Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Peter Jackson: on 8/25/14 at 12:53pm UTC, wrote Stefan, I'm safely back from interacting with natures elements. I posted a...

KoGuan Leo: on 6/11/14 at 7:09am UTC, wrote Hi Stefan, Interesting observation. I studied economics all of my life, I...

Denis Frith: on 6/5/14 at 11:27am UTC, wrote Stefan You highlight a major problem in the operation of society without...

Janko Kokosar: on 6/4/14 at 18:12pm UTC, wrote Dear Stefan Weckbach This year you changed a topic from consciousness and...

Stefan Weckbach: on 6/2/14 at 18:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Edwin, i communicated with John quiet a bit here and, i think, on his...

Edwin Klingman: on 6/2/14 at 2:51am UTC, wrote Dear Stefan, As you note, there is the problem of redesign, and then the...

Stefan Weckbach: on 6/1/14 at 10:05am UTC, wrote Dear Edwin, thanks for your comments. I am glad you agree on a needed...

Edwin Klingman: on 5/31/14 at 22:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Stefan Weckbach, I enjoyed your essay quite a lot. In general I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
May 20, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: This is no joke! by Stefan Weckbach [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 13:35 GMT
Essay Abstract

One really huge problem of humanity is something very abstract, namely bits and bytes, that leads to very concrete global problems, namely impoverishment. Banks do create money out of nothing per accounting record, loan it and demand it back with huge interest rates. A non-bank cannot create money out of nothing, so the only way to pay back the debts is to redistribute existing money (via legal or criminal acts) or to take another loan - which then needs to be payed back with further interest rates. Distribution fights, corruption and deception are the natural results of those kinds of zero sum games. It is time to think about our fiat money system also in scientific circles, because every (further) scientific research and developement needs money that maybe could be diminished in the near future due to the ongoing financial crisis on our planet.

Author Bio

The author's main scientific interests are mathematical undecidability, algorithmic information theory, questions concerning consciousness, human free will and logics. Additionally he is interested in various interpretational questions about quantum mechanics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 20:49 GMT
Stefan,

I am surprised more people don't recognize this enormous wealth vacuum as the overwhelming problem with the world today. Congratulations for being one to notice the elephant in the room!

While you do a very good job of laying out the dimensions of the problem, in my entry, I try to place it in a broad conceptual context.

My argument about the nature of money is that it is a contract, which we treat as a commodity. State/fiat currencies are in fact backed by something, the health, wealth and productivity of the community issuing that currency. The irony is that by treating them as commodities to be collected, rather than contracts to be honored, the health and wealth of the community is in fact being drained and eventually the currency becomes worthless, because it is no longer backed by a viable institution. A pathetic, sick joke, all the way around.

Regards,

John Merryman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 22:39 GMT
Dear John,

thanks for having thought about what really rules our "modern" world - money. The whole dynamics of money as a debt (yes, money is a contract) has brainwashed humanity since it was invented as a certificate of debt. Whenever you spend a banknote, it is another one's certificate of debt that you gained and now resell.

Most people do not think for themselves, so they believe all what has been narrated to them. Another reason for the lack of consciousness for how the monetary system does work is, that most people haven't enough time or energy to penetrate the whole issue. They are too much absorbed by the problems the monetary system has imposed on them. Surly a certain ability to think in abstract pictures might help to fully grasp it. But i am convinced - almost everybody can - in one or two days, penetrating the issue.

My issue with the essay is to animate people to further inform themselves. At the internet, there are tons of documentaries about the global money system. Here are some excellent ones for those who may interested:

For the British: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcGh1Dex4Yo

For the Americans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

For the Germans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dADLUguroSs

Greetings,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 03:13 GMT
Stefan,

I agree it isn't a difficult concept to understand for someone willing to make the effort, but I find most people really do not want to go outside the lines they have already accepted, especially since anyone who has any influence over other people, does so because they function well within the system. Catch 22 there.

The fact does remain that it is an enormous bubble and debt bubbles always pop, but we just happen to be in the most monumental one in history, thanks in large part to the technology that allows it to be global and sophisticated enough to seep into just about every pore of every society.

My thought though, is that this will create a correspondingly large opportunity for radical change.

So even if people don't seem to hear, or pay attention on a conscious level, that doesn't matter, because you are planting seeds in their minds, so that after the system freezes up again and their notational security blanket gets some serious holes in it, these ideas will start sprouting up like grass after the rain.

Good Luck!

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 04:53 GMT
I did appreciate your message Stefan..

I could hardly say I enjoyed your essay, but you tell it like it is. There is a lot of bad Math on Wall Street, which tends to compound the problem of which you speak. Derivatives are an abomination, which to my mind were a major cause of the 2008 market crash. And people are so easily deceived by the money makers. They are treated like authorities, because they have something other people want, but in many cases their greatest talent is misleading others about the relative risk of investments - so they can maximize their own take (both coming and going).

Despite your brevity and lack of detail, you go directly to the source of one of the greatest standing problems which could prevent mankind from steering its future if not dealt with. I wish you luck with this essay. If you have time, please check out mine too.

All the best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tihamer T. Toth-Fejel wrote on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 11:50 GMT
Dear Stefan,

You make a strong case against fiat money, but you did not address the arguments in favor of it.

You say that banks "make money out of nothing". In a sense that is true, but look what it gets you: a more productive society that works harder because it has incentives. If the velocity of money is zero, then not much happens. For example, a pound of gold sitting in the ground is worthless. A pound of gold that is dug out of the ground by a miner will feed his family and pay for the services he requires (doctor, dentist, shoemaker, etc.). But if the bank wouldn't have given him a loan in the first place to let him buy his equipment, then how would he have gotten the gold in the first place? Substitute any manufacturing or service industry for the gold in the ground. Banks don't just create money out of nothing, they create tons of essential products and services out of nothing.

As an example, look at Medieval society. They did not have fiat money, and the economy was stagnant. People were motivated by other goals, and did science and technology for fun in addition to their day job of 12 hours of back-breaking labor of subsistence farming. The major innovators were monks who were relatively isolated from economic deprivation because they were organized (e.g. Eilmer of Malmesbury, an English Benedictine monk who flew a glider early in the 11th century). Islamic countries try to ban interest rates (and thereby try to prohibit fiat money), and look what it buys them: even with Middle Eastern oil, they have (on average) the lowest standard of living in the world.

This is not to say that our modern economic system can't be improved (in terms of justice, efficiency, or stability). But rejecting it completely (as you seem to do) is not a realistic, humane, or smart answer.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 21:37 GMT
Dear Tihamer,

thank you for your comments on my essay.

Almost all of what you wrote can be considered as consistent by me.

But that does not mean that it will be also consistent in the future.

Every closed system has it's undeniable limits, so has our modern financial system. The picture i scribbled in my essay hopefully should reflect those limits. If the described dynamics holds on, we depart more and more from beginning to be a united worldwide society to becoming are a two-class society much similar to what Orwell's 1984 or Animal Farm wanted to point to.

Don't be wrong about this. In a two-class society of a very poor working-class and a very rich class of investors, the majority of the latter will not follow any agenda that has been published in this essay-contest. History tells us that they rather open up the last door financial capitalism has, namely war.

Capitalists hate market competitions and love huge social, economical and thermodynamical gradients, even if they pretend that they consider market competition as healthy and wishfull and social engagement as a goodness. Giving their money for urgently needed social and national projects does not fit into their thinking (that is also a closed system of certain values). Only the need for feeling like a super-privileged human being gives them their self-worth. Surely this is not really a "self-worth" by the very definition, and their subconsciousness knows this. Giving something to the ordinary society, for them means giving up their self-worth, it's a destruction of their self for them. That's the fear behind it and they would rather destroy others lifes than let such a thing happen (surely the exception also proves the rule here too). That's the subconscious agenda of the capital-junkies.

Bookmark and Share



James Dunn wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 14:22 GMT
The grand purpose of Common Sense is to plan for the future. Training the mind to have marketable skills, to save money incrementally to invest in something to generate greater returns (investment), to become involved with organizations that together represents influence to change the future from what otherwise is predicted to be less desirable.

As simple as a softball league. If a person were to rely upon who they knew, they might get enough people together to play a game a few times a year, with limited resources for improving personal skills. There would be no marketing of skills to obtain financial support. Play would occur in empty fields.

A league administrative structure allows for advertising to acquire a critical mass of players for playing a couple of times a week. Recruiting trainers/coaches to teach varying levels of skill enhancements. Marketing teams as advertising for businesses and funding park maintenance fees, uniforms, equipment, and in some cases paid referees.

Planning for the future is necessary, if we as a people want to avert total extinction events.

I believe the contrary to what you believe, that we must help every person to develop skills to better predict the future, and manage developments to ensure our developments occur. Not much different than building a designing and building a fighter aircraft. Managing the development of systems of systems.

But maybe I missed a point you were trying to make. If I did, can you rephrase your insight from a different perspective?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Dunn replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 15:29 GMT
Money that sits in a Reserve is of no value to an economy, it is not actively moving. So people that hord money are not creating an economic vacuum. The more they hold on to it, the more their assets lose value. So most wealthy people reinvest their wealth to create greater wealth (ROI).

This generally means greater numbers of economic transactions; economic cash flows.

What I don't like is where large companies buy out smaller companies to remove competition and/or remove competing technologies; to allow price fixing. A form of monopolizing markets regionally.

A battery company produced a car battery that could be completely discharged by putting a wrench across the terminals and it would not blow-up. After being completely discharged the wrench is kicked off (hot) and after 30 minutes the battery recharged itself enough to start the car.

Union Carbide used its influence to block the Battery Manufacturer (Staff of Life) from being able to purchase the materials to build their battery. Not being able to fill their contracts, they were forced out of business.

I believe it should be illegal for any corporation/business/person to block access to resources needed by other businesses to produce their products unless the same restriction applies to all businesses/persons without exception. Businesses should ONLY be allowed to enter into mutually beneficial agreements to benefit both businesses.

Drilling for Oil as another example:

http://ecowatch.com/2012/03/07/homeowners-and-gas-dr
illing-leases-boon-or-bust/

Oil companies can destroy aquifers supporting an entire region, with no "real" legal liability. The only time justice is served is when individuals attack soft targets at the highest levels to destroy corrupt administration of oil/gas processing; largest investors, stockholders, representatives and senators that vote in support of oil/gas negligent efforts ... (terrorism/vigilante/...). Unfortunately most terrorists I read about seem to be unknowing puppets of large corporations and they attack useless targets that just weaken their own intents. Eh, just venting.

Large systems of people are needed to prevent oil/gas companies from locking out the ethical influence of individuals. The trend seems to be to steal resources, sell related products, deplete resources, steal other resources, sell products ...

Corruption = Unethical Allocation of resources and/or opportunities

Legal System Corruption = Illegal Allocation of resources and/or opportunities

The vacuum you cite seems to be most strongly related to corruption.

I look forward to having your insights explained from a perspective that I can relate to. I think there is something here, I just can't get my head wrapped around it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 19:14 GMT
Dear James,

thanks for your comments, which i try to answer as good as i can.

You are totally right that the grand purpose of Common Sense is to plan the future. Besides other effects of Common Sense, like the feeling of togetherness and safety in an uncertain world, Common Sense is more or less a natural feeling, because the human brain (in my opinion) is a social and cooperative organ.

My point in the essay is, that more and more people on the planet can't anymore plan their personal lifes, because they either have one (or more) precarious jobs to do to earn the money to pay their bills and feed themselves. For them, there isn't enough money to save for their retirement pensions, so they can neither plan the near nor the far future.

Many other people are jobless, not due to their missing education, but due to several factors. Besides automation of technical processes the main agenda for the last 10 years - at least in Europe - was to economize.

Now the situation after Lehman Brothers and various quasi-bankrupt european countries is, that we have about 18 Million people than cannot survive financially without their nation's help in the EU. The nations debts worldwide add up to approximately 50 Trillion Dollars. Social equipment and infrastructure comes undone.

I think in the united states of america, the picture is much similar. The money to finance projects like the instauration of infrastructure in the electricity-sector is - potentially - existent in amounts of tons, but is mostly allocated in financial derivates instead of having been allocated into Common Sense projects.

There's no sense for me to enable tons of jobless (insolvent) people a huge loan to buy a home, instead of financing this money in the mentioned infrastructural projects. The result now is more national and public debts besides more private wealth that is allocated further in an anti-common sense.

As i described in my essay, most people in the civilized nations are further and further forced to work for lesser and lesser salaries. The agenda is "economizing" all affairs of the human life. Will this also affect the financiability of science? I think it will. Only projects that can generate a grater return will be financed. Independent of what those projects could do to the environment, animals, people and to nature as an ecological system.

One needs no huge fantasy to grasp in which direction the economization of all social and human affairs will bring us, namely to the direct opposite of what many essay-authors here consider to be necessary (to enable a better future for as much people on the planet as possible).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 19:41 GMT
Dear James,

i confused the english term "common sense" with what is in german language "Gemeinwohl" (common welfare).

Sorry for the mistake - please replace my term "Common sense" with "common welfare"!

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 20:45 GMT
James,

"So most wealthy people reinvest their wealth to create greater wealth (ROI)."

If I may butt in here, I would point out that a lot of that investment capital goes into government debt, which is public. So then it gets spent on many things, such as war and militaries, that have no investment value, but which the public must still pay off the bonds funding them. Even the various spin off attributes of government spending which do have potential to return value, are often sold off to private business. Without all this government borrowing, that wealth would lose value much more quickly, if it only had private borrowers to absorb it. The government then becomes part of the process by which those with excess wealth manage to use it siphon more wealth out of the public.

Regards,

John Merryman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 06:16 GMT
Neither you Stefan Weckmann nor you John Merryman did tell me something new. When I discussed with Edwin Klingman who measures energy in Dollars, I didn't try to mediate but to look for some truly basic questions behind your concerns.

To Edwin and many others, Alfred Nobel was in the first place a wealthy man, someone who felt great by installing some sort of competition. Read what I wrote in discussions in particular to my own essay as to see that my experience caused me to devote to the question of responsibility for be or not to be.

I consider Armin Shirazi horribly wrong when he ascribes any evil to political ponerology. I even don't fully agree with those like e.g. Jonathan Dickau and Teyinder Singh who hope for solving the basic problems just by means of appropriate education and tolerant belief.

When I was allowed to teach I was forced for decades to also deal with Marxist dogmas. I could not defend my dissertation with "summa cum laude" because I used an expression of the class-enemy: Bruttosozialproduct instead of national income. I asked: How can money create new money? If you are interested, I will tell you my result and how it relates to the essence of my essay.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 09:28 GMT
Dear Eckard,

thank you for your comments.

I would appreciate you telling your results and how they relate to the essence of your essay.

Greetings

Stefan

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 16:26 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Discoveries and inventions tend to be permanently useful for the whole world no matter how much effort was needed to get them. On the other hand, money is used in order to distribute goods more or less according to the amount of labor required for each single product to be consumed. For instance, we all including the developing countries are still benefiting from Guericke's experiments.

The possible profit is the larger the more people are users. Therefore money can grow without fraud just with the size of market. Interest rates largely correspond to economic growth. Almost nobody seems to be prudent enough as to by ready for steering towards a reasonable limitation of population. I envision resistance against necessary additions of the principles of humanity by those who strive for profit as well as by those who see the world from the perspective of aggressive nationalism or/and of religious dogmas that demand as many children as possible.

Discoveries, inventions, and all like that make the world richer and require more intelligent responsibility.

Best,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 17:58 GMT
Dear Eckard,

you are right that the dynamics of the (over-) population is alarming. All these people need resources (physical) and need psychological satisfaction of their human needs. In my essay i didn't want to discuss this problem, for the following reasons.

The dynamics of the world's population isn't linear, but rather exponential.

The dynamics of the world's nation's debts also isn't linear, but due to the effects of compounded interests rather exponential, too. Replace the word "debt" with the word "bank deposit" and it is true nonetheless, because in the world of fiat money (in the world of balance sheet extensions) the debt of the one is the deposit of the other.

As i outlined in my essay, those interest dues are concentrated at a small fracture of the world's population. So, as you wrote, the possible profit is larger the more people are users - but those profits surely aren't distributed evenly over the world's population. The opposite is the case.

Take a product like Microsoft Windows. We all profit from this product, it makes many tasks more efficient, saving time and money. In a society of market competition, this effects do annihilate, today there is no more time and money to save with using this software - because all the market participants use it. You just would *loose* time and money if you would use no MS Windows - or Linux or something like that.

So we are now dependent on systems that once offered an advantage, but today are more and more complicated, need more and more services and upkeep - and the profits do not arrive at the majority of people. If one is willing to NOT use those systems, means wasting time and money - in comparison to the rest.

It is true that Linux was an open source project and was not so much profit-oriented. It is also true that Bill Gates founded a foundation with others to give back some money he earned to the society. That's a good thing. But that's only a little tip from the iceberg of accumulated fiat money.

One would expect that the expansion of the amount of worldwide money (fiat money) is due to the expansion of the world's population. This may be true or not, but the result is that 10 percent of the world's population own 85 percent of the world's money. This is my concern with fiat money and the allocation of this money.

Greetings from germany,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 02:32 GMT
Stefan,

The point I try making is that we lose sight of the basis of this money and just treat it as a commodity to be collected, which then requires more to be produced in order for commerce to function. Then those with the large collections have leverage over the economy.

The problem with 'fiat' money is not that it is based on public debt, but that we forget this foundation means its value is directly tied to the health, wealth and productivity of said community. If we recognize that it serves as a contract between the community and its members, then it is no longer simply a commodity to be collected at will, but a contract that has to be respected by both parties.

Money functions as an economic medium. Effectively it is like a road system. We own our cars, businesses, houses, etc, but not the roads connecting them and no one cries socialism over that. Like blood in the body, in order to function is has to be able to flow freely and any clots, unused collections, excess pressure, etc, are extremely unhealthy. Now if we were to view it primarily as a contract between the community and its members, for one thing, there would have to be sufficient leeway for emergencies, etc, because that would seriously reduce the need and function of trying to store excessive amounts. Conversely anyone trying to abuse the system, including storing excessive amounts, would have those stores penalized. This would create the tendency to treat other aspects of life, from social relations to a healthy environment, as stores of value and not just as sources to be mined to create notational wealth. If people really understood and respected the fact that those little numbers on the bank account are not just a pile of coins in a safe deposit box, but a contract with the vast web of society and that its value is dependent on the health of that society, they might be a little less selfish, with regards to the rest of society. They might also appreciate other, more organic forms of exchange and reciprocity. Especially since those currently controlling this system systematically use it to tax any and every possible form of exchange denominated in these notes. That even the ones where people seem to profit, are more come ons, to entice further and deeper participation. This is not to say there shouldn't be a vibrant and healthy economy, based on capital as a medium of exchange, just not one prone to the cancers, tumors and high blood pressures of this version.

So we can respect fiat currencies, but we need to first understand them.

Regards,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 04:46 GMT
Dear both,

Currently, essays are on top which claim serving the world. I wonder if you don't agree with them and will vote accordingly ;). I was not heard when I objected that common sense tends to use the expression "save the world" with an ironic undertone. The question is: save from what?

Karl Marx observed cyclic economic crises and envisioned a general one because in capitalism goods are jointly produced but privately appropriated. The Latin word privare means to steal. Well, inequality might be unfair to some extent. However, is mankind and its basis the Earth really fundamentally endangered by economic bubbles and social inequality?

Or should we follow Shirazi and fight against political ponerology?

Or will loving-kindness save us from all evil?

Or should we accept our fate?

I think the name FQXi reminds us to strive for revealing more foundational questions. What might be wrong in our ideals of humanity and responsibility?

Some essays are dealing with growth of population as "alarming". Kadin's good essay didn't get much support because it collides with old doctrines. I agree with him: The logical contradiction between continuing forever growth and limited basics suggest a taboo question: how many people does humanity need?

My essay tries to reveal a related likewise unwelcome necessity: We all must outlaw nationalism and aggressive religions in order to save global peace.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 08:21 GMT
Dear Eckard,

you raise many important questions. One of the less important ones is my voting. I am not fully through the essays and prefer to vote when i am done.

I am with John that money is treated as a commodity rather than a social contract. honestly i think that money rules almost all areas of human affairs today. Money talks and i consider this talk as the most aggressive religion on the planet. This does not mean that i want to abolish it, but to think about its destructive dynamics in worldwide society.

My essay's concern does not exclude other relevant suggestions to obvious problems, like Shirazi, Kadin or many others presented. I think one very important point here is to look at the interdependencies of the many problem-fields presented here on FQXI. This could complete the big picture.

I am with Sabine Hossenfelder that analyzing the problems isn't enough. The results need to be made public in a language most people can understand. The analyzing and publication is a task for the leaders of the scientific community. I really would wish that FQXI would carefully analyze the essay's results - via experts of the corresponding fields - and those who can subscribe it should do so. After this it could be published to the worldwide public.

Otherwise all our suggestions will be only of theoretical nature. Science has its responsibilities. It has high recommendation among most people. It should compile its knowledge concerning our present global problems and the validated solutions and take position. I know that most scientists fear the intervention with politics. But publishing a baseline study that has been subscribed by our most honored scientists should not be a crime or an intellectual betrayal. Shouldn't it?

Best wishes in the contest,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 17:38 GMT
Eckard,

Population certainly is a legitimate issue, but the question is how to deal with it. There are three examples. One is simply to kill off enormous numbers of people, as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. did. The problem is this really doesn't accomplish the overall purpose of saving the planet, given the levels of destruction, not only of the environment, but of any social cohesion which would be necessary to work together to solve these problems.

Another would be to do as the Chinese have done and limit the number of children as a government policy. It will be a while to really see the long term effect of this, but given the shape of the environment in China, it doesn't seem part of an adequate program.

The other is how western countries have managed to do it and make large families economically less viable and socially unfavored. Given this was not an intentional policy, it seems that the issue of population might be something approached indirectly, as a matter of incentives, rather than by force or direct prescription.

As for aggressive nationalism and religions, there is no way to not have people band together in like minded groupings and aggression is a simplistically effective policy. What people need to understand is that on broader scales and long term views, these tactics can backfire, but like many of the proposals here, that might be well in the future. People do naturally gravitate into groups and since the largest tend to form around the most basic common denominators and the oldest around concepts that were first relevant millennia ago, sometimes it's a matter of waiting for those systems to break down in the face of problems they are not able to deal with, before real change can be effected.

Stefan,

Politics permeates science as well. The best you can do is put the ideas out there and hope they take root. If it's going to happen, eventually it will happen, but sometimes it takes a lot of persistence to make it happen.

Regards,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 16:31 GMT
Dear Mr. Weckbach,

I thought that you put a great deal of effort into the writing of your essay. When a bank makes a loan of say $1 million, it creates an additional credit of $1 million for its own use. The debit and the credit balance. Interest is charged to fool people into believing that that is the way the bank makes money.

regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 19:24 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher,

another way for a bank to make money is to take collaterals from the defaulter. If he can't pay back the loan, his collaterals become property of the bank.

Even if banks do not take valuable collaterals, they seem to have almost no risk, because in the long run the taxpayer is the lender of last resort. This strikes the small salaries more than the huge ones, because of indirect taxations.

Regards,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share



Ajay Bhatla wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 17:26 GMT
Stefan,

I support of your position that suggestions that are "utopia-like aren't helpful." I get your point on "fiat money" and its impacts on the 1% and the 90%.

The confusion I have is on what you see as the remedy.

Are you proposing that the 1% do MORE philanthropy like investing in "energetical infrastructure"?

Also, is my solution here a practical one, for you?

Thanks,

- Ajay

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 19:37 GMT
Dear Ajay,

thank you for your question.

The remedy of my essay is to bring the problem of wealth/poverty-distribution into scientific minds. The issue is too important to not be discussed by a wider audience.

If you speak of those 1% that own almost 90% of the global wealth, i would like that they would be aware of the global problems that arise from this wealth distribution.

I have not yet read your essay, so up to date unfortunately i can't answer your last question.

Greetings,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 19, 2014 @ 11:02 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Very important and actual problem for Humanity and your suggestions. I think that this no joke problem associated with the modern scientific picture of the world in which too large "bubbles" and too many speculative "foam". Physicists have to "dig" deeper meanings , and the economists change then look at the problems of global economic. " Freiheit ist Einsicht in die Notwendigkeit" (Hegel ). For realizing this, we must enter the teaching of "Philosophy" in the school and for future physicists - in more depth to give "The Philosophy of Physics" and "The Philosophy of Mathematics". Nature confirms to us that the Philosophy - "the rigorous Science" (E.Husserl ), so it is important to better to economists listen the Voice of the Earth. Earth has long been crying from the economy of existential chaos. I also liked your responses to comments. You are absolutely correct emphasis on "openness" and "closeness". You are absolutely right that "Science has its responsibilities". New Generation tells us: "We start the path ". High score.

I invite you to read and evaluate my essay .

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 20, 2014 @ 16:30 GMT
Stefan,

Bizarrely I read and noted I'd commented on your essay a week ago and certainly rated it (highly) but now can't find the comment. Perhaps it's the quantum spooks! Did I mention the hierarchy of truth function logic (TFL) I generalised in my 2012 essay? I also loved your comment; ""Only via finding logical contradictions it is possible to leave ad absurdium the claim of pre-determinism" and most issues being due to wrong analysis.

But anyway, I've just noticed your additional question on my own blog, viz;

~

"You wrote

"A timed pair experiment with rotating analysers will falsify the hypothesis."

Just to make it clear for myself - of what hypothesis do you speak here? I ask you for explaining the hypothesis to understand what you mean in this context. Please also explain how that hypothesis is falsified.

You wrote

"The classical experiment in the end notes has been reproduced and can be again, by anybody."

What does the mentioned experiment say about the ontological status of your main theme, namely entanglement in QM? How is this saying then justified in physical terms?"

~

My hypothesis is that there are no real 'singlet state particles', or even 'collapse to' such states. That assumption is replaced by "the handed spin 'found' is reversed by reversal of the detector EM field and it's electrons (the opposite photomultiplyer then clicks)." The trajectory may not be 'real' but may be a wavefront, sum over paths, with the Non Linear Schrodinger equation and density description, but is none the less helicity. I show it simplified to a sphere, which then as BOTH spins (N/S poles) so which hemisphere spin is 'found' depends on orientation.

ENTANGLEMENT Is then simply the propagation axes being on the spin axis. The spin or 'equatorial' planes are then also the same. The setting angles are then subtended from that plane, the points on the surface giving the local latitude 'circumference' so speed, and speed change with latitude is a cosine curve. (measurement is then transfer of OAM anywhere on that circumference).

Essentially the states found are detector dependent, but always remain random up/down. The Experiment must use individual pairs to prove that. So called 'weak measurement' is blind to it. Does any of that NOT seem to make sense?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 16:34 GMT
Stefan,

I'm sure you worked out that was me. Did I also mention;

"personal beliefs and ... emotions can trigger us to believe obviously inconsistent things."

Never a truer word!

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on May. 20, 2014 @ 20:48 GMT
Dear Peter,

no problem, you cited me.

Albeit i do not understand all of what you wrote, it surely makes sense to me to look for alternative explanations of entanglement.

My point was to ask for the falsifiability of your approach. As long as it can be not tested via experiments, nothing is gained. In other words, it must predict some behaviour of nature that is not consistent with entanglement.

You wrote, a timed pair experiment with rotating analysers can falsify your hypothesis and the experiment must use individual pairs, so that's the point i wanted to understand.

Have you checked the internet for an experiment (or more) already conducted in the past?

Best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on May. 21, 2014 @ 04:24 GMT
John Adams letter toThomas Jefferson : "All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honour or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."

The Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned.

It first creates fiat money out of nothing and then loans it to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on May. 22, 2014 @ 19:42 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

thank you very much for the appreciation of what i layed out in my essay!

It seems to me that not only Kennedy was assasinated due to the financial interests of some oligarchy, but other presidents of the USA also.

I found a real interesting film on youtube about this subject and of course about the war for the money highness in the USA - for everybody who is interested in the whole issue:

The Secret of Oz - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U71-KsDArFM

Money Masters - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H56FUHgqRNE

12 old year girl reveals one of the best kept secrets in the world - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHQOX8EVNmE

Dear anonymous - thank you again for your support!

Best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share



Brent Pfister wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 19:34 GMT
Stefan, thank you for writing your essay. A really upsetting best-selling book could be written combining fiat money with concepts in The Coming Generational Storm and "The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment". US National Debt 73% of annual GDP, Taxes 34% of annual GDP, Underfunded Social Security, Underfunded Pension Funds, Rising cost of Medicare as percentage of GDP, Rising cost of energy, rising cost of dealing with global warming.

Thank you for insightful physics comments on a different essay.

Brent

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 22:34 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach,

I enjoyed your essay quite a lot. In general I agree with your view of fiat money, although I do not agree with your zero-sum idea of the free market economy. In general the most productive end up with more of the pie, but the pie tends to get larger, in my opinion. This does not apply to inherited wealth or non-productive rent-seeking behavior, which are both problems.

I found most interesting your proposal that "those 10% of the worlds population should not furthermore invest their money in further money (it's senseless), but in things that are really needed..." The key of course is to design a system where this will work.

Your point about the thermodynamic gradient is very well taken, but I believe you incorrectly tie this to "investing in contracts that promise the highest depository rates." I believe the thermodynamic gradient to be a law of nature, whereas the "money chasing more money" is the result of a system which requires redesign. I hope we can redesign it. It will not entail getting rid of "thermodynamic gradients". For a different take on thermodynamics as a tool, please read and comment on my essay.

My best regards to you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 10:05 GMT
Dear Edwin,

thanks for your comments.

I am glad you agree on a needed redesign of the system in question. But how to do it?

I cannot see the necessity of private banks giving the needed money to the governments with compounded interest rates. What the system of interest rates does to a national economy should be clear since 2008. It throws millions of people into unemployment – with all the outcomes we see today: More costs for the welfare systems, empoverishment, social distress at all levels.

Why not allow the nations to print their own money (without paying interest rates for it)? Would this necessarily mean inflation in the middle/long run? If so, the problem would be, that for being re-elected, politicians would do everything to convince the people to re-elect them. Means, they would offer welfare-presents as well as diminishing taxes. This is a psychological problem that would need an adequat solution.

But before this to happen, we need a new social contract, a majority of people who are willing to built up a redesigned system, people who accept the need of such a proposal. People who at least think about the issue a little bit deeper.

For the latter to happen, I would be glad you would advertise for my essay.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 02:51 GMT
Dear Stefan,

As you note, there is the problem of redesign, and then the (hard) problem of installing the new system. I am not optimistic that such can happen without first experiencing a system crash of terrible proportions.

Like you, I do not see why a nation must pay interest to private banks.

Although I have not put enough time into this contest, I have noted that John Merryman seems to be the best informed in general on money topics. Have you communicated with him?

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 18:25 GMT
Dear Edwin,

i communicated with John quiet a bit here and, i think, on his own essay-page. The impetus to take part in the current essay contest was in fact John and his comments on the issue. I grappled with the issue some months before and came to the same conclusions John reached.

I hope not that the system crashes, but due to the informations and understanding i have about it up to date, i think the next crash will come. So i hope that the whole issue could be discussed in a more scientific, rational manner by more people, especially by economists, scientists, sociologists. I fear those terrible proportions of the next crash, because it would/could send humanity back to where the US and also germany were at the time of the great depression. Tons and tons of most people's life efforts would be just annihilated. I think this would cause civil wars and, much worse, a new global war. God may prevent it, but humanity must contribute it's part for that to not happen.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Bookmark and Share



Janko Kokosar wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 18:12 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach

This year you changed a topic from consciousness and quantum physics to economy.

It is a real problem, because money is so virtual, so dependent from psychology of people and from their greediness. But at the other side is a synonym for energy. Your proposals seem OK, but we people need to search new proposals still more.

I think that we people have enough brains that electric cars should already exist in majority, but they are not. I am afraid that your proposals for investment in green technology will stopped somewhere or that money will disappear. But, I hope that I am wrong.

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Denis Frith wrote on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 11:27 GMT
Stefan

You highlight a major problem in the operation of society without taking into account that services provided by technological systems that enable these financial decisions to be carried out. In my essay I focus on the inevitable deterioration of these technological systems, so the inevitable decline in the ability of society to engage in the activities you describe. ELAM can lead the way in meeting the challenge to steer the future of the aging technology.

Regards

Denis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


KoGuan Leo wrote on Jun. 11, 2014 @ 07:09 GMT
Hi Stefan,

Interesting observation. I studied economics all of my life, I proposed the Scientific Outlook Free-Lunch Economics System to address the fiat money effect you described in your essay. I found the existing global economics system is as advance as our science on Newton's physics as well as thermodynamics. Therefore, this system although not perfect is excellent. You must compare it with the economic system of say 500 years ago. We are much better off. Having said that our economic system is still based on classical Newton's physics and Thermosynamics. I proposed the Free-lunch system powered by KQID's free-lunch engine. Then we can tacle the problems you mentioned in your essay. Yes, with KQID, we can have a free-lunch system for the rich as well as the poor equally. Not about redistribution system of zero-sum game but based on a win-win basis. The outcome is simply no more poor people. No more poverty. However, we will still have unsatisfied people.

Best regards,

Leo KoGuan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 25, 2014 @ 12:53 GMT
Stefan,

I'm safely back from interacting with natures elements. I posted a response on the "Quantum" Blog, under your Aug 11th post, which I hope fully rationalises the logic of my 4 propositions, valid for the domain specified but evolving with each interaction. I thank you for identifying that required 'qualification'.

The detector influence is consistent with Feynman's identification that; "..information is not lost by the 'separation...' but by the 'blocking masks'... Where each and every interaction is equivalent to a 'measurement' (transfer of OAM) whether it allows the modulated state to continue or 'absorbs' it.

I also notice above that I didn't see your May 20th response and question about single photon cases. Yes. I've analysed the representative Aspect and Weihs experiments in great detail, as you may subsequently have seen, and the actual data entirely matches the mechanism proposed. But please do identify any questions, or other experiments where you're not certain it does so. I assume you're familiar with Caroline Thomson's analyses?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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