Memory, memory and memory again. Memory of Humanity as a phenomenon of the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory of the Universum.
Today, August 6th. On this day 69 years ago resulted in a nuclear-free era of Humanity. «Little Boy» capacity of 18,000 tons of TNT destroyed Hiroshima more than 90,000 people. August 9 - Nagasaki- more than 60,000 killed. "The Way...
view entire post
Dear friends,
Memory, memory and memory again. Memory of Humanity as a phenomenon of the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory of the Universum.
Today, August 6th. On this day
69 years ago resulted in a nuclear-free era of Humanity. «Little Boy» capacity of 18,000 tons of TNT destroyed Hiroshima more than 90,000 people. August 9 - Nagasaki- more than 60,000 killed. "The Way of Prometheus" long 500,000 years from the first fire to the first atomic bomb genus Homo was for 600,000 years.
The result of the nuclear arms race of Homo ludens is very dangerous for the future of everyone on Earth and for Earth. Now Humanity is experiencing the ultimate "point" - "existential-extremum" on its sinuous path .
Today immeasurably increased threats and risks for all Humanity. Remembrance of victims and a deep understanding of the new generation offer hope for a radical turn from the brink of self-destruction of Humanity. Here are
the most dangerous threats on today according to Anders Sandberg.
The information revolution of the XXI century, the entire sum of global existential threat and risk pushing earthlings for drastic measures to more reliable steering future. It's time to activism for all Humanity and especially for the global scientific community as the "forward looking" on a spaceship called "Earth".
Program - minimum for urgent action Humanity provides a radical reform of the UN, the transition from "the UN 2.0" to "3.0 UN" - united nations and peoples of the XXI century, the transition from "Democracy 2.0" to "Democracy 3.0", as the open democracy of the Information Age, the democracy of the deep calm mind.
Outcome of the "UN 2.0" for 69 years, shows the need for building a new existential topology "UN 3.0", which will give a new creative impulse to solve global problems, new ideas to minimize the existential threats and risks.
Today is necessary to activate the two main streams of the modern world diplomacy - diplomacy interstate (at all levels) and people diplomacy as a very important actor in world politics. Both streams of diplomacy today in crisis. Need a new impetus for a more reliable steering future.
New York - the City of the World, the city of concentration peoples of the Earth.
New York - the City of the American dream can and should become the City of the Great dream for all Humanity, the center of the worldwide public diplomacy.
"UN 3.0" received a new existential impulse from creation a new headquarters - the captain's cabin of the Earth and Humanity of the information age. The best place for the headquarters' UN 3.0 "- Iсеland. Iceland -
the land of peace and beauty , the country is a "breathing of the Earth", a meeting place of cold Labrador and the warm Gulf Stream, a country of amazing nature. Iceland - the perfect place for deep thinking and new ideas,
one of the most peaceful countries in the world . In Iceland about 85 percent of total primary energy supply is derived from domestically produced
renewable energy sources. Iceland - Power University for all Humanity, reliable topos for the captain's cabin of the spacecraft called "Earth".
"UN 3.0" requires not only the creation of new concepts of its activities, but also a powerful open budget, which must be formed by cutting military spending worldwide. The main revenues are from countries - permanent members of the World Council of Existential Security. All funds of the UN should have a full open status for finance. Special new value - open formation of cadres of UN, "peoples of the world", whose main goal - an honorable creative activity at the UN for the good of all Earthlings.
The building of the UN headquarters in New York are transferred free of the World Centre of the peoples of the earth and the international non-governmental organizations, which are aimed at solving global problems, the development of public diplomacy, democracy Information Age - "Democracy 3.0", the creation of a more sustainable world. Of particular importance for the edifying a secure future belongs to the media. Therefore, the program "the UN 3.0" should include the creation of powerful global media belonging to the UN: TV, Internet portals, radio and newspapers.
Whether the United Nations is necessary to the world? Yes, Humanity needs an updated United Nations to steer the future more confidently. Here is
an example of inefficient work of the Security Council, when, instead of solving the problem, "amendments" to block it. In the "UN 3.0" such "solutions" and irrational "corrections" should be excluded. Needed "clarity and distinctness" as Rene Descartes bequeathed to Humanity. For Earthlings need to solve problems and not "corrections" of political bureaucrats..
Sincerely,
Vladimir
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 6, 2014 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Eckard,
When we analyze the past and the present, we must consider only the facts. Hitler came to power through the democratic Weimar Republic. Stalin usurped power through violence, repression and intrigue. My father was repressed in 1937 and sent to Siberia with his family on the mountain mine. All modern systems of government have the same problem - a weak inverse relationship with the source of power, namely, the people, or the feedback is completely absent. This is a common problem of mankind, the general problem of "Democracy 2.0", and the more authoritarian systems of government. Therefore, it is a great danger of a nuclear war.
The information revolution is pushing Humanity to the "Democracy 3.0" - Democracy of the Information age, which will enable more reliably steer the future. The whole experience of Humanity says that overcoming the destructive irrationality in society and between nations is possible only through just legal system, through just laws at all levels of the "LebensWelt". Now such a system should produce the global scientific community and the "United Nations 3.0". Also requires a reboot of the OSCE. It is also necessary to change the relationship of Homo sapiens sapiens with Nature. For fundamental changes require a new deep philosophy. The new philosophy is required also for basic science. The picture of the Universum based on the hypothesis of the "big bang" can not provide a reliable basis for Knowledge and Humanity for more reliable steering the future.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 7, 2014 @ 08:01 GMT
Yes, indeed,
«le monde est devenu si chaotique»...,
"The World Is A Mess" ... There is only one way: deep calm mind on fast creation of the United Nations of the XXI century, the century of the Information age - "UN 3.0." We are all earthlings, we need the Great Dream and the Great Common Cause of building up eternal peace on Earth. First mate in this - the most rigorous Science - Philosophy. . "Forward-looking" - the World Scientific Community should initiate the active "world brainstorming". It's time to collect The World Intellectual Forum in the homeland of Immanuel Kant.
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 9, 2014 @ 07:34 GMT
Dear friends!
My 80 year old aunt lives in Lugansk, Ukraine. The city is home to 463,287 residents. Residents of the city have made an internet
card shelling and bombing of the city. City seventh day disabled entirely on electricity, no water, no running stationary and mobile. Now continuing the shelling of the city, which left 250,000 people. My aunt was not able to get out of town for health reasons. During the period of armed clashes Lugansk suffered considerable damage. The city has more than 100 schools, colleges, universities, and more than 50 pre-schools. To date, 40 educational institutions
were damaged or destroyed .
Why there is still no solution to the UN Security Council and the OSCE on the termination of the shelling and the beginning of negotiations of the opposing sides?
Where is the Justice? Where is the Moral Law? How Should Humanity Steer the Future?Today, on 9 August. On this day the second atomic bomb dropped on
Nagasaki .
Memory and the Deep Calm Mind - that is our salvation.
Dear earthlings!
Let's stop all wars for all eternity!
People, Let's Stop The War! Hey all you people, for goodness sake,
Let's get together, what does it take,
To make you understand the value of a man?
I'm talkin' about your son and neighbor, yes I am.
People let's stop the war.
People let's stop the war.
People let's stop the war.
People let's stop the war.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 10, 2014 @ 03:17 GMT
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,
My deepest sympathies for your aunt in Lugansk, and all that suffer there.
I fear little will move the UN to curtail the "ethnic cleansing" that is the true modus operandi of the power clique that was so openly put into official position by the U.S. Asst. Sec. of State, (how many flash-drives, baked in a loaf of bread?) with both the hawks like John McCain...
view entire post
Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,
My deepest sympathies for your aunt in Lugansk, and all that suffer there.
I fear little will move the UN to curtail the "ethnic cleansing" that is the true modus operandi of the power clique that was so openly put into official position by the U.S. Asst. Sec. of State, (how many flash-drives, baked in a loaf of bread?) with both the hawks like John McCain and the apologists like John Kerry, pouring gas on the fires of rebellion. Russia subsidized Ukraine for twenty years, with repeated failures of contractual agreements and transmission interuptions of natural gas to the E.U.. Nobody in Europe wanted to enter agreements with the wholly corrupt oligarchy that rose immediately in the wake of independence and which has economically pillaged Ukraine. I remember breathing a sigh of relief, years ago, when the newly reorganized Russian Federation cut a deal with Ukraine to acquire all of the nuclear weapons systems left in Ukraine, the potential otherwise for corruption in Ukraine to have 'lost track' of tactical nukes and proliferation into the black market of that sort of terror weapon was an international concern.
Yet the very fascists that my parents' generation fought a world-wide war against, has been put into power in Ukraine by the 'business is war' Wall Street oligarchs whose 'trickle down economics' has bankrupted The United Staes of America in only thirty years! IT BEGS THE QUESTION : Why does the United States want as dysfunctional, corrupt, militarist Problem State at the cross-roads of EurAsia? Look to Machiaveli, The U.S. is no longer a production based economy, it is an investor driven consumer debt supported, retail economy, which means the government must continually increase the money supply with the result of about 17 Trillion dollars of national debt. As long as the U.S. is being enticed into militarism abroad, and pushed that way by the huge privatization of the military's infrastructure, the U.S. does not want to have even friendly nations become production power-house economies.
Hope can only be found in those whom still man the barricades in Kiev, whom do not trust the officials they have been saddled with, and whom want a stable economy that can deal with both the E.U. and Russia. Many of those whom thronged to the confrontations this past winter, went believing that a rejection of Russian offers in favor of an associate membership in the E.U. would provide them with a ticket OUT of Ukraine, how many tried to go to Germany and get higher wage work without a passport and work permit visa? They were all lied to! The European nations do not want more Easterners depressing wages, nor any more Muslim migration into their societies which many of the poorer, fundamentalist immigrants do not respect.
This winter could be the Winter of Discontent in all of Europe. And the likelihood of a second round of defaults in the Derivatives (opaque) Markets could wreck U.S. small investor 401-K's and personal Indexed Funds positions. After the 'bail-out' the big institutions would probably make money! But while they posture in Kiev, and say that Ukraine will NEVER default, that is exactly what that crowd wants to do. It is absurd to think that the 140+ Billion dollar debt that Ukraine owes Russia would not have been sold off into the Derivatives Market. The immediate question is how can the U.S. turn its derelict ship of state around? and how long will Europeans, Canada and Japan, continue to support the Mercantilist Policy of Uncle Sam? At present, The UN relies too heavily on U.S. military resources in most areas of UN intervention for there to be much concerted efforts to impose sanity on the megalomaniacs in Kiev. People in all of Europe are going to have to take to the streets and stop the expansionist plans of NATO. Complacency here in the U.S. is damned near of patriotic proportion. Best of Luck, jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 10, 2014 @ 07:13 GMT
Dear John,
Thank you for your sympathy, support, in-depth analysis and your position on the important issues of contemporary world politics and economics of existential chaos. Great Europe and eternal peace on the Earth of which Immanuil Kant dreamed, needs to be created as the «union of the people» on the basis of consensus. For the international destructions and wars - an existential...
view entire post
Dear John,
Thank you for your sympathy, support, in-depth analysis and your position on the important issues of contemporary world politics and economics of existential chaos. Great Europe and eternal peace on the Earth of which Immanuil Kant dreamed, needs to be created as the «union of the people» on the basis of consensus. For the international destructions and wars - an existential taboo.
Obviously, to overcome the deep crisis of the world economy and the policies require the active participation of the peoples - requires the development of the world system of public diplomacy, the transition from "Democracy 2.0" to "Democracy 3.0".
The world scientific community should be more active. If nuclear winter comes, the "Higgs boson" is no longer needed anyone.. Emotions rule the modern world, instead of reason. Information revolution gives chance to Humanity to make cool turn from an abyss.
Today, the need for radical transformation of the medieval system of education. Philosophy and Ethics should be basic disciplines in school. «School bullies» may also fall in love with philosophy and learn to think deeply. Philosophy will be for them a good helper in the creation of a secure the "LifeWorld" on the Earth, when they begin to manage corporations and states.
Creation of system of existential security on the Earth is a task number one for all Humanity. Urgent deep reset of the United Nations and The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe is for this purpose necessary. Two world wars began in Europe. Today it is necessary to make every effort that the Humanity didn't come down to nuclear war on self-destruction. The world scientific community has no right to sleep and observe how
"cold" and "hot" wars can unexpectedly develop into a world nuclear fire.
The dangers are imminent. Best of Luck,
Vladimir
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 10, 2014 @ 17:56 GMT
Vladimir, John,
An interesting account of the situation in Ukraine.
The powers that be in the US seem to be doing everything possible to make this country unwelcome on the entire Eurasian continent and significant nations on that landmass are being forced to overcome age-old enmities and join together in reaction. Meanwhile the Ponzi scheme which is the American banking system, is...
view entire post
Vladimir, John,
An interesting
account of the situation in Ukraine.
The powers that be in the US seem to be doing everything possible to make this country unwelcome on the entire Eurasian continent and significant nations on that landmass are being forced to overcome age-old enmities and join together in reaction. Meanwhile the Ponzi scheme which is the American banking system, is running out of bubbles in can effectively blow and resources it can easily steal, thus the desperation with which it is pushing Russia.
I don't want to appear as any form of optimist here, because there will likely be many more dead in the coming years because of this, but I think there is a faint chance the karma will come due.
The essence of capitalism is that we are nodes and and the environment, society, the economy, etc. are the network. We have discovered that if we can standardize the medium of exchange between nodes, we can create ever larger social and economic interactions and entities. Meanwhile those managing this system have discovered that the more society can be atomized and have natural connections broken apart, the more it needs this standardized medium and the more value those managing it can siphon off the rest of the network of social and economic connections and environmental resources.
We are now to the point of breakdown, where all organic social and economic growth is being shredded in order to support the metastasizing growth of this medium of exchange, as those managing it are merely competing amongst themselves and lost sight of their original economic functions, just as monarchies lost sight of their larger civil uses.
After it breaks down, we will need to go back to a more localized network of interactions and understand the limits of a standardized medium. It has its uses, but once it takes over, it does more harm than good.
Emotion is an elephant. Reason is the guy with the shovel.
Energy destroys information as easily as it conveys it.
Regards,
John M
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 11, 2014 @ 11:03 GMT
Dear John B. Merriman,
I looked at the link and found the original interview . Conclusion: Ukrainian society in a state of full destruction after anti-constitutional coup on 21-22 February.
Conclusions for Humanity: existential taboo on anti-constitutional coup and wars including civil wars. All problems should be solved in the dialogue and polylogue. Now the UN Security Council...
view entire post
Dear John B. Merriman,
I looked at the link and found the
original interview . Conclusion: Ukrainian society in a state of full destruction after anti-constitutional coup on 21-22 February.
Conclusions for Humanity: existential taboo on anti-constitutional coup and wars including civil wars. All problems should be solved in the dialogue and polylogue. Now the UN Security Council should stop the war, the killing of children, women and the elderly. Political interests of different groups of the Ukrainian society and other countries - it is too the petty problem in comparison with the life of innocent people.
In the information age we need a new philosophy, including the philosophy of law. The information revolution gives to Humanity a great chance to establish a clear and distinct feedback "power-society", that is, humanity needs an accelerated transition to the "Democracy 3.0". An example should show the new United Nations.
Humanity has no right to wait for a "breadouwn" of the modern global structure of existential chaos. The spontaneity of the transformation process can lead to total destruction and nuclear war. Necessary to realize a profound transformation of human society, it is necessary turn of of consciousness, otherwise complete destruction, chaos and destruction. Besides the danger of nuclear war Mankind are so many other existential threats and risks. First of all, politicians, heads of states should be deeply aware of these threats and risks.
Petty selfish interests must be firmly pushed. This requires a new philosophy and a new ethic. Obviously is necessary spend for state leaders of special emergency Assembly of UN with the theme of "Humanity: Existential threats and the transformation of the UN" with all live appearances for the whole world.
Today Homo ludens played very much in the war, and Homo sapiens sapiens asleep or indifferent to the future of Humanity, children and grandchildren. The history of the
"falling of Rome" forces Humanity to draw deep conclusions: we need Great Common Cause, the New Renaissance and New Enlightenment. At once together.
Regards,
Vladimir
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 12, 2014 @ 11:12 GMT
Dear friends,
A special responsibility to the people to maintain peace in the world in the nuclear - information age belongs to the media. Therefore it is necessary to enhance
the role and responsibility of the media for its unbiased, accurate information.
In paragraph 12 of the Declaration of the European Seminar on Promoting Independent and Pluralistic Media:
"Non-partisan factual information and the highest professional standards are essential when working in conflict zones, and reports from them."Obviously. necessary to adopt a new UN resolution, "Information in the service of Humanity for the XXI Century" considering the new realities of nuclear- information age, all threats and risks facing Humanity.
Regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 13, 2014 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear friends,
Nice optimistic news on the topic «How Should Humanity Steer the Future?»
The world scientific community has
begun to act against the new cold war , against the main threat to Humanity - a nuclear war.
Professor Stephen F. Cohen concludes the article:
«The most optimistic perspective I can offer is to recall that positive change in history frequently began as heresy. And to quote the personal testimony of Mikhail Gorbachev, who once said of his struggle for change inside the even more rigidly orthodox Soviet nomenklatura: "Everything new in philosophy begins as heresy and in politics as the opinion of a minority." Yes, Humanity needs a new philosophy and Great Common Cause, which will give our children and grandchildren a more secure Future.
Regards.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 15, 2014 @ 13:51 GMT
Dear friends.
In the fundamental science dominates fascination with formulas, which, unfortunately, has spread to
global politics . On the basis of linear thinking "chaos-order" and some beautiful formulas can not be overcome "the crisis of understanding" on all levels of existence in the world. The conception of "controlled chaos" can lead Humanity to total nuclear war.
One of the main concepts for building a more sustainable future - "structure." Only a single structure is capable of reliably steer the future - is fundamentally reformed United Nations, "UN 3.0", which is necessary for building a new philosophy - the philosophy of the Universum as a whole. It's the same in fundamental science - needs the most profound search for the "general framework structure" as a foundation, framework and carcass of knowledge.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 16, 2014 @ 10:54 GMT
Dear friends.
I think. that the increasing instability of the modern world demands from Humanity of more active actions on minimization of nuclear threat - is primarily a creation of a set of measures from reformed UN - «UN 3.0» and «World Council of Existential Security".
In nuclear- information age the international community has no right to
"maintain its traditional policy of sitting tight and hope...".
Today Pugwash movement of scientists can and should be initiated to develop a set of measures on creation of a safer world.
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 17, 2014 @ 10:03 GMT
Dear friends,
The positive news .is coming from the UN. On Earth and in space for Humanity too many threats and risks. Financial resources should be directed to solving the problems of humanity, not war with each other. UN activities should be intensified cardinally.
But the question remains unanswered:
How Will Earth's Leaders Respond to a Real Asteroid Threat?It is necessary to hope that people of Earth will hear answers to this question on future Extraordinary Assembly of the «UN 3.0» on existential threats and risks.
Regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 21, 2014 @ 11:58 GMT
Dear friends,
The helplessness of international organizations in overcoming of
modern crises requires the deep rebooting the UN and the OSCE. The information revolution is pushing Humanity to the creation of the new system of existential security of Humanity in the XXI century - "UN 3.0", creation the global system of public diplomacy.
I congratulate all the winners and all the contestants with the completion of of the Contest! This contest is of great importance for solving the most fundamental questions of modern "LifeWorld" and Science - the "forward-looking" at the spaceship called "Earth".
I hope that the ideas of participants of the Contest will be an important impulse for a reliable steering the future.
All the best,
Vladimir Rogozhin
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 29, 2014 @ 13:59 GMT
Vladimir, I am getting paranoid from what's in the news lately. Is World War III approaching? Can humanity survive it if it comes?
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Aug. 30, 2014 @ 09:42 GMT
Hi. Akinbo,
Yes, the danger of nuclear war - is
the number one threat to human existence. I remember the Caribbean crisis in 1962, when I was 16 years old. Two people - Kennedy and Khrushchev was determined "to be or not to be humanity". The First World War and the Second World War began with a provocation. And humanity was plunged into two terrible wars. This is what we should always remember.
Modern humanity can not afford a nuclear war to self-destruct. Only one structure in the world can securely steer the future - it is a
reformed UN - "UN 3.0". Need to radically reboot of the UN. The world scientific community can begin to prepare the restart of the UN. It also is necessary for to restart
Pugwash movement of scientists - it should be an effective
open structure.
I think. that the task of the contest FQXi 2014 not only search for new ideas and answers to the question «How Should Humanity Steer the Future?», but also concrete actions of the Scientific Community to establish
the Program to minimize the threats and risks to Humanity, the preservation of nature and life on Earth.Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Sep. 3, 2014 @ 00:22 GMT
Dear Vladimir P.,
When Nobel guided mankind to peace he certainly envisioned that discoveries and inventions will enforce and provide with strength the responsible rational thinking beyond national limitations, thinking in ideal direction and not from the perspective of a particular, for instance Islamic, state.
In 1938 was I not yet born. I can only imagine that German people felt about as great when Germany managed to get back some lost territories as I sadly observed when Russians in public did not expect somebody understanding their language.
Many people in the middle of Germany were educated in the sense of friendship to the Soviet Union. There was a partnership between the city of Magdeburg and Donezk, and there are other joint ventures including Magdeburg and Kasan.
Are economic sanctions against those who are violating international law best suited to stop aggressions? Shouldn't everybody have learned that force against force may lead into a dangerous spiral? If the reason of a crisis is mainly to be found in national feelings then all other nations are obliged to help restoring common sense on all sides.
Already inclusion of Krim and belonging pensions are expensive for Russian people. Ukraine has huge debts. A nationalist's dream of novaja (old) Rossia is the irrational problem. The most valuable asset of every country is meanwhile its position within the international scientific, economic, and cultural community. The first loss Russia should fear is their anyway outdated veto option in the security council.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Sep. 3, 2014 @ 18:55 GMT
Dear Eckard,
I agree with you that the philosophy of power should be overcome - overcome all nations. Yes is needed common sense and even before - the law. "In the beginning was the Logos ..." Logos - it is the law of laws. Equitable law - is sacred. There should be only the force of law. Remember who is the guarantor of the Agreement on February 21 in Kiev... The next day, the...
view entire post
Dear Eckard,
I agree with you that the philosophy of power should be overcome - overcome all nations. Yes is needed common sense and even before - the law. "In the beginning was the Logos ..." Logos - it is the law of laws. Equitable law - is sacred. There should be only the force of law. Remember who is the guarantor of the Agreement on February 21 in Kiev... The next day, the Constitution has been violated as a result of the anti-constitutional coup. And all rolled in Ukraine ... My 80 year-old aunt,the Honoured Teacher of Ukraine in Lugansk for three weeks without electricity, water and communications under the bombs and shells. Until now, I have no news from her ...
Why its bombing planes and artillery? The most dangerous thing for Humanity - is extremism and nationalism in all its forms. Is there discrimination in the German of national minorities. for example. Sorbs? Russian Federation - the federation of 22 national republics and in each republic has two state languages. This is the principle of "unity in diversity". People - it is the only source of power. All complex problems in society is necessary to solve in the referendum without violence. You see, the question of the EU-Ukraine Association ended the civil war. Problems with "democracy 2.0" is all over the world. The information revolution is pushing Humanity to a higher level of democracy - "Democracy 3.0". Steps to it - simple and difficult. "Hegel - the fate of Russia" and step by step we will be going to the higher level of democracy.
I agree with you completely that «The most valuable asset of every country is meanwhile its position within the international scientific, economic, and cultural community.» I therefore call on the scientific community, Pugwash movement of scientists to act for the benefit of a just peace in the world. Humanity has no right to slide into nuclear war - the main danger. Scientists of the world, let's collect the World Intellectual Forum, to create together the basis for "eternal peace" (Immanuel Kant), to develop public diplomacy high intellectual level.
Contest FQXi 2014 - this is the good push and stimulus for all researchers and caring people who are thinking about a safe future of new generations.
Humanity is rolling down to the abyss of being. Need an abrupt turn of consciousness or death. Besides a nuclear war Humanity has many other threats and risks - natural and man-made. That spoke menacingly Earth, which is outraged thinking and squabbles people - volcano Bardarbunga ..
Only one center is available for secure management of the future - is fundamentally reloaded UN - "UN 3.0" of the Information age. Humanity needs a new paradigm - The universum as a whole, the new look at the "lifeworld", the new philosophy. "The World Council of Existential Security" of the new UN should enter existential taboo on military blocs. Any military unit, the division of humanity into blocks. - is the path to world war for self-destruction of humanity.
Need to radically reform of the entire education system in the world. We must decisively overcome the medieval system of dogmatism. The teaching of Philosophy need to enter the 5th grade, and ethics-from kindergarten. Otherwise, the "school bullies" playing in the war, will lead humanity to a nuclear war.
Vladimir
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Gyenge Valeria wrote on Jun. 28, 2014 @ 22:29 GMT
Dear Everyone, who is interesting about my summary notes regarding to this contest and the questions this thread.
(* If the text will be a bit misty that is because the Preview Post Text doesn't work at the bottom of writing a new post.I'm not able to check it. Sorry!)
Let me note: I decided to partake in at the first time such a contest and public brain-storming. So, I'm a...
view entire post
Dear Everyone, who is interesting about my summary notes regarding to this contest and the questions this thread.
(* If the text will be a bit misty that is because the Preview Post Text doesn't work at the bottom of writing a new post.I'm not able to check it. Sorry!)
Let me note: I decided to partake in at the first time such a contest and public brain-storming. So, I'm a newbie.
Before I wrote and submitted
my essay, I'd read over carefully this contest's rules and generally the FQXi's scope and impetus and some material of the previous contests.
By my stance:
1. -
The theme what this year 2014 contest's question can bring forward grows beyond that FQXi's rules' goal and intent how to ''Identify and reward top thinkers in foundational questions'". This theme and its implicate subliminal questions are so complex and so seriously quite important for present us, it mustn't be a subject of any contest or voting! (1) Who contributes the best interesting (2/3 weight and only 1/3 how relevant) essays, (2) How ones previous contestants can increase the voting by their credits given to each other. (3) Whether how best for what will one use the grant he wins?( I'm not entitled to alter this or any before contest's rules, also establish individual ones, also to deem or guess whether what kind of political or else community's implications may lie behind.
I only wish to give a voice to that:
Albeit, I did not read over every essay of the approx.. 150, and I voted and commented only which I truly read with perusal (approx.. tenth), however I glanced over most of them. Especially those what are in the probable winner pool. I found, there was not either of them of which regard I could give an adequate answer to the (3) question above. However I found too, some essays standing at very bottom or being underrated which truly brought fresh and new and meaningful ideas even not or so factually matching the criteria of "to be consonant with FQXi's scope and goals, essays should be sure to touch on issues in physics and cosmology, or closed related fields, such as astrophysics". I may emphasize at least two of them which are truly underrated but very actual for a broadest sense of understanding of 'what's happening'. The Spiritual Big Bang: Origin of Universe by Damon Joseph Sprock, How Can People Plan for the Technological Future and Who Should Be Their Guides into the Future? by David Brown.
Generally almost every essay I read or glanced over is basically interesting, some of them more relevant to the specified rules some less. But, every essay was unique (as Joe Fisher used to say:) and mostly all very valuable. Every author who contributes on this year essay contest either being been FQXi member, qualified scientist, expert, or not - already is a winner! - at least from my aspect! That is an else question: How should that adequately be judged how to best use that money which is mounted or allocated for this year contest to mutually help those participants who contributed here and now and wish to progress together forward. This latter proposal is only my suggestion what probably may be reassessed in the unexpired time before the winner pool officially deployed. 2. - That seems to work this community forum may 'Provide an arena for discussion and exchange of ideas'. However I also found much technical and even reliability instabilities meanwhile using this forum. I did not report most of them to the administrator because I have web developer experiences who can guess and temporarily resolve for myself such problems.
However, I keep very important to mention that: Before deadline closing I found some interesting things had happened with displaying of ratings on certain listened essays (involving mine)
a. rating value increased when ratings summary number decreased seen at a day before (supposing one's rating too low had been deleted).
b. rating value remained same when ratings summary number decreased seen at a day before (?).
c. rating value increased when ratings summary number decreased seen at a day before (supposing one's rating too high had been deleted).
What is more interestingly tricky and it remained after closing deadline
d. rating value increased/decreased when ratings summary number did not change seen some day before(See the attached picture: The stickies contain the captured/copied content at that date what is at the footer of sticky however the captured page date is today - I have no interest for any manipulation!!!)
Dear Brendon if you read my post:
HOW is it possible??? And if this was possible due to there had happened server and/or databases migration problems behind this forum (" FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster