Scarcity - A New Theory of Everything

[DJD]

The Scarcity Hypothesis (SH), as a Theory of Everything (ToE), is a philosophical phenomenology that has mathematical regularities with connections to physically measurable phenomena. The simplicity of the idea and the large number of domains that “scarcity” affects, including everything from the esoteric to the exoteric, suggests it’s a strong ToE candidate. In SH the “baggage” is reduced to such an extent it has even less overhead than the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH).

A working draft of the paper is available online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/33829028/T...othesis-v2-1-2 Additional essays fleshing out the mechanics and mathematical modeling are given a more complete treatment in a brief 'Miscellaneous Q&A' and another draft titled 'Understanding End Self & the Q3/Q4 Crossover.'

From the abstract,

In this paper I argue that economic, psycho-behavioral, anthropological, philosophical, biological, mathematical and physical properties of reality, inclusive of the External Reality Hypothesis (ERH) and Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH), all share a unitary connection through ontic characteristics of scarcity; and are relatable through observable historical and cosmological evidence. The emergent geometrical properties and the implications with regards to the predictive capabilities of such a system are then explored with emphasis on economic and social theory.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Good honest summery at scribd, Dustin... I've been writing in a most similar vein for some twenty years now...

Btw, welcome to ToeQuest__maybe we can share a few ideas, about the new systems needed...

[DJD]

Thanks for the nice welcome.

Twenty years, wow. Well you've got some years on me. I've spent about 1 year 7 months and 26 days trying to figure out how to explain this and it's not easy. Probably the most significant aspect of the concept has to do with the mathematical implications of the model.

It's resulted in an expression I now like to use, "The abstract becomes concrete and the material becomes symbolic." A reciprocal relationship exists where these two structures bridge in to one another, but are also simultaneously reflections of each other. Some people would refer to this as being fractal [i.e. a "rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole" ( books.google.com... ) ]. However what I dislike about this is it assumes there must be an algorithm to describe "fractalness" rather than being extant in a constant with the pattern emergent in it too. Begging the question though, "How do you quantize a constant?" The best I can imagine is that it would require some form of redefinition.

So, for example, most cosmologists strongly argue in favor of the idea of reality starting at a zero-point as a conformally flat manifold. If reality stems from zero then it requires we think of it as a multi-dimensional object. However this seems ludicrous on the face of it. Because how can everything compact down to a 0-dim point? The few attempts that have been made to reconcile this involves math that usually results in infinite or divide by zero calculations ‒ making the results appear meaningless. However if we're willing to redefine a constant we should also ask, "Is a divide by 0 meaningless?" This depends heavily on the redefinition. So there's a biconditional relationship. Personally I'd argue that if we view zero as a 7-fold truth table mapped to a spherical formal system (similar to the logical connectives as illustrated in a Hasse diagram) that the results can be made meaningful (albeit difficult to grasp).

Amusingly real-world research bears this out. Ask a mathematician and they'll tell you zero is neither positive nor negative. Ask a physicist and following Paul Dirac's lead they'll say, "… a vacuum, or nothing, is the combination of matter and antimatter. Their density is tremendous, but we can’t perceive any of them because their observable effects entirely cancel each other out." ( www.sciencedaily.com... ). This suggests that zero is actually a union of positive and negative terms (i.e. A + B = A - B ⇒ 2B = (A - A) ⇒ 2 = (A - A) / B, where B=0, assuming not indeterminate ). Note the evaluation of the additive identity (B) illustrates the positive and negative terms collapse in to one another. Suggesting 0 ≡ (+ ∪ -), or perhaps, 0 ≡ (+ ∧ -).

This would then likely give us something like this,



This begs the question however is it possible we are mistaking the tool of description for that which is described? Are we mistaking the map for the terrain?

In conversations this usually gets reformulated into, "I sure as heck don't feel like math." Even though I usually prefer thick definitions I'll forgo them and simply describe material reality as isomorphic to cardinality. Meaning our physical existence is just a small subset of root mathematical objects like ordinality, reflexivity, and polarity. ( space.mit.edu... )

Put another way I'm no more my hand than I am my brain. The "I" that is me exists in no one place in my body. Similarly to try to distinguish the tool from the terrain is to engage in the same form of infinite compartmentalization. The question assumes a discrete pattern in what's probably a transcendental object.

Leading to another series of questions. Is it possible to get to the point where the map and the terrain become indistinguishable from each other, and say that they are one and the same? What then is the nature of the relationship between reality and reality theory?

Engels three laws of dialectic get to the heart of my thoughts on this, "quantity changes to quality, opposites interpenetrate, and the negation of negation." I think the difference is perspective. For instance take the RGB tuple {0,0,0} (black) and think of all the gradations as we increment towards {255,255,255} (white). Now ask yourself, "Is white the lightest type of black? Or is black the darkest type of white?" The problem here is that we're looking for a discrete perspective when instead we should view it as a continuum. White and black are extremes. The only real difference is we have two ways to approach the values. One is additive ( RGB ) and the other is subtractive ( CMYK ).

RGB:

CMYK:

They each create the other through a venn diagram-esque union operation. So it's better to view these two schemes holistically as a sphere.

So to answer, "What then is the nature of the relationship between reality and reality theory?" Well if information precedes manifestation then physical reality isn't as "real" as we imagine it to be because it's actually the effect not the cause. So the answer would, again, appear to be perspective.

[labelwench]

So to answer, "What then is the nature of the relationship between reality and reality theory?" Well if information precedes manifestation then physical reality isn't as "real" as we imagine it to be because it's actually the effect not the cause. So the answer would, again, appear to be perspective.
Originally posted by DJD

Love the way you have phrased the above.

Welcome to the forum.

LW

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Better to have an open map, than a closed one__although not too open...

Principles of a complex adaptive system...

We are just skimming the surface of a monumental problem in biological physics: How agents that communicate with each other and adapt to the structures that they create can be understood. A biological system that communicates and adapts like the film-forming bacteria is an example of a complex adaptive system. In principle, a complex adaptive system could appear almost anywhere, but biological systems are the most extreme cases of this general phenomenon.


Figure 8: A schematic view of what constitutes a complex adaptive system.
Source: © Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0. More info

A Better Scientific Method...


Looking back at the steps that led to BCS as the Standard Model for what we now describe as conventional superconductors, a pattern emerges. Bardeen, who was key to the development of the theory at every stage from 1950 to 1957, consistently followed what we would now describe as the appropriate emergent strategy for dealing with any major unsolved problem in science:

• Focus first on the experimental results via reading and personal contact.
• Explore alternative physical pictures and mathematical descriptions without becoming wedded to any particular one.
• Thermodynamic and other macroscopic arguments have precedence over microscopic calculations.
• Aim for physical understanding, not mathematical elegance, and use the simplest possible mathematical description of system behavior.
• Keep up with new developments in theoretical techniques—for one of these may prove useful.
• Decide at a qualitative level on candidate organizing concepts that might be responsible for the most important aspect of the measured emergent behavior.
• Only then put on a "reductionist" hat, proposing and solving models that embody the candidate organizing principles.

http://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=9&secNum=2