Search FQXi

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

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

Contests Home

Previous Contests

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help

Georgina Woodward: on 6/7/14 at 7:47am UTC, wrote Not Anonymous, from me.

Anonymous: on 6/7/14 at 7:46am UTC, wrote Hi Don , I enjoyed reading your essay. You've set out the big problems as...

Lorraine Ford: on 6/6/14 at 11:52am UTC, wrote Dear Don, I found your essay to be quite absorbing. You have analysed the...

Don Chisholm: on 5/29/14 at 17:20pm UTC, wrote Hello Peter Jackson Thank you for the positive comments on my essay. I...

Peter Jackson: on 5/29/14 at 16:32pm UTC, wrote Don, Fascinating essay. I was quite unfamiliar with Gaia and there was a...

Don Chisholm: on 5/25/14 at 13:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir I had missed your essay while reading most others, but thank...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 5/25/14 at 8:46am UTC, wrote Dear Don, I read with interest your depth analytical essay with concrete...

Don Chisholm: on 5/18/14 at 14:46pm UTC, wrote Thanks Jim Yes, we share many concepts. I made a comment on your page...


Georgina Woodward: "Lorraine, I don't agree that relationships can only genuinely exist..." in What Will Quantum...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi to both of you, in all case an egg is a spheroid, that it is sure and..." in What Will Quantum...

Steve Agnew: "Math gives us a way to predict outcomes from precursors just like religion..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

charlie Ford: "This particular papers fabulous, and My spouse and i enjoy each of the..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

elena smith: "Basic Outlook principles that could save your time Nowadays, everybody is..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Joe, what is mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite..." in First Things First: The...

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

Steve Dufourny: "Let s extrapolate an universal Lagrangian Hamiltonian correlated with this..." in Alternative Models of...

click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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

December 13, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: Our Journey to the next paradigm by Don J Chisholm [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Don J Chisholm wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 15:11 GMT
Essay Abstract

Our Journey to the next Paradigm Don Chisholm 613 476 1700 Abstract This essay is written from a general presumption that humanity’s current growth-driven trajectory into the future is increasingly unsustainable on various fronts. And further, that existing national governments are unable to change this course. However, the past few decades have brought about radical changes in management techniques; in scientific understanding of vital ecological and energy issues, and in communications. These changes have enabled and fostered growing unrest on many fronts, especially from the young, who recognize their future is in jeopardy. Disparate movements toward change develop independently under a wide variety of names at both the local and geopolitical level. These rumblings provide potential intervention points for a systematic, cohesive, non-violent shift from centralized government to a distributed localized form, and global management with one unifying goal - a sustainable human civilization. Prerequisite for such change is a shared vision of the operational dynamics of the next paradigm. A design sketch of this form of governance is presented.

Author Bio

Bio Don Chishom The writer is a retired Engineering Technologist whose career path dealt with dynamic systems, maintenance, design, management and quality assurance auditing, generally related to the aviation industry. The past thirty years have been spent studying human behaviours, energy, and other areas related to the human predicament.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

James Dunn wrote on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 19:46 GMT
Currently the Federal Reserve Bank is used by the ultra-influential to manipulate economics. The masses have no say, the intellectuals are on the sidelines or are brought in as participants with limited vision of the actual working systems.

Creating a central governance of anything, without egalitarian protection of interests, opportunities, and resources of all world participants is a structure designed to enforce a slave state.

I did not see any reference to control systems to prevent global abuse by the most affluent.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Denis Frith replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 00:56 GMT
Any realist discussion of the behavior of society and how it may adjust to steer the future needs to take into account the unsustainable destructive operation of the technological systems of civilization. Humans only make intangible decisions. Technological systems carry out the tangible operations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Don J Chisholm replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 12:28 GMT
Hello James Dunn

Thanks for your comment. I agree with your first paragraph. With regard to comment about the need for “egalitarian protection”, or about: “… a control systems to prevent global abuse by the most affluent. …” I cannot imagine a viable future scenario where either of these issues would remain relevant. The fact of todays, and yesterdays, vast differences in the individual wealth and/or power of a few is a key cause of our predicament. The most fundamental change suggested in the essay’s envisioned future scenario, is with the money system and its control. Its control and issue would operate significantly differently from what we have grown up with, and yet in daily usage there would be little difference. There is little doubt that the transitional period from one system to another would be on the edge of chaos. But that would be better odds than our likely future based on ‘business as usual’.

Bookmark and Share

Author Don J Chisholm replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 12:30 GMT
Hello Dennis

There may well be an issue of very long term sustainability regarding some seemingly essential resources that cannot be recycled today. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the principle task we face today is devise and implement a coherent system of governance that will lead to a vast reduce in overall resource throughput. This would at least give the next generation a chance to deal with depletion issues when they become critical. To simply do nothing because some items have, or may run short would not be an acceptable position for me.

Bookmark and Share

John Brodix Merryman wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 03:08 GMT

I agree with your observation that the monetary system is central to our economy and its functions. My argument is the essential flaw is that we treat money as a commodity, when in fact it is a contract. Financial instruments originated as contracts, from clay tokens for grain in ancient Sumer, to the Rothschild's gold certificates. They were a form of IOU. Then these contracts became traded as commodities in their own right and now we have an economic process primarily devoted to the creation of these obligations, to the detriment of any external value. A national currency really is a contract between a community and its members, the value of which is based on the general health of that community, so when we treat these notes as value in their own right and so drain value out of personal relations, resources and virtually anything else, in order to store as promises in a banking system the result is extremely counter-productive.


John Merryman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Don J Chisholm wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 12:24 GMT
Hello John Merryman

Fiat money being treated as a commodity is certainly a key component of the recipe for disaster. Your last sentence pretty much summarizes my thoughts behind the wealth-fact system on which to base a Region’s money supply. In the envisioned scenario, a region’s true wealth depends on the well-being of resources, Gaian systems, general happiness, etc., and since these are limited, so should be the money system in order to perform the dynamic function of regulator of human activity.

Bookmark and Share

John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 17:20 GMT

I remembered the first time this issue occurred to me, it was Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign and he had a slogan, "We want you to keep more of your money in your pocket." This thought just popped into my head, 'Thank God its not my money, or it would be worthless.' There isn't a picture of me on it and I don't have to guarantee its value, nor do I hold the copyright. Much like a road system, it functions because it is part of the whole society. Yet it seems most people I make this point to think I'm a raving lunatic. Their lives are wrapped up in how many digits are on their bank statements. Now it has really started to go haywire, as ever more is issued to keep the system afloat, regulation has melted away and the entire economy spirals into an obsession with illusionary wealth. So I'm just sitting back on my farm and waiting.


John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 18:47 GMT
People vote with their money, their ballot, and their feet.

The other reason governments refuse reorganizing change is the politicians are on top of the heap. Any change means they loose. My entry notes Friedman has predicted events, but the government ignores his advice preferring to use the model that has consistently failed to predict.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Don J Chisholm wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 19:27 GMT
Hello John Hodge.

I have read your essay. The logical buildup to conclusions are from somewhat different spheres of interest, nevertheless, some of your basic conclusions are quite similar to my essay in various areas, such as, States (I refer to Regions) should have most control over local issues while Big gov takes care of holistic world matters. I have a few quibbles with some comments, such as the need for growth. You say: “Organisms possess a capacity to grow. Those life forms not growing are dying.

But in nature there is a longer period of maturity with no physical growth. But I quite agree with your next sentence: “Organisms maintain homeostasis. A negative feedback loop is postulated to approach homeostasis instead of “fine tuning” in any form.” I think future steering should be guided by such thoughts as it applies to civilization as a whole.

Bookmark and Share

Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 15:31 GMT
Dear Mr. Chisholm,

Your essay about abstractions was extremely well written and I only have one very minor quibble I hesitate to mention to you about it.

In my essay, REALITY, ONCE published on February 11, 2014, I went to great pains to conclude that everything in the real Universe is unique, once. Your graphics are quite pretty to look at, but their uniqueness is not readily discernible. Your abstraction musings are certainly interesting to read, but alas, they have nothing to do with reality. I do wish you well in the competition though.


Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Don J Chisholm replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 20:47 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher

Sorry for my delay in response. I appreciate your kind comments.

Regarding your quibble about my abstract musings as interesting but not reality based: Yes, of course they are not. Today we are observing the results of our current geopolitical reality as being fatally flawed, and it is this reality that we wish to steer away from. If a viable substitute is to emerge its design will be developed out of accumulated wisdom using the good parts of today’s reality and redesigning the bad, perhaps requiring a significantly different configuration. “Need is the mother of invention.”

I went through your essay, and found it of interest, but remained uncertain of how it applies to current contest subject. However, I certainly agree with your closing thoughts about the conflict of interest today when political leadership needs scientific guidance but may politicians hold strong religious beliefs that contradict science.

Regards, Don Chisholm

Bookmark and Share

Joe Fisher replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 12:59 GMT
Dear Don Chisholm,

I understood the contest to be about how humans might steer their future. I did not think that the contest was actually about how humans could build superior technology that could take their place in the future.


Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Don J Chisholm replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher

There is no superior technology suggested in my essay. I believe that we have all the technology needed. What I suggest needs to be changes is the heading and goals of civilization.

Perhaps your note was meant for another essay?

Don Chisholm

Bookmark and Share

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 14:29 GMT
Hi Don,

We agree on much, especially that unless we institute a rational system of trade and governing that maximizes individual freedom, we are steering ourselves toward extinction. I am pleased to see a number of rationalist contributions here; Bee Hossenfelder, I think, is particularly compelling.

Great essay -- and thanks for leaving comments in my forum.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 15, 2014 @ 03:32 GMT

The next paradigm comes with local movements led by the young in common-cause. It sounds somewhat like my concept of common good replacing the greed-centered system we have, this for a viable future.

You have identified effective concepts -- the 3 Es - and a workable vehicle of change, at least in vision. The question for both of us is whether it will be too late to sustain any semblance of our current existence and how science will rise to the task.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Don J Chisholm replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 14:46 GMT
Thanks Jim

Yes, we share many concepts.

I made a comment on your page and a good rating.


Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 08:46 GMT
Dear Don,

I read with interest your depth analytical essay with concrete bold proposals. Yes, Science and Humanity move step by step to the new "Great Paradigm" - the World and the Universe as a whole.

We need to hear the voice of the Earth, voice of the People to give up Hope to New Generation of Earthlings. We need a new "Great Common Cause" to save Peace, Nature and Humanity. Time has come and we start the path together with the new Generation of the Information age, going ahead... «Great paradigm, come!» (V. Novikov "Waiting paradigm")...

I invite you to comment and appreciate my journey into the past and future.

Best regards,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Don J Chisholm wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 13:02 GMT
Dear Vladimir

I had missed your essay while reading most others, but thank you for bringing it to my attention. The philosophical long term overview of how humanity emerged into today is quite interesting, and is an important introduction to final recommendations of a science-based governance model, which is quite similar to my proposal in Our Journey to the next Paradigm. Perhaps our common engineering background leads to this sort of recommendation.

Best wishes for your success in this contest.

Don Chisholm

Bookmark and Share

Peter Jackson wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 16:32 GMT

Fascinating essay. I was quite unfamiliar with Gaia and there was a lot I agreed with. Implementation, as so often, does seem to be the real issue. I wonder if we really can now ever find our way to a new paradigm?

Though I agree we're pushing technology itself quite enough I suggest history does show that most advancement has been led by advancement in understanding nature. I must confess my own essay then takes a more 'classical mechanics' view to untangling our incoherent understanding of nature. As an engineer I hope you may see and comment on the solution, born of the same Einstein quote you well employ.

"No problem can be solved by the same consciousness that created it. We need to see the world anew."

I suggest escaping Earth centric thinking to do so in an allegorical tale. I don't think any more fundamental and practical leap ahead is possible as the consequences are limitless, including inspiring confidence that we CAN understand how nature works.

Very well done for yours, covering very different but also critically important aspects of the future of humanity. I shall certainly steer your score in the right direction for the new judging phase. Roll on that new paradigm!

best wishes


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Don J Chisholm replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 17:20 GMT
Hello Peter Jackson

Thank you for the positive comments on my essay. I have now read and yours, and see what you mean about “classical” approach compared to my more, “hands on” approach. I certainly agree that solving today’s predicament requires the study of nature to find answers, but in my case, I think it is mostly human nature and group behavior wherein the solutions may lay. This would be in hope of finding ways to lead today’s large populations toward heeding the warnings issued by earth scientists today.

Yours was an enjoyable read that I’d missed on an earlier brows, and I’ve given it a positive score.

Don Chisholm

Bookmark and Share

Lorraine Ford wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 11:52 GMT
Dear Don,

I found your essay to be quite absorbing.

You have analysed the issues/crises/threats we face including "the 3Es" and come up with what I think are viable solutions. Your solutions are based on only "mildly chaotic change", but if it is any stronger than that, it might be difficult for the environment and human civilisation to recover.

Your quote of Winston Churchill's 1936 speech to the House of Commons is very appropriate:

"the era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. "



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jun. 7, 2014 @ 07:46 GMT
Hi Don ,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You've set out the big problems as you see them very clearly. I'm not sure about global solutions, one size fits all when the problems each region will face will be very different and it will be difficult to make comparisons. The same level of poverty in a caring rural community is different from poverty in an urban slum with a broken community spirit.

What about ensuring there is local sustainability everywhere because climate may disrupt global trade. Making transition towns that are really resilient to changes affecting that local area, not just cosmetically.( My local council agreed to the planting of community fruit trees that residents will be able to get fruit from. Sounds good but this is a fruit growing region and most of the fruit is never harvested so really the last thing we need is more fruit and most probably only a few individuals will benefit from the free fruit grown on the local tax payers trees.)There should definitely be some joined up thinking in the real world.

I noticed the mention of preventing mass migration. How do you envision that being peacefully and humanely accomplished?

Good luck, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 7, 2014 @ 07:47 GMT
Not Anonymous, from me.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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