spacetime inverses and 1-to-1 mapping

[AntonioLao]

Can we say that only an educated society can become a just impartial society? On the other hand, a true equilateral triangle of government as balance of power among the branches of legislation, execution, and judicial is an idealization that can never be effectively practical and permanent. But the fact that this triangle exists is a good sign that justice is being sought for the benefit of every person living within the same society. The interpersonal relationships could be of one to many or many to one correspondences but the best form of societal resolution is still a functional one to one correspondence.

[AntonioLao]

crimes and punishments are meaningful only in a lawful society not in a lawless human coexistence. For example, there is no law for preys and predators in the animal kingdom. but if the predators ate up all the preys then eventually they also die out from starvation after they try to eat other of the same kind.

[SteveA]

Can we say that only an educated society can become a just impartial society?

It does appear that intelligence and education could go quite a ways - the trade off involved is one of creativity and growth. At a minimum, some baseline that doesn't self destruct is required and I think that's the equivalent of the foundation upon which the rest is built.

On the other hand, a true equilateral triangle of government as balance of power among the branches of legislation, execution, and judicial is an idealization that can never be effectively practical and permanent.

One problem that appears to be occurring is that all these institutions are becoming controlled by rather singular sources and there's not a lot of feedback from "customers".

Analogizing this with a physical system you have the extremes of no constraints at all, in which case nothing interacts - light speed motion away from an origin and at the other extreme you have a completely closed loop system - which is static and lifeless - a perfect crystal ... that does nothing.

The idea, at least IMO, is a combination of these two - a globally fluid state, but locally the connects are rigidly determined by individuals. In this manner you have maximum dynamic efficiency. The challenge is attaining the coordination and dynamics of motion across this structure to continually allow such positions for all elements to be present in their idea form. The weakness is that mechanism for such coordination could be vulnerable to abuse, hence this requires a distributed and redundant manner of communication as well as a form of intelligent search for those solutions.

But anyway, that idea appears to contain much of all of the best aspects of a society (of course, IMO only) - basically there could be the equivalent of complete freedom as well as optimizing the capabilities of the whole in achieving desires ... it's also interesting to see how closely that resembles something like a body of cells and nervous system etc.

But the fact that this triangle exists is a good sign that justice is being sought for the benefit of every person living within the same society. The interpersonal relationships could be of one to many or many to one correspondences but the best form of societal resolution is still a functional one to one correspondence.

Yes, I agree on most all accounts, though it could be that a better replacement for government is just a manner of communication/coordination and that we could remove a lot of the problems by having decisions made in a very local and distributed manner. Individual "republics"?

In terms of defense, I'd assume that with an underlying freedom, if such a system worked well then few people would want to see it lost and so you'd have no need for any "official" form of defense. The mutual appreciation of its benefit would appear enough to preserve it. (If it really was the best thing around - no need to enforce it at all and everything works together naturally according to its own nature - the social space warps to get things where they fit in best, so it would be as dynamic as the individuals involved)

[AntonioLao]

Are you really advocating a true one to one interaction between two educated (or teacher learner relation) persons? This would imply a 1-to-1 school educational system such that for every student correspond only one teacher. It would be a very expensive undertaking to be effective. This would also surely but not completely eliminate many social forms of gathering.
According to the theory of information the entropy loss during communication can be considerable.

[SteveA]

It appears you likely misunderstood what I posted. Maybe go back and show me the area where it appears this occurs. Could be I overlooked something, though it seems pretty robust ... definitely better, IMO, than the typical suggestions on the table.

Are you really advocating a true one to one interaction between two educated (or teacher learner relation) persons?

No, I'm referring to the reality that we life in. Information is propagated locally into an environment over time. The interactions are local.

For example, most people probably interact with fewer than 100 people each day and the majority of these are just short interactions.

We currently have political systems that encompass entire cities, states, nations and now some people even want to push this to global scales without fixing the problems on the smaller scales (big mistake, IMO - "exporting" a bad product).

What do individuals actually need? To rule the world? Obviously there's a conflict in that and this should be avoided, but how many people actually give a lot of thought to the direction they're being (generally) pushed/led?

Would you rather have a drop in the bucket say over how everyone is suppose to live their life or a large measure of personal control?

If you enjoy the later form, then the only issues for which any form of government is needed is simply over those local and basically 1 on 1 interactions at any moment. There's no reason to have a say in how crops are grown in some other country (which will likely just impede the farmers there and it would hold their livelyhood at the mercy of others - not a very natural system, nor a system in which evolution is progressive).

This would imply a 1-to-1 school educational system such that for every student correspond only one teacher.

No, it would remove the relatively enforced version where government is the sole teacher and free up a lot more options and competition and diversity in education.

It would be a very expensive undertaking to be effective.

The current system is more costly. On average here, public schooling costs ~60% more than private schools, not to mention the lack of feedback that occurs when individuals are removed from having much control over the affairs.

Think about it a bit ...

This would also surely but not completely eliminate many social forms of gathering.
According to the theory of information the entropy loss during communication can be considerable.

As I said, I think we should remove the centrally controlled model that we're currently heading toward.

[AntonioLao]

centrally controlled model

I don't understand this model. Could you please elaborate.

[SteveA]

I don't understand this model. Could you please elaborate.

Basically it's tyranny - a monarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy

It's informationally closed and stagnant. It may be unavoidable - reality is a monarch, but beyond that I don't believe it benefits us to encourage more.

Dynamics arise from external influences - inclusion. An inclusive system requires an ability to dynamically adjust for new conditions. Beaurocracies and majority voting are limiting as they simply have too much inertia and very limited feedback to adapt to new conditions as they arise. The most efficient form of government arises from the bottom up desires and is not directed top down.

The top down interaction is simply in communication and coordination, not determining the direction(s).

For example, if a group of people desire a theme park, then in order to satisfy this, various skills needed to construct and operate it are needed. These can be communicated in a distributed and non-centralized manner via. chains of local interactions, much like an economy. In order to have those skills, tools etc. available, various biases in research, education or entertainment etc. would be required.

Of course this is already present in most free markets, but in political terms we have it the opposite way - there's general a central authority/"official" expected to determine what these desires and manners of achieving them etc. are. For example, in communist Russia people were allocated rather standard resources along with work/slavery to construct those. That's inefficient, not particularly enjoyable for most people and removes the natural motivation people have (or at least can have) to improve themselves and their condition.

Anyway, I admit it doesn't really do anyone else much of a service if it's simply me trying to point out a better direction. The best manner of achieving things is for people to discover these things for themselves so that they can not simply enjoy various living conditions but know why they happen to enjoy them as well.

Thanks for the chat

[AntonioLao]

Does good leadership capable of achieving your ideal society? Would you be willing to become its leader?

[SteveA]

Does good leadership capable of achieving your ideal society? Would you be willing to become its leader?

Thanks for asking ... yes, that seems a sticking point. I'm still learning and have got a ways to go on the "lead by example" method. I think that's the only way that has a chance ... the rest is just closing things off and stagnating.

All I can really do now is just offer suggestions and encourage others, so in that sense, I'm more than willing ... in fact to some extent I can't help but try, but I hate to say it, I still need to refine it a bit better for myself, so I admit it's still just an 'alpha' revision and needs a lot of testing, though I know the general direction is good ... the problem is in all the distant twists and turns (in some senses, that's also a lot of the fun! You don't have to wait until you can see start to finish in order to head in some direction - and sometimes it takes getting a little closer to see how the details emerge).

(I also admit that I wouldn't be particularly anxious to have the welfare of a lot of people riding on me - though in some ways, that also appears unavoidable ... as you can see, Antonio, I'm still working on things ... wish I could give you something clearer. Then again, there's no rush and who knows how the weather will be ...)

Basically, though, as a physical analogy, consider the manner in which a growing collection of magnets in various forms could be rearranged in space such that their poles were always maximally coupled to neighbors and yet these could freely rotate as well by a dynamic reorganization to the space - you'd have sort of the best of both worlds - a freedom to grow/change/alter as well as a manner in which the total benefits were maximized.

Recognize that in order for something like a local rotation/motion be efficiently performed, the extension of the field lines needs to be minimized (political structures are locally organized and more dynamic because they include fewer people - unanimous agreements are possible as opposed to majority rule, which requires moving a large "mass" of potentially conflicting forces), or similarly the object becomes more aerodynamic in the direction of motion.

It's interesting to consider that there might even be some correlations to problems with topology here.

Overall though, in a more realistic sense, people would need tools to communicate and organize as well as some potential intelligence in the system to suggest optimized arrangements. A simple search mechanism would be to use genetic algorithms and simulated annealing, but that would likely not be a very optimal manner of doing this, though something like an Open Source environment could be nice - provide a basic engine and let people go at it optimizing things from there (that fits in with the general 'flavor' of the solution anyway).

So yes, it does take leadership, but more in terms of a voluntary, distributed, intelligent, communication and cooperation between people. It's more of how the ideal for "democracy" as in demo/people cracy/rule should be ... at least IMO

P.S. It's interesting to consider what such a "substance" might look like - it would be crystalline in many respects, yet fluid and at least in the limit potentially offer no resistance. It would also appear to be a compatible space for any form of object (as determined by the collective properties) ... it would act a lot like the properties of space itself! Yes, very interesting ... I've had an idea like this on the edge of my thoughts for a while now but couldn't quite figure it out, but it does appear to (at least potentially) possess quite a few ideal properties in various aspects.

[AntonioLao]

What you wrote in your last two paragraphs reminded me of what our state of the art technology behind flatscreen monitors and video displays which are based on the physics of liquid crystal display (LCD) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_crystal_display. Beyond that I really don't know how it works.