FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

We explore a complex systems model that links global material and communication resources, distributed laterally rather than hierarchically. Such a robust network ideally has the capacity to create and maintain global economic equilibrium, while helping assure maximal individual freedom, wealth and creativity.

Author Bio

Tom Ray is an independent researcher in the mathematics and philosophy of complex systems science.

Download Essay PDF File

Hi Tom,

How much better it would have been had you learned the negative impact of theory. I won't rate this essay. I assume it will be very attractive to many others. I wish you well with it, but only for this contest. One question: Did you heed the leader's 'scientifically based' call for followers to support the Occupy Movement?

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 00:15 GMT

Hi James,

I hope to see you back after you've read the essay.

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 00:45 GMT

Tom,

I read the essay.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 00:52 GMT

So then, you purposely chose to talk in my forum about something I neither said nor implied?

show all replies (7 not shown)

Tom,

An interesting analysis of the immediate real world issues we need to face. While we frequently disagree, I would like to offer up a point I'm trying to make in these discussions. If you have been following them, you might have seen some of my efforts, but I would like to state it as succinctly as possible;

In our capitalist economy, we treat money as a commodity, in fact one...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 02:05 GMT

Damn logouts.

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 08:50 GMT

Hi John,

Yes, I agree -- we speak of the price of money as if it were goods. That's not in itself the problem, though. Money as capital is indeed a commodity that loses value when not traded -- when we reach the state as we have today, that investors are merely trading among themselves and withholding capital from wealth creators, eventually the value of even that limited trade degrades. Not good for either the investors or the investment, because of overproduction and underconsumption, which are two sides of the same coin.

Best,

Tom

John Brodix Merryman replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 10:02 GMT

Tom,

One of the main ways of sustaining the value of that excess capital is to have the government, ie. public, borrow it back and fund everything from wars to research with the over-production, then sell off any income producing asset, such as results of the research, to well connected private interests, so while it may not be 'the problem,' it is certainly a problem and one which is shortly going to trigger a crisis and crises are noted as opportune times for change.

I don't see much being withheld from anyone with even a slim idea for wealth creation, but I do see a lot of unsustainable wealth extraction being used to fund this financial production.

Regards,

John

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Tom,

I found your paper refreshingly informative toward the end, but I had to wait until page four for some things I think needed stated to be right up front. It was a struggle getting through the first few pages, but if you had an opening paragraph starting something like this, it would have been an easier read. "Research shows there is promise in a system that preserves freedom within a system community and allows cooperation between them. The image of well-maintained fences with open gates, serves to illustrate this principle at work..."

But if the reader is patient to continue reading, there is a gem in the rough to be uncovered in this paper. You have made a brilliant observation, Tom; now if only you could highlight it better. My rating will reflect both my appreciation of your point and the mixed feelings about how it is presented.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 08:39 GMT

Jonathan,

I agree. I should have taken more care to present the solution before the problem. Instead I put it all in a too-short abstract. The problem is depressing; I think there are too few, however, who understand what conditions the liberal secular ideal is responding to, why we fought a revolution here against tyrants from afar, and then another bloody war against tyrants at home.

In the news, there is this rancher in Nevada who grazes his cattle for free by stealing government owned land, and calls it his right to profit from the property and labors of others. His motives are clear -- he openly wonders if "the Negro" would be better off picking cotton than being unemployed and hanging out on the porch. Clearly, he feels entitled to own and control others and steal with impunity.

That issue is separate from the issue of fairness in land use laws -- it's a deeper flaw in the American psyche that hangs on to pre-Enlightenment ways of doing things. We can't afford it. The world can't afford it.

The rancher rides around on his horse waving the U.S. flag (this is literally true, for those who haven't seen the story) -- while contradictorily proclaiming that he doesn't recognize the government. He thinks the Constitution supports his right to plunder and exploit. If it were just this one crazy individual who holds these views, one wouldn't worry about it. The sickness and the ignorance has spread much further.

All best,

Tom

Tom,

FQXi asked how should humanity steer the future. Didn't you equate humanity too much with the national perspective of U.S.A.?

At least you left the position of those philosophers and physicists who denied causality and the distinction between past and future: Russell, Einstein, ...

Do you hope for reaching more than emotional resonance? I am still fed up with "scientific socialism".

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 11:03 GMT

Hi Eckard,

Yes, I had a particular reason for focusing on the U.S. For the time being at least, the U.S. leads in the knowledge and technology management requisite to helping create and sustain a globally linked network of resources that can respond quickly and effectively to local economic and natural disasters.

Best,

Tom

Eckard Blumschein replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 12:42 GMT

Tom,

The American way of consumption did indeed conquer the hearts of many people worldwide and caused the collapse of Soviet Union. I am however not sure whether this temptation will still suffice as to get control over religious conflicts like in Syria, nationalism like between Russia and Ukraine, and the seemingly harmless unlimited growth of population.

When I was a boy, I read a booklet that told me the main center of power and culture was shifting from Greece to Rome, to Eastern Rome, from Spain to France, etc. Maybe, China could get leading in future if mankind will be unable to install an international secular power. I am sure having Nobel correctly understood in that question.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 14:03 GMT

Eckard, I think that an equitable distribution of resources, even with unequal consumption, will obviate 'leaders' entirely on the global level, and the need for them. The world is capable of self organizing around our common needs and desires, so long as we are willing to give up control of people, in favor of rational control of resources.

show all replies (2 not shown)

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 14:07 GMT

Tom,

In an equitable system everybody was treated equally. Is this really desirable? Perhaps the slogan of communism "give everybody anything he/she wants" is unreal, and I don't see equal distribution necessary at all.

However, imagine a population of let's say 100 billion equal people sharing the scant resources that remained after decades of reckless exploitation to come while this overpopulation nonetheless horribly polluting water, air and soil. Our stupidity will be cruel to our children. I advocate for rationality including the obligation to slightly improve our ethics by inclusion of the human obligations for responsible behavior as precondition of human rights.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 15:24 GMT

Hi Eckard,

You write, "Perhaps the slogan of communism 'give everybody anything he/she wants' is unreal(istic) ..."

That isn't the slogan of communism, though how realistic is the conservative opposite, "Give no one anything he or she wants"?

Your underlying assumption is that there is some agency that owns resources that can be given; that is, no individual is entitled to have anything that is not granted by a hierarchical system empowered to distribute the largess.

"I advocate for rationality including the obligation to slightly improve our ethics by inclusion of the human obligations for responsible behavior as precondition of human rights."

I see that as irrational. How about instituting entitlements to human rights first, from which ethics and responsibility rationally follow?

Best,

Tom

hide replies

Hi Tom,

I enjoyed reading your essay. I particularity like the analogies of the fences with open gates and the knife being as important as the cake. You have set out a well argued vision for USA recovery.

I wonder whether climate change and falling oil production in the future will severely affect world trade because of the rising costs and difficulties of transport and logistics.Outsourcing manufacturing and importation of food and goods from all around the world has been cheap. It isn't sustainable though, it is wasting resources. It may be that local production and consumption become once more the most cost cost effective choice and more sustainable too. Then it would be more difficult to get a cut of the wealth by planning and distribution of other countries' 'cakes'. What do you think?

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 10:55 GMT

Thank you, Georgina. I agree in principle that local production/consumption is cost efficient. However, it leaves the locality vulnerable to economic instability (boom-bust), natural disasters and internal self-destructive feedback.

What I aim to describe is an effective, rather than efficient, global model -- where waste and redundancy are assets. That is, a continually shifting hub of redundant global economic activity is a self-similar, self-reinforcing network that dulls the effects of positive (i.e. out of control) feedback brought on by both internal and external challenges to global stability, while assisting local recovery when needed.

Such a robust network allows network nodes to act independently when they can and cooperatively when they must.

I have done no more than scan your essay -- though it looks delightful! I will comment when I can.

Best,

Tom

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 04:39 GMT

Tom,

I have been thinking about what you said about redundancy and waste being assets. Modern warehousing, logistics and distribution is set up to minimize redundancy and waste and to avoid unnecessary storage, in favour of "just in time" deliveries and dispatch. Large warehouses have automated computer run systems that "calculate" what has to be where and when and make it happen. The wisdom of our time being that there isn't money to be made on having a warehouse full of stuff going nowhere fast. Is that a problem for your system?

On the other hand I have heard discussion of the need to go back to old ways in hospitals. Trying to save money by cutting redundancy in the NHS has lead to not having enough beds when an epidemic or large tragedy happens.Patients having to sleep in corridors. It also doesn't allow for wards to be closed and thoroughly cleaned to avoid hospital acquired infections. If patient welfare and health is put above cost cutting then redundancy is indeed an asset.

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 09:02 GMT

Georgina, you're absolutely right. To sacrifice effectiveness for efficiency always leaves a gap of scarcity.

In wartime, we never worry about how efficient our supply systems are -- we go all out to get beans and bullets and medical care to the fighters. If we acted the same toward all peoples, as if they were on the front line of fighting for the survival and well being of our human species, we might well make war itself obsolete. We at least owe it to ourselves to try.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

One misses concrete examples. For instance the Lim quote ("Violence arises due to the structure of boundaries between groups rather than as a result of inherent conflicts between the groups themselves") sounds meaningful, it makes linguistic sense, but what happens if it's applied to, say, Israel-Palestine or Northern Ireland? What are the "structures of the boundaries" as differentiated from the "inherent conflicts between the groups themselves"? More specificity please.

The sideways idea is interesting. It has a warrant in the structure of societies in mid-evolution (say the feudal period in Western Europe ... distributed nodes were definitely the game). Studying the history trading routes is always fascinating. Why do societies become increasingly hierarchical and centralized? Actually, Marx had some thoughts about that. So does Pitteky more recently. It has a lot to do with initial conditions plus the fact that accumulation tends to accumulate accumulatively.

A TV show my wife and I watch (we even record it when we're not home) is "Down East Dickering" on the History Channel. I see it as a sideways model even though I'm not conned by the scripted quality of some of the narrative. Anyway you observe wealth being created and consumed on a very elemental level by imaginative exchange of goods and services by skilled and decent people who know what they're doing. It makes one proud to be a human being.

report post as inappropriate

Nick Mann replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 00:20 GMT

Actually it's Pikkety.

report post as inappropriate

Nick, I agree about concrete examples. The Science article referenced has them -- I think it's available online without charge; if not, ping me and I'll shoot you a copy.

The portion of Lim et al quoted in my essay continues: "Violence arises due to the structure of boundaries between groups rather than as a result of inherent conflicts between the groups themselves. In this approach, diverse social and economic causal factors trigger violence when the spatial population structure creates a propensity to conflict, so that spatial heterogeneity itself is predictive of local violence. The local ethnic patch size serves as an 'order parameter,' a measure of the degree of order of collective behavior, to which other aspects of behavior are coupled. The importance of collective behavior implies that ethnic violence can be studied in the universal context of collective dynamics, where models can identify how individual and collective behavior are related."

So as one expects, the scholarly technical treatment to follow is pretty heavy sledding for an essay format.

Thanks for the historical example; it sounds like something I'd like to look into. Though I agree with Popper about "the poverty of historicism," which is the Marxist-Leninist weakness. I think that the sideways view of history permits self-similarity in historical patterns over time scales, though it denies historical causality, i.e. dialectical materialism. It also seems capable of being the foundation of a true science of history if my own favorite definition of 'science' is true: "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses." (J. Bronowski)

I'll also look up the TV show if I get a chance. Thanks for the kind words; I think a committed rationalist cannot but appreciate the harmony of life; local conflict dampened by local self determination.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 12:03 GMT

I meant global conflict dampened by local self-determination.

I meant global conflict dampened by local self-determination.

(Damn, what's with these log-outs?)

Nick Mann replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 19:51 GMT

Tom,

I found an article in WIRED that summarizes the New England Institute study specifically re: Switzerland.

CH isn't a good example to counterpose to Israel-Palestine and Northern Ireland. Ethnic conflict in those two locales carries a history of invasion in the Ulster case and an internationally-sanctioned ingathering (against the wishes of many indigines) in the other. In both...

view entire post

Tom,

I found an article in WIRED that summarizes the New England Institute study specifically re: Switzerland.

CH isn't a good example to counterpose to Israel-Palestine and Northern Ireland. Ethnic conflict in those two locales carries a history of invasion in the Ulster case and an internationally-sanctioned ingathering (against the wishes of many indigines) in the other. In both instances conflict was inevitable because one ethnic group had the power. Switzerland's history is one of successful resistance to foreign incursions in which all the language groups and both religious groupings were involved.

What would have happened in Switzerland without the cantonal system? Impossible to say. Linguistically there might have been issues but religiously not necessarily. Take the Netherlands which is close to evenly-balanced between Protestant and Catholic but where all citizens speak the same language. A monument to national stability. Take neighboring Belgium, in which almost everyone is Catholic but the country is linguistically and ethnically divided between Flemish and French. And effectively cantonized as well. The nation's barely hanging together.

My real problem with the general systems and complexity theory approach to just about everything is that it tries to smooth away distinctions in the quest for common patterns. Everything becomes isomorphic. Quote from Bar-Yam: "The propensity to violence is not that different between Switzerland and Yugoslavia." Actually, yes, it is, very much so. The Ottoman invasion (remember the Field of Blackbirds) and creation of an Islamic South Slav population in Bosnia made a hell of a difference for the fate of the future Yugoslavia. So did invasions from the West which created a Catholic population using the Latin alphabet in Croatia and Slovenia in opposition to the Orthodox/Cyrillic culture of Serbia. Historical memory matters. In Switzerland it's unifying across ethnicities and in the NL it's at least benign. In many other places not so much.

Cantonization in Switzerland supposedly promotes local cantonal identity at the expense of ethnic (German, French, Italian) identity and makes Swiss-ness possible. But if you tell that to the Swiss they smile. The cantons were simply there before the country was, they say. There are other reasons Switzerland works. Thoughts of being governed from Berlin, Vienna, Paris or Rome for instance.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 20:39 GMT

Nick, even were I to agree that you have a counterexample in some particular node of a linked network, it wouldn't matter to the complex system (CX) model. You write:

"My real problem with the general systems and complexity theory approach to just about everything is that it tries to smooth away distinctions in the quest for common patterns. Everything becomes isomorphic."

Network self similarity is not identical to isomorphism. I think you underline here a common misunderstanding of the model -- the power in Bar-Yam's solution to the problem of bounded rationality is the feature I repeatedly quote: "In considering the requirements of multi-scale variety more generally, we can state that for a system to be effective, it must be able to coordinate the right number of components to serve each task, while allowing the independence of other sets of components to perform their respective tasks without binding the actions of one such set to another." That's lateral over hierarchical, cooperative over competitive, and the self similarity of connected maps is continuous at multiple scales of observation.

A self organized system is everywhere both self similar and self limiting. Point is, that network connections over multiple scales are locally time limited and globally continuous. So saying something about time limited local events (your examples) in isolation doesn't say anything about how the events are network-connected. I tried to get this across in my ICCS2007 PowerPoint.

Anonymous replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 23:03 GMT

I understand that network systems are individually self-similar in approximately the same sense that a Mandelbrot pattern is self-similar and unlike others ... but still they're all Mandelbrot sets and there are meta-rules defining what those are and governing their emergence. (Sidebar: do you see merit in Tegmark's belief that the actual information content of the universe is minimal?)

Anyway, I'm judging here entirely by the results of the NECSI approach. I have the 2007 Science article now as well as the 2011 "Good Fences" piece from the ArXiv. My beef is that the authors take some extraordinarily complicated socio-cultural situations (in South Asia, Former Yugoslavia, Switzerland) with deep, complex, individual histories and evaluate them essentially in terms of physical, including topological, boundaries between communities (as described using a certain one-size-fits-all set of standards) and the presence or absence of local autonomy as they define local autonomy. As though geographical and political boundaries were the essential or only contributing factor to communal violence wherever it arises and if you can just manipulate those factors in an appropriate manner violence will diminish. I just feel something's missing.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

Nick Mann replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 23:05 GMT

Yes, what is it with the Login?

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 10:18 GMT

Nick, the Mandelbrot construction is a set. A complex network is a system of independent sets.

You write, "My beef is that the authors take some extraordinarily complicated socio-cultural situations (in South Asia, Former Yugoslavia, Switzerland) with deep, complex, individual histories and evaluate them essentially in terms of physical, including topological, boundaries between communities (as described using a certain one-size-fits-all set of standards) and the presence or absence of local autonomy as they define local autonomy."

One must understand that the system model is indifferent to local histories. That feature is exactly why I characterize Lim's conclusion ("Peaceful coexistence need not require complete integration") as counterintuitive. We are concerned with the (shifting) boundaries of nodal interactions, not with psycho-social characteristics. It's not that one size fits all -- Bar-Yam is careful to say that multi-scale variety, with lateral application of communication and distribution modes, allows " ... the independence of other sets of components to perform their respective tasks without binding the actions of one such set to another" -- it's that the local system has the choice to adapt or not to adapt to the global trajectory. That choice feeds back into the global trajectory and affects the range of choices in other sets of system of components.

The problem as I have defined it in the essay, is that of how to assure a continuous trajectory toward equilibrium, without reaching equilibrium; i.e., cooperative adaptation globally, by guaranteed autonomy locally.

"(Sidebar: do you see merit in Tegmark's belief that the actual information content of the universe is minimal?)"

Absolutely. It's a restatement of the principle of least action.

hide replies

Tom,

Hierarchical certainly has not worked through the ages. Many models of the future do point to decentralization, but these are doomsday -- more primitive without trade and networking.

Capitalism seems to give lip-service to individualism but the model tends to work toward subjugation of the individual for the purpose of control and profit. The self-interest at the top and its control of government oppresses all else. Certainly your reference to 85 controlling half the world's wealth indications the distortions of the current systems - I cite the same example.

Your model seems to bring light and breath into the levels where genius and self-determination can flourish. The problem is that current power structures won't melt to allow this transition.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Nick Mann replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 17:26 GMT

"Capitalism seems to give lip-service to individualism but the model tends to work toward subjugation of the individual for the purpose of control and profit. The self-interest at the top and its control of government oppresses all else. Certainly your reference to 85 controlling half the world's wealth indications the distortions of the current systems - I cite the same example."

We need to distinguish between capitalism as a system of regulated entrepreneurialism (the social democratic model) and capitalism as a system that permits accelerating accumulation of individual wealth resulting in increased inequality and denial of opportunity. The latter is political and social, the former economic. Command economies didn't work and not simply because many of the people in charge weren't too bright. A lot of them were pretty bright (look at Gorbachev). Those economies didn't work because stuff was manufactured that people didn't want to buy and there was no feedback system to explain this to the apparatchiki.

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 19:59 GMT

Jim, I'll have to agree with Nick on the distinction between capitalist idealism (Adam Smith, John Locke, et al) and political reality. The Nazis couldn't have gotten as far as they did without the cooperation and participation of capitalist "royalty." The whole Nazi blood-and-iron philosophy is driven by feudal ideals. (Indeed, oligarchs of our own generation harbor the same beliefs.)

I also agree with Nick on the dynamics of the self-defeating Soviet system. Hierarchies eventually fall of their own weight.

And I most heartily agree with you, that the least element of any system (in the system of human societies, an individual) is the most creative asset, given sufficient variety of resources. That is the theme of my essay.

Best,

Tom

James Lee Hoover replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 03:29 GMT

Nick made good points but I disagrre with some. "We need to distinguish between capitalism as a system of regulated entrepreneurialism (the social democratic model) and capitalism as a system that permits accelerating accumulation of individual wealth resulting in increased inequality and denial of opportunity. The latter is political and social, the former economic. Command economies"

I disagree with Nick regarding the social democratic model being "economic". Both, I believe are social and political in operation but perhaps economic in intent. Regulation is obviously vital for shared opportunity but for the US seems to be confined to the period after WWII, cut short by a resurgence of conservative forces which with relentless focus took control of government, media, and the economy. Most other periods of our history have seen capitalism mostly unrestrained.

Certainly the individual is the most creative asset, especially in contrast to the exploitive sterility of those in control: the financial sector is especially sterile and executive leadership (CEOs) obscenely rewarded due to power over boards not productivity.

The implementation of your system, Tom, will be a herculean task.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 21:49 GMT

James, I share your concern for the radical takeover of the American economy by the redistribution of commodities to a few "job creators" who intend to steer the social policy as well as the economic fortunes of our nation.

I think the task of reversing the trend, though, is made much easier by the exponential growth of network technologies.

We'll have a lot to talk about.

Best,

Tom

James Lee Hoover replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 21:52 GMT

Thomas,

Time grows short, so I am revisiting and rating. In your response to our discussion, "I think the task of reversing the trend, though, is made much easier by the exponential growth of network technologies," once again network technology is growing rapidly but net neutrality is an issue which the Verizons and the AT&Ts are probably winning the battle. The direction of new technologies can be swayed as we see alternative energies are. For example, the Koch brothers in Kansas are trying to kill wind farms, important in this windy clime. Common sense is still winning there.

Have you had a chance to read my essay which deals with some of the issues we are discussing?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 11:42 GMT

Jim, I'm sorry it took me so long to comment on and rate your essay. Done, now.

You're right, of course -- decentralization of power over resources is a primary issue. For something as basic today as communication access, I don't think people will long stand the restrictions, any more than people in earlier times would stand for restricted water rights. Free access will win in the end, because the alternative is self-destructive to the very corporations who want to dictate policy. The policy is only as strong as user consent.

All best,

Tom

hide replies

"Nick, the Mandelbrot construction is a set. A complex network is a system of independent sets."

The point is, in relation to self-similarity, that the slightest alteration of the set's algorithm changes everything. In the case of a network the disappearance of one component set alters the interaction of the remaining component sets and the network's configuration. The question then becomes one of how this global change is expressed in terms of the individual component sets. How much separate freedom do they possess? And if that varies between them, why and how? And to what extent is this approach relevant to human affairs?

Remember Ned Block and the China Brain. Ought to be required reading in all systems theory classes.

Re: Tegmark. The question is of interest only if universes are algorithms because AIT is the context in which he frames the issue. The belief that they are is a belief. It's interesting that Tegmark is a quasi-acolyte of Chaitin's while still believing in the possibility of a ToE, which of course official Chaitinism says just ain't gonna happen.

report post as inappropriate

Nick Mann replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 16:54 GMT

I am not anonymous.

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 19:45 GMT

"The point is, in relation to self-similarity, that the slightest alteration of the set's algorithm changes everything."

That's why multiscale complex systems of sufficient variety are robust, and self similar algorithmic sets (Mandelbrot, Julia, Koch, Sierpinski, etc.) aren't.

The difference is the same as that between linearly dependent mathematics and nonlinearly independent...

view entire post

"The point is, in relation to self-similarity, that the slightest alteration of the set's algorithm changes everything."

That's why multiscale complex systems of sufficient variety are robust, and self similar algorithmic sets (Mandelbrot, Julia, Koch, Sierpinski, etc.) aren't.

The difference is the same as that between linearly dependent mathematics and nonlinearly independent mathematical systems or models -- two entirely different dynamics. Most natural phenomena are nonlinear, including human interactions both at individuals and societal scales. And while variety in the nonlinear constructions of algorithmic complex sets is guaranteed to run out, not so in a system that is flexible on multiple scales; evolutionary growth shifts to the hubs promising greatest variety. As I made the point in my essay: waste and redundancy are assets to creativity, no matter the scale or the system.

It was Chaitin (and Kolmogorov independently) who recognized that algorithmic complexity has a defined limit in general. The generalization of algorithmic complexity, in turn, might be seen in Ashby's law of requisite variety extended to complex systems on every scale, and that's the research path that Bar-Yam took.

"Re: Tegmark. The question (is the universe's information content minimal?) is of interest only if universes are algorithms because AIT is the context in which he frames the issue. The belief that they are is a belief. It's interesting that Tegmark is a quasi-acolyte of Chaitin's while still believing in the possibility of a ToE, which of course official Chaitinism says just ain't gonna happen."

Tegmark's program depends on algorithmic compressibility; Chaitin's program does not. I agree with Tegmark in the sense that in any arbitrarily chosen interval, the principle of least action compels the least information content at any scale. I agree with Chaitin (and I am not aware of any "official Chaitinism") that algorithmic information is only a subset of computability; the Chaitin Omega is algorithmically compressible and yet uncomputable.

view post as summary

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for writing this essay. Your ideas are interesting and writing is very good, but like others have commented the essay takes a while to get going. In particular I felt like the first four pages at least were essentially a political manifesto which is not a bad thing, but felt a tiny bit out of place for me (I realise it gave context to your ideas). Of course 'steering' is a partly political task (my entry has a tiny bit of politics here and there) but I would have loved the 'future' part to be a larger part of the essay. None-the-less thanks for your essay and your creative ideas!

Ross

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 12:46 GMT

Thanks, Ross. I was not unaware of what I was doing in setting up the problem. I struggled with whether I should do it at all, and how strongly it should come across.

It isn't usual for me to put my beliefs before the science. To the extent that my beliefs don't conflict with the science, however, I'm glad I got it off my chest, and hope that readers can appreciate the scientific solution.

Best,

Tom

Ross Cevenst replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 12:07 GMT

Thanks heaps for the comment on my essay Tom. Don't forget to rate it if you get the chance. Good luck!

report post as inappropriate

Tom

Your essay is wide in scope and creative in its proposals. It reflects your justified pride and concern with what I like to think of as the good side of the global phenomena that comprised the American Century. You propose your country somehow steer the world into an ideal future. Alas your love of country may have blinded you to the 'bad side': the amount of havoc US policies and...

view entire post

Tom

Your essay is wide in scope and creative in its proposals. It reflects your justified pride and concern with what I like to think of as the good side of the global phenomena that comprised the American Century. You propose your country somehow steer the world into an ideal future. Alas your love of country may have blinded you to the 'bad side': the amount of havoc US policies and those of its partners, Israel for example, have wreaked in key portions of the globe, disqualifying it in most ways as a global role model. Do not get me wrong I recognise the wonderful achievements of individual Americans, universities and other institutions working within the democratic system, but that has not translated at all well beyond its borders when it came to squashing the natives who stood in the way of U.S. 'interests'.

I am not sure how the theoretical recommendations of your report "Applying Complex Adaptive Systems Research to Countering Terrorism, Insurgency, Regional and Ethnic Violence" will translate into policies on the ground. But if the history of the Middle East with its history of oil-hungry US state terrorism in Iraq, for example, or the ongoing U.S. sponsored Israeli State terrorism and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, is any measure, I for one would say, thanks but no thanks.

As to US leadership in resource management, have you seriously considered what the American Association for the Advancement of Science has reported about America, with its small fraction of the world population:

"For many resources, the United States of America is the world's largest consumer in absolute terms. For a list of 20 major traded commodities, it takes the greatest share of 11 of them: corn, coffee, copper, lead, zinc, tin, aluminum, rubber, oil seeds, oil and natural gas. For many more it is the largest per-capita consumer"

Of course, considering its technical prowess, creativity and willingness to 'do something', I hope that policy leaders in the U.S. and also others in Israel and the Arab World etc.learn from the tragic mistakes of the past that have led to the present mess.

Sincere best wishes

Vladimir

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 12:00 GMT

Thank you, Vladimir. No question, I love my country -- I am an idealist, though, and not of the "my country, right or wrong" stripe. I spent so much time in the essay setting up the American ideal -- which admittedly the population and the government have never done a great job of fulfilling -- to make the point that a government of "laws, not men" is the only rational way to assure fairness and...

view entire post

Thank you, Vladimir. No question, I love my country -- I am an idealist, though, and not of the "my country, right or wrong" stripe. I spent so much time in the essay setting up the American ideal -- which admittedly the population and the government have never done a great job of fulfilling -- to make the point that a government of "laws, not men" is the only rational way to assure fairness and freedom. The job of the Enlightenment is not finished.

I accept all the criticism you can hurl at 21st century American foreign policy. As the saying goes, we can choose our friends but not our family -- it applies to some extent to the 'family' of a sovereign nation.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is not so simple as you make it out to be, and I think you know that. "Ethnic cleansing" is a particularly ugly term to Jews, for obvious historical reasons; one has to remember that Jewish immigration to Palestine did not occur in a vacuum -- Jews have continuously inhabited the land for thousands of years, subjugated to the rule of Greek, Roman and Muslim authorities, having minimal rights and few liberties. And even today, I don't know of a single Jew who serves in the legislature or cabinet of an Islamic government, while dozens of Arab Israelis do serve in the Israeli Parliament. One can hardly defend a charge of ethnic cleansing against that fact.

That being said, minority Palestinian Arabs under the majority Israeli government who choose to reject Israel's right to exist can and perhaps already have forced a 2-state solution to the conflict. One can only hope that the pangs of birth are worth the outcome of a liberal and secular rule of law over the region to follow -- because unless that outcome does guarantee full enfranchisement of all its citizens, with freedom of religion along with all the other benefits of citizenship -- I see no end to the turmoil. To your other point:

I don't understand the fascination of some economists with statistics on American consumerism. We consume for only one reason -- because we can. The main reason that we can, is that we have had until recently, a huge middle class able to afford the luxuries, and a birthrate low enough to enjoy them. I believe that all rational people, not just Americans, wish the same thing -- the model I have explored in my essay aims to make a start at it. Wealth creation by rational distribution of resources, low birthrate, suppression of violence -- who would argue and why?

I am looking forward to reading your essay, not for the least reason to enjoy your wonderful art!

All best,

Tom

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 12:01 GMT

Irritating. 'twas I.

Thank you Tom

I am relieved that you took my remarks as well as you could, although you may not have agreed with everything. I grew up in Palestine in the 1940's till the 1960's when all my generation simply loved Americans for their enthusiasm, creativity and cheerful pop culture, and we still do. This was tainted of course by knowing the role of the US government in the creation of Israel and hence the dispossession of the Palestinians. After the 1967 war US policy vetoed every single UN resolution that the rest of the nations of the world approved of, that were meant as a way to support a just and peaceful resolution to the conflict.

The Palestinians had no role whatsoever in what the Jews suffered in Europe, but we had to pay the price. What makes it worse is that the victim has now become the persecutor. I myself cannot return to my homeland and Jerusalem, the city of my birth, while any Jew anywhere, even one who had converted yesterday has the 'Right of Ruturn' backed by US policy and military nuclear might shared between the US and Israel. This is not the place to go into detail to answer each of the points you raised about Arabs and Jews. Too many complicated interlocking facts have to be separated from the overwhelming Zionist-dominated propaganda in the mass media that has made the situation difficult to discuss. Watch some videos of MIT's Naom Chomsky (who is Jewish) explaining the conflict on YouTube.

Anyway we have vented our feelings on the subject and hope to continue our friendly discussions on physics.

With best wishes

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 02:37 GMT

Tom, let me add this thought about complexity and the Israel-Palestine problem:

Before Zionism took hold, there was an indigenous Palestinian Arab Jewish community living with the Arab Muslim and Christian population, and particularly in Jerusalem. The name " Jewish Quarter" in the Old City testifies to that. The Jews of those days spoke Arabic and rubbed shoulders with Christian and Muslim Arab Palestinians. Within the crowded souks of the walled city what I like to think of a peaceful rich social ecosystem developed. There was a dense network of social, economic interaction but not perhaps religious, as each group had their own revered place of worship. There was occasional conflict as would happen in any crowded community, but none of the outright hostility that came later with mono-polar Zionism (their slogan was "A people without a land for a land without a people [sic]" .) The Judaisation of Jerusalem either by forced expulsion, destruction of whole Arab neighbourhoods, or more quietly by laws and other measures designed to make the Palestinian Arabs leave - and which have succeeded to a large measure. So much for the complexity that your Israeli co-author Bar-Yam seems to advocate.

Please pardon the bitter note here and make an effort to learn the facts about Palestine, rather than rely on what Zionist propaganda has so successfully spoon-fed the American people. Einstein's disgust with Zionist terrorism, and his advocating equal rights in Palestine for the Arabs and Jewish communities is one of the reasons why I wrote my essay around Einstein's happy persona.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 10:31 GMT

Vladimir, I expect that we have the same feelings about discussing this issue, somewhere between leaving it alone and letting it all out.

Einstein was a secularist. The founders of modern Israel were secularists. The majority of Israelis are secularists.

Can a modern secular and democratic state survive without conflict, surrounded by countries ruled by 14th century religious...

view entire post

Vladimir, I expect that we have the same feelings about discussing this issue, somewhere between leaving it alone and letting it all out.

Einstein was a secularist. The founders of modern Israel were secularists. The majority of Israelis are secularists.

Can a modern secular and democratic state survive without conflict, surrounded by countries ruled by 14th century religious oligarchies who openly call for the utter destruction of Israel? I doubt it.

Zionism is not the enemy. The enemy is an Islamic collective that has used the Palestinian Arab dislocation since 1967 as an excuse to maintain its control over political power in the region.

The early Zionists (and I mean the modern, 19th and 20th century Zionists, since there have actually been three Zionist movements in Jewish history) were not advocating a Jewish-ruled state; they advocated religious freedom and safety for Jews, which with the exception of the U.S., was to be found hardly anywhere in the world. And that includes the Palestine under Islamic rule -- Jews were not fully enfranchised citizens of that region. They were barely tolerated as subjects of the caliphate. Jerusalem was not open to Jewish participation; religious Jews had no access to the Western Wall under Islamic rule until the capture of the city in 1967. Only the most naive of us could think that Jerusalem would be an open city under Islamic religious rule.

It is my perception that neither Islamic nor Christian theologists fully understand that Judaism is not a mystical religion. The former two are missionary religions with apocalyptic prophecies to fulfill; it is unfortunate that those prophecies have their origin in Hebrew history, for in the Jewish tradition the prophecies are warnings, not predictions.

At any rate, Bar-Yam does not deserve your indictment. He is a scientist, same as Einstein, seeking a rational solution to an irrational condition, not just in Israel but all over the world. If you would honor Einstein, you would honor that legacy.

There can be peace and equality in Israel. It will not come at the price of Israel's, and the Jewish peoples', right to exist.

Best,

Tom

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 10:33 GMT

I really don't understand this log-in problem.

show all replies (2 not shown)

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 00:44 GMT

Tom,

Thanks for the response. We can go on endlessly discussing the various aspects of this problem, but to give a short response: it is not a religious problem here, but one of the dispossession of an entire people from the land they and their ancestors had lived in. I and most Palestinian families still possess the keys of their homes they had to leave in Palestine to become refugees and watch while the Jewish people 'returned' to a land they read about in their Bibles. I put 'return' in quotes because arguably most of the Jews of European origin (Einstein included) became Jews when the Khazars converted to Judaism in Mediaeval times, as Arthur Koestler argued in his book "The 13th Tribe". You say most Israelis are secularists, so why claim a land 'promised by God'. The regrettable trend of present Islamic religious fundamentalism sweeping the Arab World has nothing to do with the root causes of the Palestinian's right to return to their homeland. And apart from the crazies (and there are plenty of those on both sides) nobody is challenging the Jewish people's right to exist, merely for the privilege of living together in one secular state (the PLO's position) or in two adjacent neighbourly states. Israel has the power and is using it to thwart any peace plans that threatens to lessen its domination and occupation of Palestine. But the history of the Holy Land has seen such power crumble again and again, and as the Psalms say "the poor shall inherit the land".

Peace Salam Shalom

Vladimir

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 01:22 GMT

I think we had better stop here, before you throw out The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

hide replies

Hi Vladimir,

quote: In a world threatened by its own head-on clashes

of self-destructive tendencies, lateral distribution

of communications technology and resources – a

globally linked supply chain controlled by high

tech information systems in a robust network –

helps dampen inequality and maximally

enfranchise individuals for an exponential

growth in creativity and wealth generation.

Sideways is the only rational trajectory.

We currently have such a system related to fossil fuels. Coalitions create wars in countries with oil, to steal their natural resources. The people of Iraq get effectively nothing from the export of their resources. This is repeated over and over.

Without systems of broad ethical consideration being built into a global logistics system, a few will benefit while the majority will suffer.

For any major decision, the masses must have sufficient time to reflect upon the broad complexities of ethical consideration before being approved by the masses for implementation. Additionally, the masses need education related to assess broad ethical consideration.

Potentially all corruption can be largely eliminated. Basically, state elected doctors of science and philosophy guided by their state's constitution, helps build the NSA monitoring and analysis systems and manages how the information collected is used.

eliminate-all-corruption.pbworks.com

Imagine the tremendous resources that would be used to take control of a centralized global logistics system. Thousands of people selected to support corrupting influence.

To make your proposal practical and ethical requires a method of eliminating corruption.

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 21:24 GMT

I'm not Vladimir, though that's a nice Freudian twist. :-)

Yes, I agree with your point that corruption must be obviated to the greatest possible extent, for any cooperative system to work. I think the essay's proposal is quite practical, though, for minimizing the role of the "masses" in favor of maximal individual decision-making and self determination locally, to stabilize distribution of resources globally. I find great power in Bar-Yam's result:

"In considering the requirements of multi-scale variety more generally, we can state that for a system to be effective, it must be able to coordinate the right number of components to serve each task, while allowing the independence of other sets of components to perform their respective tasks without binding the actions of one such set to another."

The motivation for corruption is blunted by interlocking checks, in such a system. The knife-cake analogy I use is designed to assure the independence of necessary and irreducible elements of cooperation. One element is useless without the other. This principle applies to every scale of activity.

All best,

Tom

Hello Thomas

I’ve just started reading some of the interesting essays, and I quite enjoyed reading yours. I suppose that’s because many of the basic assumptions appear to be in the same ballpark as those that underlay my essay # 2078.

You state: “Bar-Yam introduced multi-scale variety, the idea that independent subsystems allowed to organize around task coordination at different times on different scales, makes the larger system effective.” Yes, or the synergy that makes the sum of the parts much greater than the whole. I suggest, however, that the existing growth drive corporate capitalism cannot be fixed, and we need a significant system reboot with new and clear definition of wealth to be used as an integral regulatory control medium of the dynamic system. Perhaps sideways with a down slope will be needed for a few years after our century of exponential growth.

I wish you well in the contest.

Don Chisholm

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 21:41 GMT

Thanks, Don. I'll certainly get to your essay when I can.

I was hoping to make clear that "wealth" should not be measured in the accumulation of commodities; rather, it should be measured in the variety of resources produced and distributed in a robust network of redundant nodes with shifting hubs of economic activity, which helps close gaps of scarcity, and ensures a continuous trajectory toward equilibrium.

The right wing of the conservative movement in the U.S. has adopted the catchphrase "job creators" to characterize employers. The focus of a net-centric economy is on "wealth creators." That is the essential difference between a system that aims to control people, and one that aims for cooperative control of resources, in which individuals are maximally enfranchised to create, contribute and participate on their own terms.

Best,

Tom

Dear Tom I do not see how Russian pogroms and European anti-Semitism last century (the alleged "Protocols") justify what Israelis are doing in Palestine today. I agree we should stop here - it is not fair to those readers not interested in the details of this particular conflict. Humanity has to learn to steer the future through the quagmire of such conflicts, but we all must make an effort to understand the other side's views and positions.

Best wishes

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 12:34 GMT

This is the end of this dialogue for me. Just to be clear, though, the reference was not meant to address pogroms in Europe, it was directed toward the persistent hateful propaganda meant to de-legitimize the Jewish people with mythical bullshit. I know you made these uninformed remarks innocently, so I let it go once.

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 03:56 GMT

It is a difficult subject to discuss, and I think we have both made our positions clear, so as Popeye says 'enufk is enufk!".

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Ray

Your essay was very interesting to read and I do hope that it does well in the competition.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 16:38 GMT

Thanks, Joe!

Dear Tom,

Your essay is one of the few entries other than mine which has a political component, and like mine, it will probably thereby repel some readers. However, you also introduced a number of interesting concepts from complex systems theory. I agree that research in this area can only help us understand better how to steer the future as a society.

I liked the analogy with the cake and the knife, although I must admit it escaped me how the transition of the US to a service economy can be seen in terms of this metaphor as a transition from owning the cake to the control over the knife. Surely the US cannot be regarded as a "monolith", and if one considers individual service providers, is it not the case that one can find alternatives, particularly in Canada and Europe?

Also, I think the case if the 85 richest people voluntarily gave up part of their wealth they would end up in some sense "wealthier" is probably not going to convince them. Perhaps a bit more detail about how this could be implemented would have helped.

I am thinking in particular in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It seems that once one has reached the wealth level that one can get anything that money can buy, if there is still somewhere a "hole" that needs to be filled, then trying to fill it by acquiring ever more "stuff" is probably futile. It would seem more likely that the highest level of actualization could be achieved by looking into concrete ways how one can take on responsibility for (and thereby *claim ownership* of) aspects of making the world a better place. I wonder how many of the super-rich elite think about these things in that way, but I suspect not a large fraction. Bill Gates seems like a person who has given this thought and acted accordingly.

In any event, your essay is very eloquently written and makes some thought-provoking points.

All the best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 11:08 GMT

Armin, thank you so much for your thoughtful comments.

The reference to the 85 getting richer is actually a warning not to "eat the seed corn." The world economy has gotten to be a 2-tier system wherein a small group of the rich trade among themselves, which shrinks the capital resources of the poor and middle class. This is bad for everyone, including the rich, because they are treating capital as a commodity; the free market has become a worldwide case of insider trading, dependent on inflation to succeed and dependent on recession to sustain that success. It's a self-destructive loop, though, when recession becomes depression, the system crashes and everyone loses.

Another negative outcome of this dynamic is that it forces the wealthy to shift from controlling resources to controlling people -- we have created opportunity for the Rupert Murdochs and the Koch brothers of the world to openly subvert the democratic process (and it is getting even worse in the U.S., with a stream of partisan Supreme Court decisions in the last 15 years), because they have no more economic opportunity. Their success is not measured in good roads, safe buildings and clean water; it is measured in the extent to which they can influence social policy. This is a step backward to the robber barons of a century ago.

The cake-knife metaphor is meant to underscore the difference between control of people and control of resources. If the former is relinquished, the latter has a chance to flourish -- and the lateral integration of communication with laterally distributed physical resources has the best chance to make it possible, in my opinion.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for your essay.

You wrote: "Modern capitalism has learned how to use political cover to protect itself against Marx’s prediction of over-production and under-consumption, by hedging losses and collecting rewards on economic downturns as well as on gains. " That is nicely put. However, the end game is yet to be played.

There seems to be a natural...

view entire post

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for your essay.

You wrote: "Modern capitalism has learned how to use political cover to protect itself against Marx’s prediction of over-production and under-consumption, by hedging losses and collecting rewards on economic downturns as well as on gains. " That is nicely put. However, the end game is yet to be played.

There seems to be a natural tendency for hierarchical systems of all scales to evolve into existence. Globalization makes this possible on the largest of scales. Somehow this must be discouraged.

Your distributed network of multi-scale variety would be the most stable, yet it does seem to require direction, planning, in order to achieve it. And how can the seed be planted? Wealth is becoming more concentrated, governments more compromised by it, societies slowly impoverished because of it.

Getting "The 85" to come on board seems problematic. I believe they see themselves has harmless, unlike the towering, lumbering giants they are, and no danger to the world economy which supports them. They do not consider Gulliver in Lilliput to be a lesson to them. It may require social trauma to get them to convert, yet they are insulated from it.

Your place for the US in the future global community seems optimistic. I believe the US has, by its recent behavior, disabused much of the world of its ability to be disinterested and impartial in the allocation of the planet's remaining resources. In any case what it seems, and I think this is your thought, the US would/should be exporting is knowledge in how the various localities should best manage their own resources, in keeping, so far as possible, with local geographic and social conditions.

I'm afraid the transition is not inevitable. It may, perhaps, be managed. Though perhaps something like Georgina Parry's 'sanctuaries' is the most realistic outcome.

Interesting and thought provoking throughout. Good luck.

Charles Gregory St Pierre

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 11:06 GMT

Charles, you made my day! A writer's greatest reward is a reader's understanding, and your spot on comments are music to my ears.

Yes, there is no incentive for "job creators" to be "wealth producers." They live in a world apart. It is just this insulation (and isolation) by the law of unintended consequences that compels their attention away from the control of resources to the control of people. The Lilliput metaphor is apt; he who seeks to control will be controlled.

On the other hand, well managed philanthropy and investment in capital development multiplies the potential to distribute control of resources, and in fact promises to increase individual accumulation and enjoyment of resources without depriving others of the same freedom. The potential for cooperation is a function of individual ability to act independently.

I agree that Georgina's prediction is very plausible. I am more optimistic. Instead of wealthy isolated communities (like latter day Rome, with gated garrisons to protect against barbarian invasions) -- I see lateral integration of resource access and communication as an 'invisible fence' that cannot be breached by force, and with a guarantee that there is no rational reason to try.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Dear Thomas,

The first comment is to rate you 10-highest rating for making your article "really scientific" It is entirely new I idea I will comment. I

I also found your "maintain global economic equilibrium" model nice. I discussed quite a lot about global equilibrium which I will want you to read. You will find additional insights in how to keep the equilibrium balance. Because of enormous entries, you can easily access my article here http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020 STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM

Your comment and rating are anticipated

Wishing you an astonishing reward in this competition.

Regards

Gbenga

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 7, 2014 @ 04:44 GMT

Thanks, Gbenga!

Tom,

I enjoyed reading your essay. It is well written, well thought well documented and actual. About your question

"What would persuade a money farm collective of 85 megabillionaires to turn over all their capital to the rest of the world - voluntarily, because it would serve their own best interests and make them richer?"

I understand it to be rhetorical, because how can they be convinced they will be richer by turning over all their capital? Wouldn't they become as poor as any other guy in the world? However, despite his immense donations, Bill Gates is again the richest man in the world. But obviously not because he donated that much. And clearly Bill Gates doesn't donate to be the richest man. He and others (like those sponsoring this contest and funding FQXi) donate to help as much as possible. So, I think that rich people will help others if they will find a higher value in helping others rather than having much more than they can care. But we live in a world which values more being rich, than saving lives and helping. Moreover, we are thought that the best way to help others is not by donations, but by selling them products and services, and by teaching them to do the same. And most of the products/services which are sold are bubbles. Money is very expensive, but a thought can cost nothing, and yet be invaluable. If half of those 85 will have the thought that they should help others as much as they can, they will do it happily.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 9, 2014 @ 09:53 GMT

Thank you, Cristi. The question about the 85 was not entirely rhetorical:

You write, "... how can they be convinced they will be richer by turning over all their capital? Wouldn't they become as poor as any other guy in the world?"

Because they are not donating -- they are investing -- the capital generates proportionately more resources for them as for those using the investment. That the uber rich are a socialist collective growing money instead of spinach is straight from Marx's prediction of overproduction/underconsumption; ultimately when they have starved the world of capital, they will have starved themselves as well. No one has need of money in a starving world -- as Ghandi put it, to the poor, "God dare not appear in any other form than bread."

The key idea here is to replace the control of people in a hierarchical society, with rational use and control of the greatest variety of laterally distributed resources. That's not socialism -- collectivization is socialism. Capitalist collectives are no more productive than peasant collectives, in the long run.

Hierarchical rule is not rational. Investing in, growing and sharing the diversity of the world's resources, is.

All best,

Tom

Tom,

It isn't often we agree, but since we do and you have given me so much to bounce off of over the years, I thought I'd give you a bump. The only thing I ask in return is that in some future argument, you step back a few moments and try to see my logic before responding.

Regards,

John

report post as inappropriate

Tom,

I appreciate your comments on my essay and I'm happy to see that your introduction notes both the fundamental failure of Marxism and the fundamental genius of the U.S. Constitution. Your first few pages review current problems and we're much in agreement there. And I agree that prosperous middle-class societies tend to be more ideal in their behaviors than the extremes. How to develop such appears to be the problem.

I found your section "sharing resources without redistribution" to contain interesting ideas such as: unless one can exchange what one values for what one values more, it isn't wealth. And your observation of wealth distribution as analogous to heat dissipation toward equilibrium. Also like your definition of states rights--and your hope/design in which "down to the least element-the individual-can be effective without sacrificing self-determination to a hierarchical order." And the incredibly lop-sided distribution ("the 85") needs a solution that doesn't turn everything upside down. If your 'sideways' offers a solution, I missed it.

I liked your discussion of Bar-Yam and scaffolding, as an attempt to answer the problem: "how can one help when help creates dependency?" His "multi-scale variety" as opposed to monolithic totalitarian "equality" seems to support the 50 states as experimental laboratories, with your definition of states rights.

And without quoting your bottom line, I do tend to agree with it. And with your comment to Vladimir above about "a government of laws, not men" as being the only possible basis for hope of any solution to our problems.

Thanks again for reading my essay and for writing yours.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 15:41 GMT

Thanks, Edwin. This topic, while not completely tractable to hard science, is probably the most profound -- or at least, timely -- that FQXi has suggested so far.

To try and answer -- " ... the incredibly lop-sided distribution ('the 85') needs a solution that doesn't turn everything upside down. If your 'sideways' offers a solution, I missed it."

What does it mean for a person to...

view entire post

Thanks, Edwin. This topic, while not completely tractable to hard science, is probably the most profound -- or at least, timely -- that FQXi has suggested so far.

To try and answer -- " ... the incredibly lop-sided distribution ('the 85') needs a solution that doesn't turn everything upside down. If your 'sideways' offers a solution, I missed it."

What does it mean for a person to be wealthy? I'm not speaking of the platitudinous -- wisdom, health and all the other substitutes for comfortable living that we preach to the poor, to try and convince them that they are better off for being poor, than having to bear the 'burden' of having money. I mean real comforts and privileges -- entitlements as human beings, to food, clothing, shelter, education and mobility.

We have been conditioned to think that were resources distributed equally, all would be poor. That conditioning is tied to the transparent motive that servitude to others' needs is requisite to anyone owning enough resources to enjoy life to the fullest. This primitive myth undermines the fact that all individuals' talents and abilities carry potential to increase the common good, to multiply wealth. Equality is not a matter of equal ownership; it is a matter of equal use. Equality is not a matter of equal opportunity; it is a matter of equal access.

In a world of lifetime free education and perpetual mobility, maximal access and use does not imply equal distribution of resources. It implies continuous and effective distribution; i.e., in contrast to the 'trickle down' philosophy of the putative 'job creators' (who do not in fact create jobs, only more wage slavery), the emphasis is on the free flow of wealth rather than a restrictive trickle. What universal entitlements to education and mobility effectively restrict, is the power of a few people to influence social policy by trickling money to their own preferred interests. Wealth and comfort should be measured in the variety of resources that individuals can apply to their own enjoyment and creativity, rather than restricting the ability of others to do the same. That controlling mechanism has to be checked, before individual wealth-creating abilities can be realized.

When wealth flows freely, even the very rich benefit from an all you can eat buffet. One is free to stay and stuff oneself, or to be sated and walk away -- to know that one has the choice, though, is the only true gauge of freedom.

Best,

Tom

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tom,

Thanks for your kind comment for my essay. We share the same idea that not only a free-lunch system is possible but it is mandatory. I pointed out in my essay that the no-free-lunch system is based on the false myth that the no free lunch system is the eternal truth. This is false! We can have a free-lunch system powered by KQID free-lunch engine. I agreed your argument here: "Point is, the metastability of the system over time suggests that a continually shifting range of activity represented by changing hub configurations is self limiting; as a result, the global domain is largely protected from the danger of positive feedback – i.e., a loss of system control and potential widespread self- reinforcing destruction. In the history of the world wars, one can identify such unchecked feedback of escalating hostilities. Even in the present world, one can make a good argument that the specter of damaging positive feedback, festering in individual areas of the world – among failed governments, local armed resistance to despotic regimes, piracy, organized crime and racketeering, human trafficking – is tinder for a future conflagration."

Let us fight together to debunk this false myth. I rated your original unique essay a full ten (10) that it deserves.

I wish you well always,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 18:53 GMT

Thank you so much, Leo. My confidence grows daily that we can guide the future toward the peace and prosperity we were meant to enjoy as human beings, free and equal.

All best,

Tom

Dear Tom.

I totally and completely enjoyed reading your writing. Thank you for making me think. You've motivated me to read some of Bar-Yam's work. Any works, in addition to your references?

Having read your essay twice, this is what I understand as the meaning of "Sideways" : As things stand, science plays only a minor role in 'steering' while the major role is with the hands/minds doing the 'steering'; These hands/minds are well-meaning but so very deficient that today all we should do is ask a different question: How do we arrange to use science for good?" Am I half-way there?

At the risk of shooting myself in the foot, I'd like to invite you to comment on my essay (here). I come from much the same thinking as I see you express but I think I've come up with a way for "the least element - the individual - can be effective". Please let me know what you think of my way.

I can't find the words to express how much the following kinds of statements/quotes mean to me:

- "right of people to self-determination"

- "Peaceful coexistence need not require complete integration"

- "control of the knife is equal to owning the cake"

- "how can one help when help creates dependency?"

If you will allow me to suggest just one phrase, you might consider adding to a future version of your essay. it is: 'History is written by the victor"

-- Ajay

report post as inappropriate

Ajay Bhatla replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 19:22 GMT

The logout issue again! The above comment is from me.

-- Ajay

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 13:35 GMT

Thank you kindly, Ajay.

Yaneer Bar-Yam is Professor and President of the New England Complex System Institute. You should be able to find all the information you want, at the site.

"How do we arrange to use science for good?" I think is more than halfway there. Further, I think the question is how we manage to effectively cooperate, with our individual talents, in using the objective method of science to create a more fulfilling life for us all.

I know that "History is written by the victor(s)" is a popular saying. However, I don't accept that history is ever completed. The goal is to help ensure a continuous state of cooperation that obviates the need for victors. In that way, we all win.

Best,

Tom

Ajay Bhatla replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 16:47 GMT

Tom,

Thank you for making me aware of the Institute. I will check it out.

Your point with individual talents is right on. Free to figure out how to make the something in their head (the true purpose in play) real using individual innate talents is the remedy I propose.

Your point "history is (n)ever completed" is right on.

-- Ajay

report post as inappropriate

Tom,

I found that a certainly well intentioned essay, or perhaps two thirds of an essay with a valid argument from a particular perspective. My view is the result of being born in Sri-Lanka, raised in the region, spending time in Australia and (both) the Americas and being involved in universities in various countries in Europe. That my father was a churchman and missionary (as well as (mathematician) help explain.

Two things then jump out at me. First how close the models and ideals are to those ostensibly underlying the British Commonwealth, which encompassed the largest ever empire (on which the sun proverbially never set) which was born, as all are, of rather less altruism. Equality of resource, education and tangible goods and 'gates' in well defined fences were founding principles.

The commonwealth still exists in residue. It's interesting to see how it evolved, and how individualism often overcame reliance on others. With reliance comes subjugation. Now even many in Scotland seek 'independence'.

The second strong impression was of parochialism in your view, even an underlying arrogance born of a limited viewpoint. Your conversation with Vladimir also exposed that. Have you spent any time outside the USA Tom?

I won't mark any essay down on such grounds, but I think you should remember the subject it about mankind not Americans. The USA was originally a small part of the aforementioned empire. Many nations have waxed and waned in influence and wealth, many have made the mistake of arrogance. I hope that won't continue, and perhaps it will be mankind's greatest step when we can all see beyond that. I'm concerned about my own field, and argue that major advancement in the way we think may have the greater and longer effect.

I found yours a rather difficult read. Perhaps not all exceptional but with enough value, good intent and interest to warrant a good score.

I wish you luck in the judging.

Judy

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 17, 2014 @ 23:48 GMT

Judy, I'm afraid your comments reveal more about your own parochialism and provincialism than mine. Yes, in fact I have spent a great deal of my life outside the USA both as a resident and business traveler.

You can't have read my essay with any care, and concluded that it is about America.

I will try and read your essay -- and I wish you well also -- even though the word "eugenics" hits the same button with me as "ethnic cleasing."

Best,

Tom

Judy Nabb replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 23:46 GMT

Tom,

I feared that may be your response. You wrote off Vladimirs valid viewpoint in the same way. I recognise the same arrogance the British had in the early days of empire I'm sure the Romans were the same and more 'home centred' than the British. We seem condemned to repeat the errors of the past purely by lack of self awareness.

I agree there's nothing wrong with your raising that proposition, but am pointing out there are important lessons which can be learned from the past. Is it a little arrogance or just poor research that condemns us to re-learn them?

Thanks for your comment on mine which I've responded to. You again seem to think mistakenly that I'm supporting eugenics. I flag up the issues and problems because they are NOT addressed, as was your tendency, but must be.

Judy

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 04:16 GMT

Judy, we disagree on who owns the arrogance. Appeals to historicism always disregard that there are a multitude of trajectories from past initial conditions that could have led to the present condition. To choose one as the 'true' cause is the pinnacle of arrogance, in my opinion.

Were self determination guaranteed, we would know -- as Ajay implied -- that history need not be written by...

view entire post

Judy, we disagree on who owns the arrogance. Appeals to historicism always disregard that there are a multitude of trajectories from past initial conditions that could have led to the present condition. To choose one as the 'true' cause is the pinnacle of arrogance, in my opinion.

Were self determination guaranteed, we would know -- as Ajay implied -- that history need not be written by the victors; rather, that the free and aware population is victorious over history.

We don't need hierarchies, whether they are the hierarchies of historical determinism, or of intelligence, religious superiority, genetics ... the only improving that we need is the freedom to improve each others' capacity to appreciate each others' contributions. In that framework, one would find no more reason to discuss the ethics of eugenics than to discuss the ethics of torture. The ethical thing is not to value those things at all.

My reply to Vladimir emphasized one trajectory of history -- that Jews have continuously lived in Palestine (Judea, Samaria, Galillee) under oppressive religious and political rule, for thousands of years. Vladimir emphasized another trajectory of history -- the recent dispossession of Palestinian Arabs by Jewish immigrants escaping European oppression. Neither initial condition is false; one can write one's own history of the outcome from each initial condition, and both versions would be true.

The challenge is to make the history we want, not that which has programmed us. We are bigger than our history, bigger than our genetic makeup, bigger than our politics and our superstitions. We will never know it, however, until we dare to dissolve the hierarchical thinking that protects and reinforces those beliefs.

If science has an answer, I am persuaded that the key is in Bar-Yam's result: "In considering the requirements of multi-scale variety more generally, we can state that for a system to be effective, it must be able to coordinate the right number of components to serve each task, while allowing the independence of other sets of components to perform their respective tasks without binding the actions of one such set to another."

Best,

Tom

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Thomas,

I agree with you that small, local and redundant systems, linked laterally in a robust global network, are the way to go if we want to successfully steer the future of humanity. For this idea to work, we will need the citizens of the world to be knowledgeable about the issues that are the most important for the future, so I see a natural synergy between what you propose and my call for a worldwide Futurocentric Education Initiative. Sideways we shall succeed!

I have now rated your essay. Good luck in the contest!

Marc

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 10:02 GMT

Thanks, Marc! It's encouraging to see so many of us on the same page. The future is looking closer and brighter all the time.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

I applaud your application of lateral thinking to complex system interactions. I confess I was struggling to find rating credits up to page 4 but then the coherent and valid theme emerged. It did seem an interesting new take in redistribution of 'wealth' (as a wealth of resources is none the less wealth) You considered the dependency issue, though I'm not entirely convinced there's an...

view entire post

Tom,

I applaud your application of lateral thinking to complex system interactions. I confess I was struggling to find rating credits up to page 4 but then the coherent and valid theme emerged. It did seem an interesting new take in redistribution of 'wealth' (as a wealth of resources is none the less wealth) You considered the dependency issue, though I'm not entirely convinced there's an answer, but didn't go into the question of national self esteem of states not really wanting long term help (possibly they link it to [in]dependence too). On the matter of how practical it is I have my doubts, but none the less the work needed raising.

I delayed reading yours as I was rather interested in who faced reading mine first. Yourself, Richard, or perhaps Joy. I wonder if it was fate that's pushed us together in the scoring for amusement!? You've studiously failed to comment on my model, so determinedly that it may speak more than anything you could write. I'm not concerned but must smile.

I do understand your faithful commitment to Joy's cause, but hope that doesn't drag you into scientific dishonesty. We get enough of that, spiced with arrogance. Whatever 'spin' R.G. represent I suggest Red and Green are not equivalent to emitted quantum 'spin up' and 'down'. Statistics assumes they are because otherwise it seems statisctics may be as irrelevant as Bell, so black will become white in the quantum world!

I understand why you didn't comment on the mathematical theory you asked for, it was self apparent, as the logic I present. But please do be honest in reviewing the geometrical dynamics in my essay. Once the concept of reversal of 'finding' with reversal of analyser EM field is applied then the logic re-emerges. I still feel it completes the 'theory' which Joy doesn't attempt to derive. It's certainly a 'step on' from where Bloch spheres were left. I look forward to you views. I genuinely think, however the step is made, unifying QM and SR will prove the greatest single leap mankind will ever have made, so the greatest bit of real positive 'steering' possible. I think it's really all about cause and effect.

Back to yours. There are a number I'm not scoring yet and yours is one (and I certainly won't score it down as so many have). I do also genuinely wish you well in the results. But as Christian and I proved last year, the community scoring counts for nought in the end.

Best wishes

Peter

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 16:45 GMT

Peter,

Is this forum about you, or about the subject of my essay?

Best,

Tom

Peter Jackson replied on May. 24, 2014 @ 15:22 GMT

Tom,

Are some subjects taboo to you? I think honesty requires none in science should be.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 24, 2014 @ 15:50 GMT

Peter, I am compelled to repeat: Is this forum about you, or about the subject of my essay?

Hi Ray,

I think very highly of your entry. Complex systems analysis is very important for understanding economics, our intuition is inadequate or perhaps has been jaded by too much emotional history.

I do wish you could have made a presentation to that would have made your insights "visualizable", so that it could register with the majority of us.

I got just enough insight to have started a study of Bar-Yam. I have tried to give you 20 points...is that ethical?

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 12:00 GMT

Thanks, Don! As they say, vote early and vote often. :-)

I agree, the subject is made more comprehensible with visuals. The approach I took is too broad to accommodate the rich supply of graphic images that are in my primary references -- Lim et al's Science article, Strogatz's Sync, and others. One great source of visual drama that I didn't reference is James Gleick's classic, Chaos, the Making of a New Science. The new edition of the book includes a mention of Bar-Yam and The New England Complex Systems Institute. The NECSI site I referenced earlier in this forum is probably the best place to satisfy your visual cravings.

I'll hop over to your essay site and comment.

All best,

Tom

Tom, there are a lot of interesting ideas to discuss in your essay. It's great to see someone approach this question by considering human civilization as a complex adaptive system. The institutional structure of society goes a long way to determining how productive, equitable, and resilient we are. As you say in your comment on my essay, our diversity is a strength. We have to take full advantage of that diversity.

What I didn't quite get from your essay—perhaps because I simply failed to understand—is what specific reforms you would make. I am still not quite sure what exactly it would mean to distribute communications technology and resources laterally or what exactly a globally-linked supply chain controlled by high tech information systems in a robust network would look like. It became more clear in the last few paragraphs, but still I wanted more.

In any case, I hope your essay does well, Tom. Best of luck in the contest!

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 11:21 GMT

Thanks, Robert. As you know, I also have high regard for your entry, and I do hope it gets the attention it deserves.

What I mean by "a globally-linked supply chain controlled by high tech information systems in a robust network" is basically a logistics network with high redundancy -- meaning that trading partners are all equally protected against economic, social and natural disasters. If one hub fails, the others quickly help fill the gap and give it time to recover; the net result is to help ensure a continuous trajectory toward global economic equilibrium, i.e., to keep the system out of equilibrium just to the degree that local prosperity contributes to the health of the network and doesn't make the whole body ill by creating a positive (out of control) feedback loop of negative global consequences.

All best,

Tom

Robert de Neufville replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 20:35 GMT

Thanks for the explanation, Tom (and for the support!). I think I understand better now. I guess my next question is, who ensures that the supply chain is globally-linked in this way? Does this emerge from the choices of private actors under some system of regulation? Or do governments mandate the structure of the network centrally? Or is the network made redundant and robust in some other way?

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 18:05 GMT

Strange thing, Robert. I replied to your excellent questions last night, and the reply appeared to post. Then next thing I knew, the browser (on all my internet devices) could not find the FQXi site, even though no other site was affected, and I've only been able to get back on just now. Anyway, I'll try and reconstruct:

I think it doesn't matter whether private or government interests manage the local supply chain. And local government regulation shouldn't be necessary, because of global feedback to the system, that make it self regulating. The keys are redundancy, inventory transparency, and coordination of transportation resources to transfer goods. An entity can be disconnected from the network for failure to cooperate, but that wouldn't be of any benefit to the non-cooperating node, nor catastrophically harmful to the remaining network members. Redundancy fills the gaps, whether a member drops out, or when needed to manage natural disasters or other economically damaging events. The risk is spread equitably, and the system should have the effect as well, of helping equalize the labor market to prevent unfair competition.

Once the supply chain at every node is filled to redundancy with essentials, the network members can concentrate on creating new goods to trade, generating more wealth, more creativity in perpetuity.

All best,

Tom

show all replies (2 not shown)

Robert de Neufville replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 18:40 GMT

The same thing happened to me, Tom. It now tells me when I've already rated an essay—which I don't think it did before, right?—so I think they did some kind of site update that somehow deleted the most recent activity.

My concern as a political scientist is always that instituting a new structure and making it self-sustaining is generally much harder than designing it, especially if—as is essentially always the case—individual incentives don't align with what is best for the group.

In any case, thanks for the discussion!

Best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 02:58 GMT

Robert, I hope our dialogue doesn't end with the contest. I share your concerns that a designed system is not self sustaining. That is why I prefer a robust, self organized system which is self limiting; i.e., it is to be seen that maximized degrees of freedom for the least elements of the system increase cooperation.

I briefly caught a segment today, on Stephen Hawking's new TV show that explores new technology. It included a piece on robotic cooperation -- two or three flying robots were able to perform complicated tasks (throwing and balancing a stick on end, catching and throwing a ball in a net) not feasible for one or two to do alone. Fascinating stuff.

Best,

Tom

hide replies

Hi Tom,

Outstanding essay! And I have not slowly read the entire thing (I usually scan and then go back for a more through read). But from my brief scan this is a great essay. Also it nicely touches on an important issue that I did not touch on in my essay but about which I have strong opinions -- this is the issue of loop sided wealth distribution. Actually I knew the distribution was bad...

view entire post

Hi Tom,

Outstanding essay! And I have not slowly read the entire thing (I usually scan and then go back for a more through read). But from my brief scan this is a great essay. Also it nicely touches on an important issue that I did not touch on in my essay but about which I have strong opinions -- this is the issue of loop sided wealth distribution. Actually I knew the distribution was bad but not to the extent that the 85 richest have the same wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion. This is not good or natural and moreover it is this kind of lopsided wealth distribution that stifles progress in almost anything (science, politics, bettering society, etc.)

You may find of interest (or already have seen) one of the banned TED talks which deals with the issue of trickle down economics which you mention in you essay (I'm not so sure trickle down is dead by the way -- reference 6 notwithstanding. People use this still to justify unnatural wealth distribution. Anyway the banned video is "Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs" " TED talks are supposed to be thought provoking but the sponsors are themselves rich and it seems this talk was a bit too thought provoking and hit a bit close to home. Hanauer (who hiimself is some kind of invest type/money manager compares trickle down to the old idea that the Sun (and everything else0 went around the Earth. It's just wrong.

The idea of MAP (Mutual Assured Posterity) or as I heard it described "a rising tide that floats all boats equally" is possible and is in fact a good idea if it can be implemented. But there can be a hitch in the implementation. The place where I heard this expression about rising tides floating every boat equally was at some meeting in Thailand which was focused on ASEAN (a conglomeration of 10 Southeast Asian countries -- Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, Myanmar -- which represents a huge labor force and huge economic market). If the ASEAN countries are combined (and if they really and fully did cooperate with one another) they represent an economic force in the region on par with China. But the poorer member states (Laos, Cambodia) are always wary of the richer states (Singapore, Malaysia) using them as pawns. And all the ASEAN countries are aware that the US support might simply be a way to use ASEAN as a pawn to counter Chinese influence in the region. If the ASEAN countries would really and fully cooperate with one another this would be a powerful economic block in the region. But there is a lot if mistrust so it's unclear if ASEAN will realize this potential.

Anyway excellent essay! Good luck with the contest.

Best,

Doug

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 03:49 GMT

Wow, thanks, Doug. I was not even aware that there are banned TED talks. It is demonstrably true, though, that trickle down economics is a myth, and that 'job creators' is simply another term for the philosophy supporting master-slave relationships. Plenty of jobs in the field, for plantation owners to fill.

I agree there are substantial political barriers to overcome, worldwide, before individuals can effectively self-organize a robust supply and communication network that renders politics incapable of controlling individual destinies, and social policy is a rationally cooperative endeavor rather than coercion.

That is why I emphasize education and mobility as human entitlements. I don't think we can succeed without personal commitment to maximum individual freedom.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 11:50 GMT

Well, I watched Nick Hanauer's 5 minute talk ... this was banned? I suppose my essay would be banned as well -- he said everything I meant to say, and much more eloquently than I. Nick Hanauer, spread the word.

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 12:07 GMT

Here's the problem with getting the word out, in a nutshell. Paid propaganda from talking heads who haven't any background or knowledge in economics or science, shouting down those who do. It's due to change, very soon.

show all replies (2 not shown)

Douglas Alexander Singleton replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 15:17 GMT

Hi Tom,

I'm glad the Hanauer video resonated with you. Also how can a TED talk get banned? They are supposed to make you think.

I wanted to follow up on your solutions of education and mobility. These are exactly what need to be parts of the solution. People need to be able to logically and based on data come to conclusions. In Fall 2004 I moved into a low rent apartment in Fresno. I was between a Fulbright leave of absence to Moscow and a sabbatical to Costa Rica in Spring 2005 so I needed the cheapest place to stay and save up some money for the one semester I was back. My neighbors in this apartment complex were nice although they thought it odd that someone making what they viewed as "good money" would live there. Most of them worked one or more minimum wage jobs. Anyway this was around the time of the Bush-Kerry Presidential election and I was surprised to see as the election approached Bush-Cheney poster sprouting from the windows of several of my neighbors. No Kerry posters. This made absolutely no sense. All my neighbors were living barely above what is considered the poverty line in the US and yet they were supporting the party that was basically big business. In talking with them most were "educated" by one of the many conservative "news" programs (e.g. Fox News, O'Reilly Factor, etc.). These shows had "educated" them to think that *they* were at fault for their situation. They just needed to work harder and if they did they too would "make it". The reality was that the system was rigged and almost all of them would continue to work in these minimum wage dead end jobs. One can debate the merits of supporting big business vs. having a wider social net, better education (real education), etc. but it is really bizarre when people have been propagandized to such a degree they can not see their own best interest.

Anyway I really liked your essay. Best of luck.

Doug

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 16:20 GMT

Thanks again, Doug. You know I really liked your essay, too:

" ... every path makes some contribution."

We belong to a mutual admiration society. :-)

All best,

Tom

hide replies

Hi Tom,

Great essay! It is well argued and filled with interesting facts and connections. I agree with most of what you wrote, and I specially liked the section "The science of keeping the gates open".

Good luck in the contest,

Mohammed

report post as inappropriate

Dear Thomas

Just to let you know that I read your interesting essay. I think it is well thought and written. I can see that we share some points in common, specially your view on the wealthiest and the basic needs of humanity. I foresee war and economic collapse in the following two or three decades. This will depend on China's ambitions and goals. After this, the USA may lose global power and nationalism will revive. This is quite evident, the USA hasn't been able to administer wealthiness and democracy is not longer the ideal it used to be.

Thanks for reading my essay and leaving some comments, I appreciate it.

Good luck in the contest!

Best Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 22:17 GMT

Israel,

I admit your prediction is a bleak possibility, though I believe that we will yet regain our sanity and change the trajectory.

Best,

Tom

Hi Tom,

As I told you in my FQXi page, I have read your interesting and peculiar Essay. Here are my comments:

1) Concerning Lysenkoism, my research field, i.e. astrophysics and gravitational physics, was more lucky in Soviet science than evolutionary biology because of the existence of the famous research group of Yakov B. Zel'dovich.

2) I did not know Eninstein's definition of "insanity". It is enlightening.

3) I think that your statement "Democracy is clearly losing the battle for freedom of education" is one of the biggest problems of the whole world today and the issue that 85 individuals out of seven billion people own and control as much wealth as fully half of the total world population is, partially, a consequence of that statement.

4) I hope that the conclusion by Lim et al. that "Peaceful coexistence need not require complete integration" will be correct as, sadly, I do not think a real complete integration to be possible in our society.

5) Although I am not an economist, I appreciate your explaining of the early 21st century's economic problems.

6) I did not know "mathematical biology" by G. Chaitin, but I surely endorse the idea that the power to understand our physical world can be increased through abstract modelling. This is consistent with my preferred Einstein's aphorism that "Imagination is more important than knowledge" and it is also the main reason because I work on theoretical physics.

In any case, you wrote a very beautiful Essay. I will give you an high score.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 17:26 GMT

Thanks Christian! I'll find time for a detailed reply later -- traveling now.

All best,

Tom

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 15:42 GMT

Christian,

I appreciate your emphasis on Einstein's much-misinterpreted "Imagination is more important that knowledge."

You're exactly right that Einstein meant to suggest that theory is primary to discovery. The whole meaning of science as a rationalist enterprise is contained in that simple statement.

I have already given your essay my high score -- all best in the competition!

Tom

Hi Tom,

I think your idea of a "a globally-linked supply chain controlled by high tech information systems in a robust network" is an interesting one. I see how this would help to recover from disasters, but you also seemed interested in reducing inequality--- is that right? If so, how does the supply chain help with this?

Thanks!

Best of luck,

Daniel

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 17:24 GMT

Hi Daniel,

Quick cooperative relief from any sort of disaster has everything to do with equality. Ask the victims of Hurricane Katrina what they think.

Best,

Tom

Hi Thomas,

This is a genuinely interesting and exciting concept; one which I hope is given as thorough consideration in its evaluation as has clearly gone into its writing.

Despite the emphasis on technological progress put into my and other essays, I sincerely value the evaluation of the social and political context in which technology has developed, is developing, and will continue (hopefully) to develop. It seems clear and certain that technological enhancement without philosophy enhancement is not sufficient to protect our species (from ourselves, and from external existential threats that we might hope to avoid).

Thank you again for such a thoughtful entry. Best regards in this contest, and in all other things.

=)

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 15:04 GMT

Thanks, Alex! I think your entry deserves top consideration as well.

Best,

Tom

Readers,

To pass along some relevant news, the PLOS open access journal has published a paper co-authored by some of my NECSI associates, "Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence."

Also, the book referenced in my essay to be published by Springer this year -- to which I contributed a chapter, "Net-Centric Logistics: Complex systems science aims for moving targets" -- will be out sometime soon, so I hope that all of you who expressed interest will be on the lookout. I will post a publication date when available.

All best,

Tom

Readers,

Excessive demands are leading to burnout everywhere.

More evidence that our global plantation-type economy is failing and bringing about the demise the human race is reflected in the statistic that only 13% of workers in 142 countries are satisfied in their work. Even in the U.S. alone, the figure is only 30%. How long does one believe we can endure this trajectory before something bad happens?

My 23 May issue of Science just came in the mail. The special issue is devoted to "Haves and Have Nots: The Science of Inequality."

The magazine comes with my AAAS membership. If you're not a member, buy it at the newsstand. It's the best 10 bucks you'll ever spend, if you want to be informed on the growing crisis, and especially if you want to help do something about it.

All best,

Tom

Readers,

The referenced book by Springer, *Conflict and Complexity: Countering Terrorism, Insurgency, Ethnic and Regional Violence* is published.

http://www.springer.com/physics/complexity/book/97
8-1-4939-1704-4

Tom