Scarcity - A New Theory of Everything

During a brain-storming session reflecting on the ontological nature of scarcity I stumbled on something.

For the record I'm a computer scientist. I've worked for Microsoft, Electronic Arts, and in general am about as level-headed / skeptical as they come. I previously held objectivism was the only reasonable philosophy a scientist could use in day-to-day life without otherwise sacrificing clarity of thought. Furthermore as a rational individual I believed the idea of a God, or gods, was an unknowable thing making me agnostic.

Now what if I were to tell you that through philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre's view of scarcity (the idea that a class system is embedded in the very nature of reality - IE/ life as an exigency, life as a value to be produced and reproduced, and life as a good to be consumed [full treatment]) it's possible to see that all things are driven by the notion that the "lack of something causes its pursuit?" Or worded more strongly, "the lack of something necessitates its existence."

You might ask, "Why is this worth my time and why should I care?" Simply because this provides us a roadmap not just for humanities future, but any sentience's beginning and end.

In mathematical terms "life as a value to be produced and reproduced" is a ratio of "life as exigency" (or basic survival) and "life as a good to be consumed." Put another way Life as exigency is represented by Cosine, Life as a good is Sine, and Life as a value is the Tangent function. How do I know these functions map to a sinusoidal period?

Consider if we're to take the long view of what will happen to humanity, assuming we don't kill ourselves, eventually we'll hit the point where we'll expand out and control our solar system (Kardashev's type 2 civilization). Following that we'll work towards gaining control over our entire galaxy (type 3 civilization). Then finally when we've mastered our entire universe, converting matter to energy and energy to matter, perfectly recycling all transitions, we'll hit a type 4 civilization.

It's at this point humans will become omnipotent. A form of a god if you will. What comes after that? Following that is the notion of psychological scarcity.

Since nature won't have the ability to impose itself on us humans will primarily be interested in the creation of beauty, exploration, and learning. So the only scarcity that will exist, will come in the form of "lack of knowledge" and "lack of being able to be in all locations." I'm more than happy to speculate how I think this will occur, but for the moment consider what happens at the end of "lack of knowledge" and "lack of being able to be in all locations?"

At that point we'll be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. So the only thing that will be scarce is "the lack of something."

If you can know all things, be everywhere, and control all things, what then? I see several possibilities but the most obvious ones are either a) start over - hit the reset button or b) become the vessel of a new sentience / universe.

Which is to say the cycle starts all over again. Even if the circle isn't the idealized version of the periodic function we're at the very least looking at something as represented in a logarithmic spiral.

Now I've said all this because it exposes something very important. It shows key points in any sentience's existence through trigonometric functions.




We are approaching point (d) on the graph (0 exigency, infinite value, -1 good). Which is to say we're very close to becoming a Type 1 civilization. If this idea is correct, it shows what we need to do to move in to the next epoch.

The most fundamental component right now is getting all people to understand we need to drive down all physical exigency, removing any nature imposed harshness (lack of food, water, and shelter). To do this however implies that humanity must somehow create something or become itself capable of creating infinite value (sacrifice, receiving less than what is produced) to achieve the greatest possible good for the group (-1). This might come about through robotics, fusion, an idealized government, a global change in conscious-awareness, or perhaps something stranger like a singularity, off-world life or deity-intervention.

But whatever this thing is that causes the change will not only be world altering - it will very likely affect our very nature.

Now I'm writing this here on ATS because this community is very vocal and open to new concepts. This idea represents a road map not just for us now, but for all of time and space. It needs people like ATS'ers to scream as loud as possible that we need to "reduce nature imposed physical exigency."

This is so extremely important because I suspect if we attain the capability of fundamentally controlling the nature of our planet (type 1 civilization) and we don't provide certain social minimums, despite having a near-perfect understanding of how to provide sustainable living for all people, it will likely result in catastrophic wars. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see these military actions will be much worse than anything we've ever experienced in the past. If only because it gets easier every day for governments & fundamentalists to attain biological weaponry.

The debate in the here and now is still very much focused on, "is capitalism better than socialism / marxism / barter / etc?" Basically this theory shows no economic system is better than any other, but rather that they each have their time and place. It seems the economic motivator that will get us through this hump will very likely be capitalistic, but this greed based incentive must be accompanied by socialistic institutions. I've tried to explain to others that humans engage in 3 types of economic behavior. (1) Personal gain, (2) working towards societal goals stipulated by the group (things like NASA, etc), & (3) providing a social minimum (ie/ food-stamps, etc).

Large institutions like NASA (which no private investor could afford) provides humanity hidden rewards that are soft-sells because they don't result in immediate economic return. Pure capitalism would kill these sorts of organizations.

Likewise if technology is available to provide all people a basic improved social minimum why not be our brothers keeper and provide the service free of charge? Or to express this idea in a more easy to grasp manner, "What sort of economy would we have if robots ran things?"

We're getting closer to this goal every day as robotic work-forces are increasingly used in assembly. When we eventually come up with a way to reliably and sustainably provide food (vertical farms / hydroponics / etc), water (atmospheric water generators), & shelter to all people for little to no effort an economic change fundamentally needs to occur because why should anyone have to pay towards something that is freely, sustainably, and abundantly available?

Now perhaps you don't agree with this idea and some might even say it's crazy, but I'm writing this here on ATS because I've found most of the people here are willing to reflect deeply on an idea before coming to a knee-jerk conclusion. Truly grasping this idea requires a small leap of faith and a large amount of vision. I suspect ATS'ers have the capability of seeing the big picture because the people who frequent this site aren't blinded by the issues and dogmas of the here and now.




[edit on 26-3-2010 by asala]

So, please, if you can direct your energy towards promoting this - the idea needs its advocates.

0 exigency, is the goal (removing all nature imposed exigency)
Infinite value, is the means (which could happen many ways)
-1 good, is the philosophical result (the greatest possible good for the group).

This is so important because this entire graph expresses a potential new view of our origins and where we're going. It suggests we can look at the universe as a probability machine creating all possibilities. It suggests no religion is wrong. It suggests actually that omni-theism is a more worldly view in the sense that both atheism and theism can both be correct without creating a paradox. Which is to say if this whole system is right we may in fact be the first creation to come from nothing, but if we don't kill ourselves we will inevitably become the Gods we've dreamt up. So the question is are we the first or simply another iteration of this process?

This is a big idea and it needs its voice in other people.

I hope you can see the big picture.

Very interesting thread, although I have just scanned through it quickly due to limited time to do so, I will look foreward to enjoying reading this at a later time. At first glance it seems to be a brilliantly laid out and well explained theory and I can't wait too read through it all and comment on the full article. S & F!!!!

reply to post by born2BWild


This idea has spent months simmering on the back brain-pan. This thread represents a very, very small tip of the iceberg of the full concept. I hope you enjoy the read through!

I've spent a considerable amount of time vetting this idea to look for flaws, but the few critiques I've received have all been minor nits. So I look forward to comments.

Cheers,
-X

Well this is simply mind boggling and I wished I had the ability to debate such a theory. Alas as an academically challenged layman I would contribute little to the debate but feel I will have a lot to gain watching this thread develop.

Xtraeme I very much enjoy reading your posts and admire the way you articulate your views and points.

Good luck and thanks....

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Koka]

Originally posted by Koka
Well this is simply mind boggling and I wished I had the ability to debate such a theory. Alas as an academically challenged layman I would contribute little to the debate but feel I will have lot to gain watching this thread develop.

Xtraeme I very much enjoy reading your posts and admire the way you articulate your views and points.

Good luck and thanks....

I'm not sure if I'll articulate my full thoughts in this thread, but the full ramifications of this idea are ... well, lets just say it gives me butterflies. Basically scarcity is the fundamental mover of all things. It forms all imperatives. Even more so it seems to expose a crucial element of how the human brain works. Scarcity is fundamentally a part of our psychological make-up. It's not just something imposed on us by reality through the forces of nature, but something that we strive for and actually seek out.

Consider that many millions upon millions of years from now, when humanity has the ability to fundamentally convert matter to energy and energy back to matter perfectly recycling all transitions (potentially beating the 2nd law of thermodynamics -- See Figure 1, point (A) in the OP); and when man has the ability to replicate & create anything whether it be cloning an exact copy of yourself, creating a planet, or summoning in to existence a TV or what-have-you:

Scarcity will still exist.

Why? Because there is no way to replicate the exact instance of the original Earth. Put another way there is only one original NY. Even if we can recreate Earth exactly as it currently exists and drop it in to another system, exactly modeled on our current solar system, there would still be only one original Earth.

Due to this people would still have battles over property and the value of a house would be subject to the whims of the individuals bidding on it. For example, the house in NY on the original earth would necessarily be worth more than the copy because it would be known by all parties as the first, authentic incarnation. So the qualitative association is what would create the value despite the two houses, environments, conditions, etc., otherwise being physically identical.

Thus scarcity still exists as a concept in peoples minds and because of this future people will still need some mechanism to determine resource allocation (likely a stored social value system like money).

Now let me explain where this is really coming from.

A = A

They're not equal.

They're two separate things though identical in almost every way, but they're two separate instances (IE. one is on the left, the other is on the right). Thus we create scarcity and inequality even when it doesn't exist. We seek out difference wherever we can find it.

Now imagine if you could even remove that. If we can do that we haven't removed a real scarce thing, we've removed a part of human psychology.

There's something very strange, special and magical about this idea.

A != A can be objectively true and I get the impression it's at that point where the quantitative bridges to the qualitative world.

Thank you. Well presented and even I can wrap my brain or what there is of it around it.

The idea that science would one day find what they are ultimately searching for is God so to speak.

The dark side however? There is always a dark side it seems. We are hearing now more often than I can remember the idea that to reach a balance in filling our needs and the Earths ability to do so, the artificial reduction of our population may be necessary. Survival of the fittest I guess. Reaching the top of the mountain only to fall and come rolling back down. If I'm making any sense at all.

We are instead of reaching for the stars retreating backwards and abandoning our once zealous pursuit of knowledge of the Universe and discovery for matters of survival. We are forgetting it was these pursuits that brought us to this level. I'd think this would lessen our chances of advancing quickly enough that we survive long enough to advance further around this loop you are describing.

We also have the issue some cultures are on a different part of the journey than others. At any time one group could wipe out the progress being made by a more advanced culture.

I hope I'm making some sense?

reply to post by Xtraeme


I believe I understand the theory of Scarcity both in the material sense of placing a higher value based on the rarity of an object, IE owning an original over owning a copy, and in the sense of finite resources, where value is placed on scarcity.

I also understand the long term idea of, even with the ability to duplicate anything we could wish to, we would still hold a higher value on the original.

Are you saying that a fundamental step in our ability to evolve, psychologically, is to remove the self imposed boundaries we place on that which we deem to have a higher value?

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Koka]

reply to post by Xtraeme

Hi, Xtraeme.

Very good subject.

Speaking of theory, on another scale, not star or galaxy scale,
see where, we humans, are up to, with

the new ***theory of everything*** !

www.ted.com...

The guy is a "scientific-surfer", the reason for his style. B-)

Blue skies.

reply to post by Xtraeme


Finally a constructive thread. The universe is dynamic. It is going to change wether we are a part of it or not.
May as well choose the best road and get truckin. I like the road you describe.
If I can figure out how to S&F for stating this thread, you got'em

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Thank you. Well presented and even I can wrap my brain or what there is of it around it.

I'm glad it makes sense Though the longer you spend looking at the diagram the more it will make your brain hurt.

I've literally spent months looking at the thing coming to all sorts of bizarre conclusions that strangely mesh very well with the cutting edge of physics / math / cosmology.

The idea that science would one day find what they are ultimately searching for is God so to speak.

Through this idea I've come to understand Pythagoras was right when he said,

"That things are only a copy of Numbers; nay, that in some mysterious way, Numbers are things themselves (1)"

There are aspects of this idea that fundamentally suggest all things are numbers.

Take for instance a somewhat recent insight in to the nature of primes. Freeman Dyson and number theorist Hugh Montgomery discovered that if you "compare a strip of zeros from Riemann’s critical line to the experimentally recorded energy levels in the nucleus of a large atom like erbium, the 68th atom in the periodic table of elements, the two are uncannily similar. " (2). To further make the point consider the insane recurrence of Pi in many cosmological / physical principles, Euler's e, and the Golden Ratio in nature.

I'm inclined to say numbers represent "functiontionally executable language" of the universe.

What's somewhat staggering is to think even if humans were created as "programs," we and our Gods / gods (assuming we have creators) are all made up of the same parts. These infinite pieces simply rearrange themselves in different ways to create something that's a unique presentation of the infinite possibilities of ordinalities.

The paradox of we're all the same, but different is true and can be demonstrated mathematically (see: the banaschi-tarski paradox). It can also be seen in the sense that we're all made up of neutrons, protons, electrons, leptons, quarks, etc, just in different quantities and arrangements.

The dark side however? There is always a dark side it seems. We are hearing now more often than I can remember the idea that to reach a balance in filling our needs and the Earths ability to do so, the artificial reduction of our population may be necessary. Survival of the fittest I guess. Reaching the top of the mountain only to fall and come rolling back down. If I'm making any sense at all.

That's a scary possibility.

This is why I'm advocating so heavily that all people focus on this concept of reducing "all nature imposed exigency." A slide backwards may very well spell the end of our species. The one thing I don't have an answer to, despite spending many long nights trying to come up with a satisfactory solution, is "how" we create something that produces infinite value.

I think one way this infinite value may come about is through a better understanding the epistemological nature of math. I believe imminent math-writer Clifford Pickover may be on to something when he writes,

Somewhere inside the digits of pi is a representation for all of us -- the atomic coordinates of all our atoms, our genetic code, all our thoughts, all our memories. Given this fact, all of us are alive, and hopefully happy, in pi. Pi makes us live forever. We all lead virtual lives in pi. We are immortal. (3)

If Cliff is right and we come to figure out how primes behave the way they do, we may be able to understand all of physical reality by simply indexing into the fractional component of a transcendental number like PI and then simply decode it.

This goes in to a theory of what information is, whether it derives from something or if it's the causal element. I've given my thoughts on this in the past in this post.

We are instead of reaching for the stars retreating backwards and abandoning our once zealous pursuit of knowledge of the Universe and discovery for matters of survival. We are forgetting it was these pursuits that brought us to this level. I'd think this would lessen our chances of advancing quickly enough that we survive long enough to advance further around this loop you are describing.

We also have the issue some cultures are on a different part of the journey than others. At any time one group could wipe out the progress being made by a more advanced culture.

I hope I'm making some sense?

I think I follow.

However if we retreat backwards and simply resort to "survival of the fittest" or "life as service to self" I think we'll fail to reach the point of creating infinite value allowing all people to have a life of plenty. This makes sense in that the bridging point on the graph shows "end self," "peak group" and "beginning choice" as we flip over to "Q3 - Plenty." I would say Dr. Michio Kaku is right in asserting, that the transition from Type 0 civilization to Type 1 civilization is very likely the most difficult and dangerous.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Xtraeme]

Great thread. I found it funny that either nobody really read it, or they missed the point. Nobody has called you a socialist yet

Anyhow, I found your post well thought out in a scientific manner. I agree with almost every point you make. We are indeed on the verge of a major stepping stone with humanity. The question is will we throw off our old ideals and dream a little bit? Using robots to provide our basic necessities is absolutely ideal for me. I think all of our labor should be done with robots personally. The question becomes well then what will people do if robots take their jobs? Well this is where we need to realize the whole system needs a makeover.

I designed a monetary system that works in reverse of our current system that would support the system you describe. In the system I designed the government pays the people taxes. How do you like that? Anyhow, the system needs a rework to support a system such as you describe. We need to dream a little bit. If we ever get to the point where we are colonizing another planet or traveling in space money is just not going to do it and neither is metal backed currency.

Thank you for posting on ATS as there are some really good thinkers here buried in the mix of those with agenda's. I just want to see a world where the basic needs of all are satisfied. At that point, we can work on the next step of the process.

Originally posted by Koka
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Are you saying that a fundamental step in our abilty to evolve, pschologically, is to remove the self imposed boudaries we place on that which we deem to have a higher value?

At some point I think that may happen and I, admit, I find it somewhat sad to think to evolve we may need to willingly give up something so fundamental to our original nature -- our ability to see difference in all things. Though I have a feeling this will occur towards the end of Q1. Which is easily many millions of years out. I've written about this in the past, so I'll just copy the relevant section here:

For something to be a moral choice there must be some loss, therefore if scarcity is not an issue there is no chance for loss because everything is overly abundant. Thus scarcity encapsulates all of morality. So it would be over-reaching on my part to say they are one in the same thing.

In many ways this is interesting because it means man can fundamentally continue to explore and grow without necessitating greed, excessive competitiveness, and other baser imperatives. However the removal of the component of our psych that motivates us to behave this way may in fact decrease our species survivability and growth.

Thus removing this component of our fundamental being should only be considered when we reach the stage of a type 3 civilization because at that point nothing will be capable of eradicating our species.(1)

since you went to such a great effort to put this together, i would be happy to give this the exploration and feedback it deserves.

i will need to take some time to roll it around for a while.

could you please provide higher resolution diagrams? i am gonna go blind looking at that teeny print.


EDIT TO ADD: i authored a thread about scarcity once. take a look at it HERE.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by tgidkp]

Originally posted by C-JEAN
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Very good subject.

Thanks, appreciate that CJEAN

Speaking of theory, on another scale, not star or galaxy scale,
see where, we humans, are up to, with
the new ***theory of everything*** !

www.ted.com...

The guy is a "scientific-surfer", the reason for his style. B-)

I've always liked Garrett, but his idea hinges on the notion that reality has a bottom. If math fundamentally reflects reality there is no end. The concept of 1 part of 1 part of 1 part ... (as expressed through (1 + Sqrt(5)) / 2) is reflected at all levels on the micro- and macro-scale. Meaning the hadron or any other particle fundamentally isn't the bottom it's just another layer of fractal depth.

I like his symmetry. I like his ideas, but fundamentally I think nature isn't nearly as deterministic on the micro-scale as we'd like it to be.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by Bucknet
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Finally a constructive thread. The universe is dynamic. It is going to change wether we are a part of it or not. May as well choose the best road and get truckin. I like the road you describe.

I spent a goodly amount of time checking to see how well the evidence fit the theory and it seems what's in the graph represents how it actually works. If it's right I have to say I like the outcome too.

However it also scares the hell out of me when you consider, what has the ability to provide "infinite value?" It's not a trivial question. It's also a bit disconcerting to see that it shows "end self" / "beginning choice" / "peak group" as what happens at the change-over, but it is what it is.

A life where humans have the capability to enjoy themselves rather than . If I can figure out how to S&F for stating this thread, you got'em

Appreciate that! The more flags the more people that see this. Hopefully that means more critical analysis.

Thanks for reading.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Xtraeme]

A new cruise ship has been built. The biggest ever. Also heard that the ones who made it will be fired - the shipyard has no more orders for ships. Think about the hundreds of thousands involved - not just the workers at the shipyard. 80% of what we do - is like that ship. Useless wasting of our lives, and planet. Turning it into cruise ships then garbage. The machine requires it. We could work less and have all the basic stuff - which we need to survive. Less work, no stress - about getting fired , no destruction. Work in turns - something like 1 in ten years - you go do your work period, the rest of the time you just sit - and have food and clothes and some items (something like everything you take when camping - nothing more) - free. No money involved. No more homeless, or hungry. You will have time - to build yourself some house. Or just travel around.

1 in ten years - or 4 years in a life time - enough to maintain, build, invent new - machines that produce the basics, and work with them. Distribution - send the stuff to warehouses everywhere. Want some food that is not supplied ? I am sure there will be enough land left - for you to have a garden. See the article below. Want something else ? you have free time. Cooperate with others - who want it. Sorry - there will be no more humans - you can use cheaply - and obtain a cruise ship. Having the basics - people will work if they desire. Nobody will be able to threaten their survival - and make them work for him.

People will do things - when they like to, or when they just want to be appreciated by others- yes communities will form when people have time to just live. Nobody will work - to survive. Forced to listen to orders or die.

"But I want to sail with that ship" or even "I like to build ships". What did I say - you will have free time to live - and join with others who have the same hobby and do whatever you want. Build whatever you want. Anyway- the destruction of the planet will be at 10% of today. And people will live. The thing they usually plan to do when they "retire".

www.storyofstuff.com...
www.harpers.org...

America's biggest crop, grain corn, is completely unpalatable. It is raw material for an industry that manufactures food substitutes. Likewise, you can't eat unprocessed wheat. You certainly can't eat hay. You can eat unprocessed soybeans, but mostly we don't. These four crops cover 82 percent of American cropland. Agriculture in this country is not about food; it's about commodities that require the outlay of still more energy to become food.

About two thirds of U.S. grain corn is labeled “processed,” meaning it is milled and otherwise refined for food or industrial uses. More than 45 percent of that becomes sugar, especially high-fructose corn sweeteners, the keystone ingredient in three quarters of all processed foods, especially soft drinks, the food of America's poor and working classes. It is not a coincidence that the American pandemic of obesity tracks rather nicely with the fivefold increase in corn-syrup production since Archer Daniels Midland developed a high-fructose version of the stuff in the early seventies. Nor is it a coincidence that the plague selects the poor, who eat the most processed food.

Yes - all this requires money to be banned. You can trade - but no form of money. Else we will be back here very fast. People using more than they need - not because that's their hobby, but just turning the planet into money and trash.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by pai mei]

reply to post by Xtraeme

Awesome concept.
It made me think of a thread here by Hidden_Hand wherein he suggests that we have already achieved these various levels you speak of. Omnipresent, omnipotent, etc...and our next step was this. We have come back here to play the "game" of life.

Perhaps we become bored in that perfect all seeing all knowing all present world, and the world we see is what we created to amuse ourselves. Eternity is a long time to fill up with things to do.

This is a very interesting thread, alot of people do not understand the concept of the evolution of the Universe.
I have said this many times before, but where we are at now in reguard to the evolution of the Universe is nothing to what will be going on in say 100 or 200 billion years.
I myself believe we live in a closed Universe, and if you watch these programs on TV about the dismal end of the Universe. The one thing they seem to always leave out of the equation, is the human or alien intelligence, and what effect they will have on the Universe as they evolve.
A example would be to think of the machines that will exisit on Earth in say another 1000 years, if we do not succeed in destroying ourselves

There exist now in the universe beings that have evolved so much further than us, that upon meeting one, they would seem as gods.

There is much, much more in store for existence, and a point where all things are achieved, the pefection of the Universe, this is all part of the great mystery.
For existence to occur there is a need and reason for all things to happen, perhaps a need of things from choas to order and then to begin again.

The One sits unmoved, all is illusion.


[edit on 6-11-2009 by googolplex]

Great thread S&F for you my friend, although I don't thank you for the brain ache I now have after attempting to comprehend the entirety of your theory in the half hour of my lunch break, lol.

I like to think of myself as a reasonably intelligent person (I too am a computer scientist, although I've been out of the game for a few years) and it's not often I find myself having to really think about a concept in order to have an opinion on it's validity, but this one was so complex and awe inspiring in its enormity and potential for the future of mankind that I find myself lost for words (ignoring the verbosity of this post ) when trying to decide its viability.

Therefore I shall muse over your chart and the details when I get home, no doubt going blind and slightly insane in the process, and I shall retain my opinion untill I have a greater understanding of the concept.

I will however say that at first glance it appears to be a very sound and well thought out theory and I find it difficult to find fault in your logic.

You are my friend a scholar amongst men

[Edit for rediculously confusing grammar]
[Edit for temporary dyslexia]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by nik1halo]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by nik1halo]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by nik1halo]