And the math I outline can quantify which ideas
have the greater effects, and how to design ideas
so that they have greater effects.
> I prefer the
> ideas that apply to objective reality.
But the things around us, the so-called
objective reality, or our environment is
only half the picture in any coevolutionary
system.
Our perceptions and beliefs etc, the subjective
side of reality is the other half and of
equal importance.
Some would argue of even more or defining
importance. Since the laws, rules or objective
facts of reality tend to be relatively constant.
While our subjective side of beliefs and perception
shape our future far more. After all when trying
to build a better future for humanity do we
really refer to quantum theory, cosmology and
so on, or do we look to societal issues
such as politics, government and economy?
Physics and quantum theory etc are great for
building things, but FIRST the subjective
side needs to decide what needs to be
built.
Subjective reality should come first. Our
values and needs etc, objective reality
second as a means to those ends.
For instance in a game of chess, we can't win
unless each move is guided by an intelligent
hand with a clearly defined purpose.
Letting the game play itself with it's rules
guided by...random...events gets you nowhere.
Evolution is not a set of rules operating
on random events only, but life adds a
purpose and guiding intelligence at their
own level. Even if that intelligence is
nothing more than a collection of single
celled life moving in a common direction
say towards light. Instead of a single
life moving randomly in any direction.
Such emergent intelligence is the difference
between a world full of microbes and
a world that can produce Microsoft.
Emergent intelligence, or God, must be
and is a defining part of evolution.
> There are aspects of reality that to
> borrow from a simplistic dichotomy of Ayn Rand's are metaphysically given.
> A waterfall or the rocks lining the river upstream of said stream are
> metaphysically given. There are other things that, forgive the archaic
> Randroid language "man made". These are things caused by humans. We have
> more impact on those things: cars, buildings, tv sets. There are human
> productions that are more ideational in content such as shared concepts,
> stories, and theories. These occupy Karl Popper's so called third world.
> They are partially intentional but have unintended aspects and therefore
> some degree of autonomy and feedback onto our subjective worlds.
It's crucial to be able to define the difference between
man-made and natural.
If a man-made system follows the laws of nature it's
a...natural system, regardless of it's physical
construction or how it came into being.
One must place natural processes in abstract form
so we can decide if...any system...is man made
in character or not.
A man-made system is where one manipulates the parts
into a.../preconceived/...or designed final product.
A building or dictatorship for instance.
A natural system allows the final product to
/emerge as it will/ as in any naturally
evolving system.
So, a key aspect to decide man-made or not is if the
final product or future of that system can be
precisely predicted or known in advance or not.
And any natural system will display a critical interaction
between it's opposing forces and also emergent properties.
Man-made system do not on either count.
For instance a natural system such as universe
will exist near the transition point between it's
opposing forces such as gravity and cosmic expansion.
With dark energy emerging once the system is fully
organized or every niche filled.
Or a system like Darwinian evolution residing
at the critical threshold between it's opposing
forces of genetics and selection.
Or an idea residing at the critical point between
it's opposing forces of facts and imagination
with it's emergent properties like wisdom etc.
So, a building is a man-made system while
an idea is a 'natural' system.
So, a commercial forest is a man-made system
while a business built upon the concepts
of say complexity science is a natural system.
Part details do not define man made or natural
but whether they display a balance between
the fixed rules of operation and freedom
of interaction among the parts, or not.
Theories
> can have a mixture of truth and falsity value (verisimilitude). Mediated by
> our subjective worlds these ideas can impact the physical world as technic
> creations. There can be impact upon the shared intersubjective world where
> finance and economy happens, iron laws mixed with social construction. To
> the extent that perception drives economy we get into what George Soros
> calls reflexivity and irrational stuff such as bubbles. This is the weird
> aspect of how to a limited extent we can create our own realities at least
> until the bubble pops and reality creeps in, though fiat paper money
> systems seem to have a bit of the wizard behind the curtain to them.
>
> But getting back to the metaphysically given physical world, there are
> rocks however much empty space exists inside them the brute fact is that if
> you stub your toe on one hard enough it might swell and bruise, regardless
> if your house gained or lost appraised value in recent years after the
> crash. Of course the objects involved are nominally rocks and toes.
>
And an idea, which has zero physical existence, can burn the
world to the ground, or create Utopia.
If our ideas and societies follow the laws of nature
the latter is our destiny. If following the rule of
man the former is, and has been, our fate.
Top down rule, such as dictatorships of any kind whether
military, religious or a corrupt capitalism behaves
as a man-made system with all the horrors of the
last century inevitable.
But a democracy with a balance or critical interaction
between it's opposing forces of laws and freedom
can produce the relative paradise called America
and other western free market democracies.
Please note I said 'relative' paradise. As compared
to dictator ravaged regions like Syria, Middle East
and so on.
Jonathan
s