The notion of emergent phenomena is closely related to holism. Am I correct? — Agent Smith

Yes. "Holism" and "Emergence" are essential concepts in the thesis of Enformationism, which derives from the epistemological (what can we know?) challenges of Quantum Entanglement and Complex Systems in general. The Santa Fe Institute was founded specifically to study Complexity via holistic methods, instead of the traditional reductive methods of classical Science. :smile:
But don't take my word for it. Here's some other opinions :


Strong Emergence Is Holism, Not Magic :
To a reductionist, this seems magical: How do qualitatively different properties “emerge” (in irony quotes) from complex aggregates of fundamental particles of matter? Proponents of strong emergence (or holism), however, argue both that the potential for higher-level, qualitatively distinct properties is written into the laws of nature (laws of emergence, so to speak) and that what look like relatively mundane or boring fundamental particles of nature actually have immense creative potential to instantiate higher-level entities and properties when arranged in complex ways.
https://www.zacharyfruhling.com/philosophy-blog/strong-emergence-is-holism-not-magic

Holism, reductionism and emergence :
Emergence is the opposite of reduction. Holism is the opposite of separability.
The difference is subtle, but emergence and reduction are concerned with concepts, properties, types of phenomena, being deducible from other (lower level) ones, while holism is concerned with the behaviour of parts being independent from relational aspects, or their pertaining to a whole.
Following holism, the whole system should be considered, not only its parts and their interactions. A typical example is entanglement in quantum mechanics. That does not mean that new irreducible higher level concepts have to be used to address the whole system.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21419/holism-reductionism-and-emergence

Holism in science :
Holism in science, holistic science, or methodological holism is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to both each other and to the whole. Holism typically stands in contrast with reductionism, which describes systems by dividing them into smaller components in order to understand them through their elemental properties.
Proponents claim that Holistic science is naturally suited to subjects such as ecology, biology, physics and the social sciences, where complex, non-linear interactions are the norm. These are systems where emergent properties arise at the level of the whole that cannot be predicted by focusing on the parts alone, which may make mainstream, reductionist science ill-equipped to provide understanding beyond a certain level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science


What they say about us ... This is the Santa Fe Institute, a sort of Justice League of renegade geeks, where teams of scientists from disparate fields study the complexity of evolving worlds.
https://www.santafe.edu/about/overview

Interesting to say the least, I'll click on the links when possible. Danke. 180 Proof was referring to a different aspect of holism then.

I perceived no language barrier between us, and I find such camouflaged insults, rather puerile. — universeness

The insult is in your interpretation. FWIW, I never intend to offend. The wry remark was intended as an ironic all-too-true joke-poke, to be accepted with philosophical grace. Yet I anticipated that you might take the metaphor literally, just as you do with so many of my other "puerile" multi-value*1 tropes that affront your personal two-value worldview. BTW, if I intended to insult you, I wouldn't have to "camouflage" it. My personal worldview is fundamentally different from yours, so a implication in one "language" does not translate to the other. :joke:

The irony is that you "perceived no language barrier", when our dialects are so far apart as to convey opposite meanings. The tongue-in-cheek-joke was referring to the same old barrier-to-understanding that prompted Voltaire to advise, for all who engage in philosophical dialogues, “If you want to converse with me, first define your terms”,. Unfortunately, for those with Black vs White mindsets, there is no common ground for defining terms across the umbra. :meh:


*1. BothAnd : a multivalued worldview, as opposed to an Either/Or attitude toward truth.

Your sense of humour is very eccentric and very excusive to you.
The language and phrases you employ are not complex. Our opinions are far apart, yes, as you give brain space to woo woo posits, regarding a first cause mind and I don't.
You gave a clear example of 'defining your terms,' with your poor attempt to redefine deism.
What personal 'two values' do you think constitute my worldview, that you claim you affront?
You certainly do try to insult by stealth, but it's nothing that I can't easily counter.

Unfortunately, for those with Black vs White mindsets — Gnomon

Again, try not to show yourself, as we say in Scotland, as a 'nippy wee sweetie.'

I'm a big fat buzzin' gadfly. Btw, who said anybody is actually "awake"?

Your description of deism is simply wrong. You have no ability to usurp a well entrenched label for your own purposes without first gaining massive popular support to do so. . . . .
"Deism . . . (derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god") is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe". — universeness

Whoa! That's an emphatic two-handed rejection. I described Deism simply as a "non-religious philosophical position". How does your quote differ, except for more words? It says nothing about Religion. So, I assume that you must interpret "supreme being" as a taboo religious concept. I don't. And many philosophers & scientists through history have held notions of a First Cause or "Supreme Being" while eschewing the revelations and creeds of religions. Who's doing the "usurping" here?

Note the reference to "empirical reason" in your definition. Picking nits : in my understanding of Deism, I would replace the word "to determine" with "to imply". The implicit immaterial First Cause is not "determined" in the empirical sense of a direct observation of physical evidence*1, but merely a conclusion "inferred" from a discernible pattern of circumstantial evidence (clues)*2. I'm merely trying to anticipate your objection here, based on a narrow cherry-picked meaning of the word "to determine".

Yet again, different meanings for same words. Which makes philosophical communication difficult. So, what's "simply" wrong with my definition? Sounds like "what's wrong" is simply that you don't like the philosophical implications of an Ultimate Cause or Supreme Being or Cosmic Programmer or Creator. How can we communicate if we don't share that emotional bias?*3 Perhaps you prefer to assume that the evolving ever-changing physical universe is Self-Existent or Self-Created? Based on what evidence? :smile:


*1. Can physical evidence be circumstantial evidence?
Physical evidence can be direct and all but prove the guilt of the accused, or it can be merely circumstantial. For example, a shoe print is an example of physical evidence. But just because the accused wears similar shoes as the person who committed the crime does not prove the accused did it.
https://catanzarolaw.com/2021/06/differences-between-physical-and-circumstantial-evidence/
Note -- many crimes are solved solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Is that OK with you? In this case the crime is Creation.

*2. To Determine :
1. cause (something) to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in.
2. ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation.
3. to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities
4. to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determine

*3. We Just Disagree :
So let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy
There's only you and me and we just disagree
___Song by Dave Mason, 1977
Sorry, that's just my weird sense of humor again. :joke:

What personal 'two values' do you think constitute my worldview, that you claim you affront? — universeness

I don't know. What do you think are your absolute values? True vs False? How do you know which is which? Whatever they are, they seem to be toward the opposite ends of my broader range of values. Which includes "maybe" or "I don't know". :joke: :cool:

Black and white thinking is a thought pattern that makes people think in absolutes.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/black-and-white-thinking

Multi-valued orientation is for things to be ranged on a scale. Two values orientation is used for the "absolutes". Instead of having a scale of values, the "absolutes" are used.
https://www.123helpme.com/essay/A-Comparison-Of-Multi-valued-Orientation-And-49481

I described Deism simply as a "non-religious philosophical position". — Gnomon

Insofar as Enformationism is synonymous / analogius to deism: if it walks like god-of-the-gaps and quacks like god-of-the-gaps and denies sound counter-arguments like god-of-the-gaps, then it must be, for all intents and purposes, god-of-the-gaps. :zip:

I described Deism simply as a "non-religious philosophical position". How does your quote differ, except for more words? It says nothing about Religion. — Gnomon

"Deism . . . (derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god") is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe". — universeness

It's irrational to suggest someone else is cherry picking, when, in reading the above definition, you seem to have 'missed' the words 'god, theology and divine' and refuse to cognise their connection to theism and almost every practiced religion. You keep trying to grab at anything to try to hide behind.

many philosophers & scientists through history have held notions of a First Cause or "Supreme Being" while eschewing the revelations and creeds of religions. Who's doing the "usurping" here? — Gnomon

Oh, you are! There is no question about that. You also make many generalised claims, like the one quoted above. Give me an example of a non-theistic scientist or philosopher who proposed a supreme being with no theological component to it. Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief.

in my understanding of Deism, I would replace the word "to determine" with "to imply". — Gnomon

You obvious attempts to 'dilute' your theology to make the taste less bitter to rational thinkers, does border on the jocular. Which is probably much closer to the truth about why you make so much use of joke style emoticons.

Sounds like "what's wrong" is simply that you don't like the philosophical implications of an Ultimate Cause or Supreme Being or Cosmic Programmer or Creator. — Gnomon

There is nothing 'wrong' from my side and it's not a matter of what 'I like.' You are confused. The imperative is the pursuit of truth. There is 0 evidence of a 'supreme being' or a 'cosmic programmer.' I think you have been watching too many films like:

Perhaps you found Milla Jovovich's performance as the 'supreame beaing' very convincing.

How can we communicate if we don't share that emotional bias? Perhaps you prefer to assume that the evolving ever-changing physical universe is Self-Existent or Self-Created? Based on what evidence? — Gnomon

I agree with your self-accusation, that YOUR first cause mind with intent, is YOUR emotional invention.
My evidence is very easy, and is very convincing for any rational thinker. If a first mind exists then it MUST irrefutably, prove it's existence to us. Divine hiddenness, demonstrates its non-existence.
The evidence of divine hiddenness, is far far stronger than any BS witness or scriptural evidence in existence, or your irrational claims about the necessity of a camouflaged, kalam style, first cause mind with intent.
I have hesitated so far, to label you a sophist, but these quite desperate attempts to defend your hopeless position, pushes me and I predict, any other rational reader of our exchange, towards that label.

Note -- many crimes are solved solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Is that OK with you? In this case the crime is Creation. — Gnomon

What utter nonsense!! YOU NEVER convict on circumstantial evidence, unless you live under corrupt authority and are yourself, corrupt.

Sorry, that's just my weird sense of humor again. — Gnomon

I know!

I don't know. What do you think are your absolute values? True vs False? — Gnomon

Perhaps you should take a note of them, so I don't have to keep repeating them.
I am a secular humanist. Democratic socialism is my politics and I am an atheist.

Insofar as Enformationism synonymous / analogius to deism: if it walks like god-of-the-gaps and quacks like god-of-the-gaps and denies sound counter-arguments like god-of-the-gaps, then it must be, for all intents and purposes, god-of-the-gaps. — 180 Proof

:clap: :up:

It's irrational to suggest someone else is cherry picking, when, in reading the above definition, you seem to have 'missed' the words 'god, theology and divine' and refuse to cognise their connection to theism and almost every practiced religion. You keep trying to grab at anything to try to hide behind. — universeness

Speaking of "cherry picking" you are selecting only the low-hanging fruit of religious meanings of "god", and ignoring the philosophical meanings. Do you think Spinoza used the word "god" in a religious sense? He is often identified as an early Deist, as well as a Pantheist/Pandeist. Some deists imagined God as the exogenous creator of the world, but others viewed God as immanent in the world. My personal Information-based understanding of "G*D" is BothAnd : PanEnDeism. In any case, most Deists were anti-religious. So their notion of "god" was equivalent to an abstract philosophical Principle.

Unfortunately. we are still using different vocabularies. And you won't find my terminology in a dictionary. Therefore, if you want to know what I mean by a word, all you have to do is ask me. :smile:

PS__You and have been trying to label me with a well-known woo-woo pigeon-hole that you can dismiss with a wave of the trite "god of the gaps" hand. But I don't even fit neatly into the amorphous Deism category. So, if you ask judgmentally, "are you now, or have you ever been, a Deist" I can truthfully answer : no. That's because my personal worldview is new & novel & unique. So it's an octagonal peg that doesn't fit into any pre-existing round-or-square, theist-or-atheist-or-ass-hole. Since I have been pre-judged, in a woo-woo kangaroo court, I'll have to plead the fifth. :joke:


Why Spinoza is Intolerant of Atheists :
Spinoza explicitly contrasts his view, based on a deist conception of God, with that of Hobbes.
https://phil.washington.edu/research/essays-articles-and-book-chapters/why-spinoza-intolerant-atheists-god-and-limits-early

Deism :
More simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious . . . The most natural position for Deists was to reject all forms of supernaturalism, including the miracle stories in the Bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Note -- Do you classify science-based Multiverse & Many Worlds hypotheses as "super-natural"? The G*D concept is a philosophical hypothesis, not a religious creedal belief. Do you understand the essential distinction between Philosophy and Religion?

FWIW, THIS IS WHAT GNOMON MEANS BY THE WORD "DEISM'
Just opinions. No-one speaks authoritatively for the non-religion of Deism

In other words, god-of-the-gaps. :sweat:

In other words, god-of-the-gaps. — 180 Proof

You know what, my money is on Gnomon's G*D/Enformer resembling Fortuna more than YHWH!

You know what, my money is on Gnomon's G*D/Enformer resembling Fortuna more than YHWH! — Agent Smith

Thanks, but my idiosyncratic god-model doesn't even fit the Fortuna pigeonhole. Did you notice the PS in my previous post? :cool:

:up:

Speaking of "cherry picking" you are selecting only the low-hanging fruit of religious meanings of "god", and ignoring the philosophical meanings. — Gnomon

Why would I care about how you try to camouflage your god/supernatural references?
I am only interested in exposing your claims, for what they truly are, supernatural/god references. but I hardly have to, as you do a good job of that yourself.

Do you think Spinoza used the word "god" in a religious sense? He is often identified as an early Deist, as well as a Pantheist/Pandeist. — Gnomon

As I have already stated. Spinoza lived in a time when theism had much more power than it has today. He directly suffered in his life, because of the backwards theism he was faced with.
Spinoza was a victim of theism. I think he was an 'early,' atheist and a brave man, for standing up to the evil theism of his time.

In any case, most Deists were anti-religious. So their notion of "god" was equivalent to an abstract philosophical Principle. — Gnomon

You will NEVER get past your gap god deity (deism), by trying to dress it up as a fake 'abstract philosophical principle.' You would be as well to claim that pixies, orcs, unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster are also important abstract philosophical principles.

I watched a 3 hour debate last night, between Aron Ra and a Christian pastor called Stuart Knechtle.
Stuart's claims of a first cause mind, were almost identical to yours. He would see you as one of his supporters who deliver's a similar message to him. Aron totally defeated him in the debate imo. Matt Dillahunty has also defeated this guy in debate, more than once. Listening to Stuart's arguments was sooooooooooo similar, to reading yours.

Unfortunately. we are still using different vocabularies. And you won't find my terminology in a dictionary. Therefore, if you want to know what I mean by a word, all you have to do is ask me. — Gnomon

I have, and you have answered with many badly formed definitions, that are of your own invention.
You are correct, people wont find your terminology in many places outside of YOUR own theistic musings.

PS__You and ↪180 Proof have been trying to label me with a well-known woo-woo pigeon-hole that you can dismiss with a wave of the trite "god of the gaps" hand. But I don't even fit neatly into the amorphous Deism category. So, if you ask judgmentally, "are you now, or have you ever been, a Deist" I can truthfully answer : no. That's because my personal worldview is new & novel & unique. — Gnomon

:lol: You are too much in love with your own smells, to be able to reason with you. You are fully cooked in your own woo woo. I think you are only a few steps away from walking up and down the streets where you live, wearing sandwich boards with words like 'My Enformer is the one TRUE god,' on one side and 'SORRY my enformer is too busy to enform anyone about anything! (Gnomon's Deism)'

FWIW, THIS IS WHAT GNOMON MEANS BY THE WORD "DEISM' — Gnomon

Your constant use of Illeism, further demonstrates your conceit, that you constantly try to dress in humble garb. The source of your desim definition IS YOU :rofl: :roll:

As carbon based lifeforms, we eventually 'emerged' . . . This got me thinking more about 'emergence.' To what extent do you think that human beings are 'information processors?' — universeness

I originally posted on the Emergent thread because the general concepts of "emergence" and "information processing" are essential to my idiosyncratic personal worldview. I had no intention of discussing "gods" or "religions". But I did propose to engage in a philosophical dialogue, not a scientific debate. However, I was forced, by persistent skeptical challenges, to explain how I arrived at some of my opinions about "emergence" & "information", and the origins of those ongoing processes. Yet hypothetical postulations about Ultimate Emergence and Origins of Forms, led to unfounded accusations of religious motivations, instead of philosophical curiosity. Unfortunately, that refocus of the thread let us far off-topic.

and teamed-up to quash any non-empirical answers to the OP questions. Despite inviting non-professional Opinions instead of authoritative Facts, they seem to think this forum is a place for only empirical/physical (scientific) answers, and not for theoretical/metaphysical (philosophical) guesses. But I continued to insist that the whole point of a philosophical forum was to discuss Open Questions*1 that have not been settled (closed) by experimental results or mathematical calculations (Quanta). Such unresolved queries tend to be about Universals & Logical Possibilities (Qualia) that are not sorted-out by Observations or Algorithms. Yet the A-team demanded empirically verifiable closed-system answers only : Demonstrate or Calculate!

They seem to be practicing radical Humean skepticism*2. Ironically, as a philosophical method, it is self defeating, because it denies the possibility of theoretical knowledge or pragmatic belief*3. It closes the door to Epistemology. That's why Bayesian Probability was developed, to provide a means to make uncertain information useful. Quantum physics would be useless if we demanded final facts (Quanta) and rejected informed opinions (Qualia). Quantum scientists resolved the dilemma of statistical uncertainty by voting on imperfect-but-actionable beliefs, as summarized in the Standard Model. Philosophers seldom deal with questions that have final satisfactory answers. Which is why we are still arguing open-ended Socratic questions to this day, 2500 years later.

Happenstantially, my Enformationism worldview is informed in part by an essential principle of Quantum Science : Uncertainty (undecidable ; in-calculable ; non-algorithmic). That fundamental fact reveals that Nature is inherently statistical & probabilistic. Hence, not amenable to comprehensive answers, only serviceable limited applications. So quantum scientists had to learn to be satisfied by Open Ended probabilities instead of settled certainties. Practical, but not perfect conclusions. Likewise, my responses to the topical questions are inherently Philosophical (possible ; probable), not Scientific (empirical ; factual), but also not Religious (wishful ; emotional).

Statistical solutions, like Open Questions, are indefinite & elliptical, hence extend beyond space-time to include Infinity & Eternity. For example, what are the odds that our universe is self-existent, and did not emerge from any prior causal system? Did the Real world emerge from timeless statistical Potential, or from an infinite regression of Actual turtle-worlds? Did space-time-matter-energy begin with a bang, or is it eternally recycling? Did homo sapiens emerge from random evolution as an incidental accident -- is that a fact or conjecture? How did humans learn to process abstract information, such as mathematics, unless the potential for that talent was inherent in the information-processing system of Evolution? This is just a sample of open-ended questions that philosophers engage with, but have no hope for empirical resolution. I certainly don't have the final answers, do you? :smile:



*1. Open Questions :
An open-ended question is a question that cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no" response, or with a static response.
__Wiki
Note -- For example : is the fundamental element of physics Particular or Holistic? Statistical quantum duality (wave-particle) is a philosophical conundrum : moving Wave or static Object ; local Atom or non-local Field ; Part or Whole ; Yes, No, or Maybe?

*2. “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
― David Hume
Note -- Taken literally, this declaration equates "abstract reasoning" concerning Qualia or Infinity with Sophistry. In which case, Quantum Physics & Philosophical Epistemology are illusory, and deceptive.

*3. Radical skepticism (or radical scepticism in British English) is the philosophical position that knowledge is most likely impossible. Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified. To determine the extent to which it is possible to respond to radical skeptical challenges is the task of epistemology or "the theory of knowledge".
___Wiki

:rofl:

If you think the answer is yes, then do you think that the following is emergent:
In the future we will
1. 'Network' our individual brain based knowledge.
2. Connect our brain based knowledge, directly, to all electronically stored information and be able to search it at will, in a similar style (or better) to a google search.
3. Act as a single connected intellect and as separate intellects. — universeness

Regarding 1 and 2
I have no idea what humans will manage to do or not, but I'm not sure if the idea of emergence is quite the right idea to capture such developments. There are several concepts of emergence, but taking it as the idea that complex systems instantiate properties that were not present in the several components of that system, then arguably what you suggest does not constitute emergence. People's brains have always been linked together through communication, then there was the explosion of shared information with the invention of printing, then again with the internet. But I suggest that this is an evolution of degree and not of kind. What novel property do we see now that we didn't when, say, the printing press was invented? Isn't the difference just one of degree?

Regarding 3
This might be a case of emergence, depending on what you mean. It's conceivable it's already happening I guess. Are you suggesting the barriers that individuate people dissolve, such that we become one person, with pooled experiences and thoughts?

I originally posted on the Emergent thread because the general concepts of "emergence" and "information processing" are essential to my idiosyncratic personal worldview. I had no intention of discussing "gods" or "religions". — Gnomon

Well, perhaps in discussing your personal worldview on this thread, you have realised more about the clear connections, between your personal idiosyncratic musings, and theism.

I had no intention of discussing "gods" or "religions". But I did propose to engage in a philosophical dialogue, not a scientific debate. — Gnomon

But your philosophical dialogue contains a god posit, so the need for a rational scientific analysis, becomes obvious. I am surprised you found the sequence of events surprising!

However, I was forced, by persistent skeptical challenges, to explain how I arrived at some of my opinions about "emergence" & "information", and the origins of those ongoing processes. — Gnomon

Yeah, your viewpoints will be scrutinised on a public forum. Does that shock you? Or do you know that fine well? And you are merely playing your victim card again.

Yet hypothetical postulations about Ultimate Emergence and Origins of Forms, led to unfounded accusations of religious motivations, instead of philosophical curiosity. Unfortunately, that refocus of the thread let us far off-topic. — Gnomon

You have not offered much on what is ultimately emergent in humans. You have offered your views on platonic forms, and a first cause mind with intent to create us. I do not think such is off-topic for this thread, as musings about the origin story of our universe, are relevant to what has been, and is now, emerging from human intent and purpose.

↪180 Proof and ↪universeness teamed-up to quash any non-empirical answers to the OP questions. — Gnomon

I am broadly concordant with @180 Proof's viewpoints of the origin story of our universe, but I think you are inflating your own importance, when you suggest we are both conspiring against you, using some cunning plan, we have concocted between us. You sound rather paranoid and ridiculous, when you post such suggestions.

they seem to think this forum is a place for only empirical/physical (scientific) answers, and not for theoretical/metaphysical (philosophical) guesses. — Gnomon

Not only, but also. If you have any such serious concerns, then I suggest you raise such with the TPF moderators.

Yet the A-team demanded empirically verifiable closed-system answers only : Demonstrate or Calculate! — Gnomon

If you have a problem, maybe you can hire this A-team to help you with your attempts to empirically demonstrate the facts, regarding your various dalliances with theism (that for some strange reason, you try to deny.)

it is self defeating, because it denies the possibility of theoretical knowledge or pragmatic belief*3. It closes the door to Epistemology. That's why Bayesian Probability was developed, to provide a means to make uncertain information useful. — Gnomon

Skeptiscism is no way self-defeating, on the contrary, it is essential to prevent the nefarious from gaining authority, wealth and status. In what ways is positing a mind with intent 'pragmatic?' It is absolute speculation, based on nothing more than mundane human intuition. The universe does not necessarily work the way folks who intuit, as you do, need it to! OR as I or @180 Proof may propose it may work.
The only truth which is currently 100% credible, regarding the origin of the universe, is, NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE!

Which is why we are still arguing open-ended Socratic questions to this day, 2500 years later. — Gnomon

We are still trying to find answers to questions, first asked way, way before Socrates.
In the cosmic calendar, there are 437.5 years per cosmic second. 2500 years is only around 5.7 seconds in the cosmic calendar. 2500 years is not much time at all considering our history and our potential future.

Statistical solutions, like Open Questions, are indefinite & elliptical, hence extend beyond space-time to include Infinity & Eternity. For example, what are the odds that our universe is self-existent, and did not emerge from any prior causal system? Did the Real world emerge from timeless statistical Potential, or from an infinite regression of Actual turtle-worlds? Did space-time-matter-energy begin with a bang, or is it eternally recycling? Did homo sapiens emerge from random evolution as an incidental accident -- is that a fact or conjecture? How did humans learn to process abstract information, such as mathematics, unless the potential for that talent was inherent in the information-processing system of Evolution? This is just a sample of open-ended questions that philosophers engage with, but have no hope for empirical resolution. I certainly don't have the final answers, do you? — Gnomon

A bunch of gaps, into which you plug a god shaped solution called the enformer, and then you spend so much time and effort, denying that your first cause mind (enformer) mode, IS, a gap god posit.
The only difference between your posit, and the theism espoused by American christian pastor Stuart Knechtle, is in the name chosen for this 'first cause mind with intent,' YOU call it the enformer and try to play down it's qualification as a theistic posit and HE calls it Jesus and declares loudly and proudly, that he espouses a supernatural called 'christ,' as the first cause mind with intent.

:zip:

Regarding 1 and 2
I have no idea what humans will manage to do or not, but I'm not sure if the idea of emergence is quite the right idea to capture such developments. There are several concepts of emergence, but taking it as the idea that complex systems instantiate properties that were not present before that system existed, then arguably what you suggest does not constitute emergence. — bert1

I am mostly using the definition of emergence as 'the process of coming into existence or prominence.'
I am aware of the various philosophical viewpoints of the term as described in wiki:. I am also fine with your 'what humans will do.' I think the idea of 'networking our future brain based knowledge,' may well be emerging in humans due to developing transhuman tech, so I am referring to a future networking level which is way beyond:

"People's brains have always been linked together through communication"
"the invention of printing"
"the internet" — bert1

I was more referring to a future networking that may allow thought exchange, that we might label 'telepathy,' in the sense of transmitting thought and 'empathic' in the sense of transmitting emotion.
This would still be individuals networking together, it would not be a 'merging of minds.'

What novel property do we see now that we didn't when, say, the printing press was invented? — bert1

Speed of access and information storage capacity have massively increased, and is continuing.

Isn't the difference just one of degree? — bert1

Yes, as far as the vast improvement in general information retrieval speed, process speed and storage capacity. But if you combine this, with the advances in biological and quantum computing and the increasing ability to directly attach biotech, directly to the human brain (such as Neuralink etc) then the advance becomes more than just 'degree,' it becomes new functionality, not possible before. Such as the guy Neil Harbisson, who many consider the first true cyborg, as he 'hears' colour.

My second suggested 'emergence' of, 'Connect our brain based knowledge, directly, to all electronically stored information and be able to search it at will, in a similar style (or better) to a google search.' was the idea of being able to do this without a laptop of mobile phone. A neuralink style device, that would allow you to do what we currently do with mobile phones/computers and laptops/tablet computers. I don't think this would be a 'degree' change, due to the HCI involved. So far our human computer interfaces have been TUI and GUI. Textual and then Graphical human computer interfaces.
We are moving towards a VUI, (voice user interface), which is a degree change, as it is also based on our sensory input and output systems. BUT the proposed SUI, or sentience user interface or THUI, thought user interface, is a change in functionality, as thought is not a human sense.

3. Act as a single connected intellect and as separate intellects.
— universeness
Regarding 3
This might be a case of emergence, depending on what you mean. It's conceivable it's already happening I guess. Are you suggesting the barriers that individual people dissolve, such that we become one person, with pooled experiences and thoughts? — bert1

Well, I think this one is much more complicated. 'When two become one.' A literal 'merging' of two human minds into one, would be more than the sum of the two minds involved, imo.
Can you imagine merging your brain with another. A true merging would create a 'new mind' imo, that would function in ways that the two separate identities would not. I have tried to ruminate on stuff like, say, one brain was very good at maths and another very good at languages. Would combining them make the resultant a lot better at explaining their mathematics? and would there be 'consequential residuals,' for both the minds involved, when they became individuals again.
Have you watched sci-fi examples such as those below, from star trek:
Tuvix, when they combined Neelix and Tuvok

or in Deep space nine when they combined odo and Curzon Dax.

I don't think either sci-fi example would be anything like the reality of such a 'merging.' It's fun to think about it 'philosophically' however.

There as always been enough food to feed everyone on the planet, every day. It's the distribution system that's flawed. — universeness

That is not at all what we learn from history. Starvation was common and it brought civilizations down.

Globally, it has been estimated that 26,082 tonnes of food, goes to waste every single day. — universeness

This would not be so without modern farming practices and that is not sustainable and goes with poluting rivers and the ocean. Not all countries can meet their population's needs because they do not have enough agricultural land and water everywhere is becoming a serious problem.

I think eliminating dairy and meat from our diets would increase malnutrition. I think the United Nations' statement is distorted by its mission. Getting enough protein in our diets can be a problem. Researchers are trying to increase the protein in rice however we should know rice is a significantly large methane gas problem and scientists are working on this problem as well. Soy is a good source of protein and problems too.

Like many other intensive farms, soy farms not only harm the environment but also have numerous social impacts, especially on rural communities. While soybean production can boost economic growth, it can also increase income inequality and affect human health via water pollution and occupational hazards.Jan 25, 2022

Soy Farms: Is Soy Farming Bad for the Environment? | FFAC — FFAC

About that economic and social problem, many farmers in India have killed themselves when they lost their plots to the intensive farmers. We can see in the US how corporate farmers have taken out small farmers. We can see the income disparity and the Native American fight for their environment with big corporations that threaten their land and water. We are not respecting limits and that is not a good thing but a path to destruction.

At least you are consistent in your imagery of pessimism and dystopia for future humans. — universeness

And you remain consistent with the optimism. I’m sure somebody will fix it. Just somebody else, and please not while I’m around.
I am glad that I don't have to deal with such a burdensome, pressing, internal gnaw, regarding the future of our species.

Are you sure NOBODY wants to ensure the well-being, thriving and progression of our species, towards becoming as benevolent a presence in the universe as is possible?

There are those that might be capable of it, but they are not the ones in a position to do anything about it. Certainly not by the process you suggest for assigning these positions. Not one of them would be electable. You need a pessimist for one thing. Nobody is going to take evasive action if they refuse to see the train coming.

There are definite similarities, between my politics, and the intentions of the hero masses of Russia and China, that got rid of the vile monarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy that ruled those country's so badly.

OK, they got rid of the aristocracy, just as the French did. It was better than before, but it was never communist except in name. Maybe briefly at first, but people needed to eat and keep warm.

'The Plan,' as formed in Russia to create a fair, money free, socioeconomic system in Russia, was a brilliant system, that worked very well for the Russian people, when it was first introduced. Russia's decline into the totalitarian gangster state, it is now, started when the truly evil Stalin took power.

Yea, I don’t know enough about how all that worked. My knowledge of the transition to that gangster state is pretty poor. Don’t know how it all kind of worked before then, or how the rest of the world dealt with such a state.

An utterly crucial lesson, we have all, yet to fully understand and learn how to successfully prevent from happening again.

Hence my interest in designing a better system, even if only on paper. But my expertise makes me a naive contributor at best. They tried to do it in the USA, but clearly mistakes were made.
Part of the problem is the world economy. You can put in good rules like ‘no slavery’, but global companies will just outsource their production to regions with rules that allow it. Rules being different from here to there messes it all up. There is no global authority.
What would such an authority do? Hand first world minimal living standards to even the most primitive places on the planet?

There are very serious social consequences. People will still want to know answers to questions such as 'so what do you do?'

Admittedly, people are readily willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to garner an imagined approval from complete strangers. I wonder how much I fool myself into thinking I’m not impressed by it.

The difference between then and now, is that they will have truly CHOSEN to live their life like that, rather than be forced to, as the majority who are experiencing life like that today, are forced to.

They’re forced to? They’re able bodied and educatable. That path isn’t forced. Taught maybe.

Well noticed! don't you think you should work with those who are trying to remove such consequences of the capitalist money trick?

I vote. I hadn’t any plans to go into politics and rise to the levels where such things are decided.

I have no problem with the 'black market' you describe in the quote above.
If someone wants, say, an old/vintage car collection, that they do up, and show to others and drive around, then, the 'barter' system you describe, sounds good to me.
Everyone can take their basic means of survival for granted. As long as that is available to EVERYONE with no conditions attached, and such rights CANNOT BE REMOVED by any new authority, then I think we can accomodate the majority of the wishes of those who prioritise 'independent expressions of personal freedom,' and also allow, 'entrepreneurial aspiration.'

OK. Suppose somebody is a very talented and popular artist. She creates works that are far more in demand than there is supply. So it goes onto the barter market and she gets wealthy with whatever the medium of exchange is. In the mean time, to the state she’s a non-contributor since none of her work contributes to the well-being of the whole. At best her side ‘income’ at least pays for the better art supplies since the state isn’t going to find need there if her work is on the non-contributor status just like all the other authors, artists and hobbyists, the ones whose work is noticed by a handful of people at best.

About photons from data:

I think we are probably imagining the same thing. Obviously, your instruction above would be in an HLL or high level language that would require translation before execution. — universeness

Irrelevant. So does communication between the two of us, whether on this forum or in person. There’s probably at least half a dozon translations/format-conversions done between any such communication, and this is without a machine bothering to parse it to the point of understanding. The ‘make a photon’ instruction might be a single hole in a paper tape. That’s how say one note might be conveyed to a player piano.

The 'machine code' level is the language code we are discussing here , not your 'emit a positron' language (I doubt 'please' will be needed).

OK, you are envisioning binary machine instructions. I wasn’t since such an instruction processing unit is optional just like it is with the piano which works just fine without one. Nothing wrong with doing it via machine instructions.

Employing a source of photons to produce a photon or positron is not my challenge. It's producing a tech that can create a Tbone stake by manipulating the proposed digital level fundamental of the universe.

Ah, a sort of 3D printer for food. Is that so unimaginable?

A Tbone steak, produced, from that which is traditionally described, as the vacuum of space.

As I said, that is impossible (energy conservation violation), and Star Trek never suggested such a capability, despite their complete willingness to discard physics when it suits their purpose.
Anyway, I don’t think the vacuum of space is going to be able to parse your machine instructions.

A wave of light is an electomagnetic analogue waveform of continuous peaks and troughs that traverses the vacuum of space at a fixed speed.

I don’t think there is any such thing. It’s a nice image for some purposes is all.

If you could zoom right into it, I would expect to find that it is made up of discrete packets of energy/field excitations which might be vibrating strings or undulations etc

You can’t zoom into it. Light ‘packets’ unmeasured are undetectable. Light measured is no longer light. This isn’t true of something classical like a water wave, which may lose its wave nature if you zoom in, but there’s still something classical into which one can zoom.

The law is 'You SHALL NOT add your speed, to the speed of light!' — universeness

Not true. You just have to use relativistic addition just like adding velocities of anything under Einstein’s theory.
It seems that in other sites that you cite, the term ‘non-relativistic’ refers to pre-Einstein views like Newtonian physics. — noAxioms

[Carl Sagan clip on ‘Thou Shalt Not Add My Speed to the Speed of Light’ — universeness

Nice reference, but this is a pop video by Carl whose audience is the naive layman. This does not stand up to physics. He implies that light is some sort of exception, that if you are on a bicycle going 20 km/hr relative to the road and throw a rock forward at 20 km/hr relative to the bicycle, that the rock would be going at 40 km/hr relative to the road. Well it’s close to that due to the speed being so insanely low, but it assumes Newtonian relativity, as does pretty much the entire video, understandable due to the layman audience.
If the logic is true, then if the bike is going at .9c and the rider shoots a bullet at 0.5c, then the bullet would be going at 1.4c relative to the ground, contradicting his own statement that such a thing would be impossible.
No, the correct solution is to use Einstein’s relative velocity addition for the bike, the rock, the bullet, and yes, the light. Light is not an exception to this rule at all. Carl doesn’t bring this up at all. He know it, but he also is speaking to an audience that doesn’t yet care about this.

You will NEVER get past your gap god deity (deism), by trying to dress it up as a fake 'abstract philosophical principle.' You would be as well to claim that pixies, orcs, unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster are also important abstract philosophical principles. — universeness

Since I have no formal training in Philosophy, it has taken me a while to realize that you and are arguing from a Logical Positivism position, which says that there are no “open questions”, hence nothing for philosophers to contribute. Which explains why our vocabularies don't align. Ironically, the Vienna Circle argued themselves out of a job, since they claimed that empirical methods should replace the rational methods of traditional philosophy. That attitude makes the set of philosophical (open) questions empty. For example, Steven Hawking asserted that “philosophy is dead”. In which case this forum – including Uni & 180 -- is a major contributor to global warming : producing nothing but hot air. Hawking went on to say “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics”. Based on that prejudice, he dismissed one Open Question : “did the universe need a creator?” I don't think he was dissembling, but he seems to be unaware of professional physicists (e.g. Paul Davies ; Santa Fe Institute), who do consider that to be a valid question, especially in the light of open-ended Quantum Physics.

Your derision of my "god posit" is understandable from the worldview of Logical Positivism*1. But that outdated position of Certainty is no longer valid in the world of Quantum Uncertainty*2. Besides, can you find any instance in my posts where I have posited a super-natural explanation for a natural phenomenon that has been sufficiently explained by physical evidence? Isaac Newton's Principia explained most celestial phenomena in terms of a clock-like mechanism*3. But he was baffled by the non-mechanical "spooky action at a distance" of Gravity. So, he declined to propose a mechanical explanation, and instead he filled that gap in understanding by invoking the Christian God*4. Was Newton a religious idiot, or a genius scientist to whom the notion of "super-natural" was a problem for Physics, but not for Metaphysics*5. As a metaphysical philosopher, not bound to physical explanations, I can "feign" a hypothesis to fill the same gap recognized by Multiverse & Many Worlds proponents. None of which are verifiable in a positive sense, but which are logical as philosophical gap-filling posits*6.

You and 180 are broadly interpreting my meta-physical "principles" far beyond my own application. The only "gap" that I fill with a god-concept is the eternal abyss, of causal potential, metaphorically "before" the Big Bang. The mythical beings you list are merely analogies to creatures in the Natural world. Hence subject to validation or invalidation. But sober Scientists have postulated preter-natural pre-existent gap-fillers of their own, such as hypothetical Multiverses & Many Worlds*6. Do you take them to be empirical postulations or philosophical conjectures? If invalid, what alternative gap-filler, to something-from-nothing, can you posit? BTW, I have been lax in my ir-religious duties. Have I ever asked if you have a personal relationship with the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Have you been touched by his "noodly appendage". That's how you get to the meatball of his existence. :wink: :joke: :cool:



*1. "Logical positivism is not a philosophy of science according to the textbook. Positivism states you can only attribute cause to things you objectively know exist ... "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

*2. Logical Positivism panned :
“The verifiability criterion made universal statements 'cognitively' meaningless, and even made statements beyond empiricism for technological but not conceptual reasons meaningless, which was taken to pose significant problems for the philosophy of science. . . . Even philosophers disagreeing among themselves on which direction general epistemology ought to take, as well as on philosophy of science, agreed that the logical empiricist program was untenable, and it became viewed as self-contradictory: the verifiability criterion of meaning was itself unverified . . . . Popper finds virtue in metaphysics, required to develop new scientific theories. And an unfalsifiable—thus unscientific, perhaps metaphysical—concept in one era can later, through evolving knowledge or technology, become falsifiable, thus scientific. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

*3. Action at a Distance :
The Newtonian view of the universe may be described as a mechanistic interpretation. . . . Newton did not address this question, but many of his contemporaries hypothesized that the forces were mediated through an invisible and frictionless medium which Aristotle had called the ether. The problem is that everyday experience of natural phenomena shows mechanical things to be moved by forces which make contact. Any cause and effect without a discernible contact, or action at a distance, contradicts common sense and has been an unacceptable notion since antiquity. Whenever the nature of the transmission of certain actions and effects over a distance was not yet understood, the ether was resorted to as a conceptual solution of the transmitting medium. By necessity, any description of how the ether functioned remained vague, but its existence was required by common sense and thus not questioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance
Note -- the necessity for an aethereal medium for action-at-a-distance has been revived in the 21st century by quantum physicists.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432543-300-einstein-killed-the-aether-now-the-idea-is-back-to-save-relativity/

*4. “We can see that Newton made direct use of the God of the Gaps approach, whereupon God is invoked to explain something science can't.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/04/08/398227737/what-the-god-of-the-gaps-teaches-us-about-science

*5. Hypotheses non fingo :
I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical,have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo

*6. Multiverse not science :
Even though certain features of the universe seem to require the existence of a multiverse, nothing has been directly observed that suggests it actually exists. So far, the evidence supporting the idea of a multiverse is purely theoretical, and in some cases, philosophical.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/what-is-the-multiverse

@universeness @Agent Smith

Ad hominems, strawmen & non sequiturs-riddled rationalizations of your "enformer"-of-the-gaps poor reasoning are empty and boring.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/775528

That is not at all what we learn from history. Starvation was common and it brought civilizations down. — Athena

Starvation is common today, never mind in history. How does that change the fact that there is enough food, currently existent on the planet to feed everyone currently existing on the planet?

Not all countries can meet their population's needs because they do not have enough agricultural land and water everywhere is becoming a serious problem. — Athena

That's why we all need to work together as a single species to deal with those imbalances in supply and demand. For me Athena, the answers lie in a global organisation such as the UN. That is a construct that is still very much in it's infancy. The foundational concept of united nations is the direction we all need to focus on.

I think the United Nations' statement is distorted by its mission. — Athena

Well, we have to start somewhere! So where you are and where I am and where everyone is, seems to be the only place we can start from. I know that's an almost pointless sentence Athena BUT, I go to Steven Pinker again, 'we can make things better, because we have demonstrated in the past that we already have.' You help people whenever you can, despite any 'shortfalls,' you are experiencing yourself, so, QED.

About that economic and social problem, many farmers in India have killed themselves when they lost their plots to the intensive farmers. We can see in the US how corporate farmers have taken out small farmers. We can see the income disparity and the Native American fight for their environment with big corporations that threaten their land and water. We are not respecting limits and that is not a good thing but a path to destruction. — Athena

There certainly are many specific problems with the current way things works. You have mentioned a small number of them. It's important to assign your support to whatever projects YOU think might improve things. I think YOU already do that, as much as you can. I think I do to, although I could probably do more, and 'take more of a hit,' to my own personal comfort and ease of mind.
I fully support all moves towards a global society and global secularity, humanism, democratic socialism and a money free resource based economy.

And you remain consistent with the optimism. I’m sure somebody will fix it. Just somebody else, and please not while I’m around. — noAxioms

Oh, I so hope some of the fixing happens whilst you are around. I want to see you forced to put a half full sticker on your half empty approach to life and living. :halo:

Nobody is going to take evasive action if they refuse to see the train coming. — noAxioms

People love to see trains coming. They bring stuff and take stuff and offer travel. It's just a bad idea to stand in front of a moving one, and it's necessary, to stop the nefarious, from deliberately fixing people in front of moving trains with no escape method. Don't focus on cure, focus on prevention.
Prevent the actions of the nefarious, not the movement of the trains, or removing people from the tracks.
Stop them getting put on the tracks in the first place.

K, they got rid of the aristocracy, just as the French did. It was better than before, but it was never communist except in name. Maybe briefly at first, but people needed to eat and keep warm. — noAxioms

I agree that the Russian or Chinese system that replaced their monarchies were never socialist/communist AT THE TOP. But many of the systems established by initiatives like the 'Gosplan' in Russia were indeed socialist and were successful for a while, and did feed people, kept them warm and treated them fairly, but the 'rot' and corruption at the top, soon filtered down. The Russian 'plan' worked fairly well for about 50 years.

Yea, I don’t know enough about how all that worked. — noAxioms

From wiki:
Material balance planning was the major function of Gosplan in the USSR. This method of planning involved the accounting of material supplies in natural units (as opposed to monetary terms) which are used to balance the supply of available inputs with targeted outputs. Material balancing involves taking a survey of available inputs and raw materials in the economy and then using a balance-sheet to balance them with output targets specified by industry to achieve a balance between supply and demand. This balance is used to formulate a plan for the national economy.

The best I have ever watched to gain an understanding of why the soviet union failed, is Adam Curtis's 7 part series called 'TraumaZone,' All 7 parts are available on youtube. Part 1 below:

but global companies will just outsource their production to regions with rules that allow it. Rules being different from here to there messes it all up. There is no global authority. — noAxioms

Time to get rid of any privately owned/shareholder based company, which has such global reach then.
The UN IS a global authority, it IS the beginning of what is needed. It needs far more significant teeth and claws and it needs to become a totally secular, humanist organisation, which is almost impervious, to any attempt at capitalist or theocratic, control.

What would such an authority do? Hand first world minimal living standards to even the most primitive places on the planet? — noAxioms

Not in the 'immediate' way you suggest but slowly and surely and only based on their democratic consent, YES!

Admittedly, people are readily willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to garner an imagined approval from complete strangers. I wonder how much I fool myself into thinking I’m not impressed by it. — noAxioms

The rewards involved in helping others, can be as much of an ego boost, as someone telling you what what an amazing artist, singer, writer, scientist, capitalist, warrior, devil, angel, worshiper, athlete or tiddlywinker you are. All people seek the approval of others, no matter how much anyone might deny it, imo.

The difference between then and now, is that they will have truly CHOSEN to live their life like that, rather than be forced to, as the majority who are experiencing life like that today, are forced to.
They’re forced to? They’re able bodied and educatable. That path isn’t forced. Taught maybe. — noAxioms

Most folks are forced to, yes, or do you think a 16 year old black boy living in a hut in a poor village in a 3rd world country or a slum ghetto somewhere, has the same opportunities in life, as your kids have had?

I vote. I hadn’t any plans to go into politics and rise to the levels where such things are decided. — noAxioms

Good, I am glad you vote, I hope you vote for those who are closest to secular humanism, based on the best of a bad bunch approach, if that's all that's on your local menu, and if it is all that's on offer, then perhaps you do need to get involved yourself.

OK. Suppose somebody is a very talented and popular artist. She creates works that are far more in demand than there is supply. So it goes onto the barter market and she gets wealthy with whatever the medium of exchange is. In the mean time, to the state she’s a non-contributor since none of her work contributes to the well-being of the whole. At best her side ‘income’ at least pays for the better art supplies since the state isn’t going to find need there if her work is on the non-contributor status just like all the other authors, artists and hobbyists, the ones whose work is noticed by a handful of people at best. — noAxioms

I don't understand your scenario. I am an oil painter. I create my paintings as I want to. I don't paint to sell. Your talented and popular artist can take all of her basic means of survival for granted, under my system. If people like what she produces in HER CHOSEN JOB of 'artist,' then prints of her work can be downloaded by anyone for free, framed and put up on their wall. She can also 'gift' her original work to whomsoever she wishes to. I would get rid of all copyright and patent laws. To the state, artists WOULD BE very significant contributors. Of course she is contributing to the well being of others. People LOVE art. Why is her work in so much demand, if it does not contribute to peoples well-being???
Why would she put her 'original' paintings on to a barter market? Such a market is only useful for folks who want to 'collect' stuff. Every one will get 'one' of what they need, for free, a house, a flying auto drive car, a home/mobile com system, a fridge freezer, home seating designed to your own taste and changed when you want to change it (within reason) etc, etc. I don't understand why you think people would be so discontented, under the system I propose? I think the artist you describe would be happy, living under the system I am proposing. I am grateful that you suggest scenario's and 'characters' that you think would not be happy at all, under the system I propose. Perhaps if you explain your concerns in more detail, I will start to understand your examples, that will exemplify, why my suggested system is sure to fail.