Scarcity - A New Theory of Everything

Wow, there's a lot of information to get through in this thread. From a cursory skim-read it looks like there is a lot of interesting stuff I will have to read over later. Apologies if I am off base with any of my comments in light of this.

I completely agree with your summation that we need to switch over to using technology/robotics as a labour force and just give people the basic necessities for life for free. I also like your idea of humans creating god through our evolution (Teleological ideas).

I do however think you are incorrect in your assumption that scarcity is necessary for our evolution. I think we can take the concept a lot further and completely eliminate scarcity. I am talking a full-scale change the likes of The Venus Project (which was mentioned on this page of the thread), so everything becomes free, not just the bare necessities. I am also talking about using renewable resources and/or whatever free energy technologies we can come up with. I think that in such a world our entire perspective would be changed. Consider that for the entirety of our evolution scarcity has been a reality. Now that we have the means to alleviate this scarcity on a planetary scale, we could collectively experience something completely new.

What need is there for an economy if we have free energy? Our entire perspective would change. IMO Ownership and the value of physical things would become meaningless. The value would once again be placed back onto human life above all else. Top quality health care and education would be free for every person, who not having to work could spend their times educating themselves and/or persuing their own personal development in whatever way they desire (so long as it doesn't hurt other people or the environment).

Alternatively (and I think this is what you mean by -1 value), they could contribute to making the system work even better. You could come up with an idea, join up with like minded people, experiment and implement the idea then distribute it freely to whoever else on the planet wants to also implement it. The thing is this is actually adding value to the individual and the collective at the same time. Therefore the emphasis would be placed on individual development and contribution to the whole. Meanwhile, every individual has an equally high standard of living, so its not like they are sacrificing anything by doing this (they do it because they actually want to).

I think that these classifications of civilisations based on how well we can control the resources of larger and larger chunks of the universe is entirely a projection of the idea of scarcity, which is what you are talking about in this thread. I think its a false assumption because once we switch to an abundance based system then we will realise that its not necessary to consume and rebuild the universe.

As a race, we could unite towards the common goal of exploring space and potentially spreading to other planets. This would be made much faster IMO than you suggest because the average standard of education would rise incredibly fast, meaning there'd be more people that could work on the project. Resources would be free and as long as its sustainable you could easily move them to where they need to be. Nobody has to work so they can spend as much of their time as they want working towards this goal. On a global scale, I doubt it would take more than 100 years considering the rate which our technology is progressing within the limits of our current economic system. The biggest technological hurdle IMO would be to take the concept of renewable energy and sustainability (in terms of having to bring a sustainable ecosystem with us if the journey will take a long time) into space flight. Either that or aquiring FTL travel/wormhole technology and/or cryogenics to feeze ourselves for the voyage.

The big question in my mind is what's the incentive to actually manipulate/consume stars and black holes? Perhaps if it allows faster travel? IMO this is the flaw in the logic of the classifications, because they are based on the need to consume energy as we do in our current economy - at a rate faster than it is produced. It seems the assumption is an insanely massive human empire that decides to start changing things wholesale (like copying planets?). There is almost literally an ocean of infinite renewable energy our there in space. Why could we not take a more minimalist approach and just harvest what we need to colonise a whole lot of planets? On each planet we could also live sustainably for that ecosystem.

Then again, you are thinking way ahead in the future and admittedly I haven't given that much thought.

In summary I think that you are assuming that scarcity is necessary because that is all we have ever experienced. Of course we won't know unless we try it, but I think that our entire perspective would change and so we would just come to accept abundance as the norm. We can then start to see the universe as our playground rather than something to be fought against and conquered.

Great post though and like I said I will take the time to read it more thoroughly.

You also talk about various religions, theologies and spiritualities so I thought I would raise this point as well.

Your perspective is very based on aquiring knowledge and information. Its possible that all the knowledge in the universe is already all "out there" and that as a race we don't need to "aqcuire" it, but that we can tap into it as necessary. An example of this idea is the concept of the Akashic Records.

There's also the possibility of moving into new dimensions/spiritual states at some point in our evolution, which changes the ball game entirely.

Wow, I really enjoyed reading this OP. This is the first good OP I've found in months, and I dug it up while surfing through old threads. You show a magnificent ability to present your philosophy clearly, and your ideas are very interesting. I'm especially interested in how you say your philosophy transcends international relations, and I would love to read more about that. I'm not by any means an expert in philosophy but I know the main philosophical schools, ideas, and movements in history, and this is the first idea I've heard in a long time that has caught my eye.

I think this thread deserves a comeback.

reply to post by Xtraeme

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

If human species in the next say hundred years are able to produce fusion reactors and which enable humans a viable energy source for space travel and colonising other planets in this solar system, then what do you consider will be the best economic model for humans colonising, in habitating and working throughout the region of the solar system?

I am just a meger study of polarity, societies, space - terresterial and nonterresterial - relative and quantitive, species within and out, theology, rituals, psychology, biology .......and all other things that drives ATS! Currently I am trying to break through duality!; fell upon this thread and it deserves more than props and could not be "boosted" into conversation with just the word bump, and hopefully not die on recent posts....BUMP- BBBUUUMMMMP!




Not sure if I am doing this correctly - author of thread actually had another thread dipping into this thread. (Woas me for too many windows and attempting to bring back into the forefront - as I mentioned above.
post by mcsandy" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Thread link

And suspecting I have done this incorrectly .....here is the author's additional thought provoking - mind liberating OP of God...X thread x2

reply to post by Wang Tang

Originally posted by Wang Tang
... You show a magnificent ability to present your philosophy clearly, and your ideas are very interesting. I'm especially interested in how you say your philosophy transcends international relations, and I would love to read more about that. ...

I think this thread deserves a comeback.

Originally posted by mcsandy
... fell upon this thread and it deserves more than props and could not be "boosted" into conversation with just the word bump, and hopefully not die on recent posts....BUMP- BBBUUUMMMMP!

It is nice to know people still have an interest. I thought this thread had died a long time ago. I guess it still has some life left in it.

To catch people up. I want to point everyone to the new updated documents:

www.scarcityhypothesis.org...

At some point I might share my mediawiki notes, but for now the Scribd essays are probably more than enough for most people. =)

Thanks for bringing the thread back to life.

I hope you both got something from it.

Originally posted by mcsandy
I am just a meger study of polarity, .......and all other things that drives ATS! Currently I am trying to break through duality!

One of the ideas I hinted at in the paper is that the positive and negative axes are unified by a larger concept that describes the entire axis. So if you look at fig. 1 on page 3 you will notice that:

"Exigency" (or the base imperative) unifies "nature" and "choice."

and,

"Life as a good to be consumed" unifies "self" and "group."

The z-axis further illustrates this principle as consequence.

So you can think of the -x axis as "nature enforced exigency" and the +x axis as "choice based imperative." Similarly the +y axis is "life as a good to consumed for the self" and the -y axis is "life as a good to be consumed for the group."

Each of the concepts overlap in that [self, group, nature, choice] each extend over 3π/2 (270°) of a full 2π (360°) circle (see fig.2). Meaning Q2 represents (self / (choice + nature)). Q3 represents ((self + group) / nature). Q4 is (group / (nature + choice)). And, Q1 is ((group + self) / choice) as seen in fig. 5. Each [self, group, nature, choice] characteristic then transitions through [beginning, peak, end, hidden] causing each quarter to segue from one characteristic to the next (e.g. Q2 transitions from "end choice" to "beginning group" in Q3 as seen in fig 2.3).

So starting from Q3, at x = -1, y=0, in a scientism reality, means you end in overcoming "nature enforced exigency" at x = +1, y=0). If you were to start in a "choice based universe," as described on page 6, you would flip the numbers and work from x=+1, y=0 and end in overcoming "choice based exigency" at x=-1, y=0).

The idea then is each theoretical universe in many ways is defined by the characteristic that is missing. So in a reality controlled by natural processes, the ability to act independent of nature (as pure unimpeded choice) is the hidden or latent factor all creatures are impelled to work towards.

I go into more detail about this, and the teleology behind it, in the Q+A.

Originally posted by Xtraeme

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?"

I think this idea of lack of knowledge being a fundamental motive is fascinating. For some time now I've been slowly developing my own personal philosophy and worldview, and after reading your Scarcity Theory I asked myself why I am even bothering with all the effort of developing my own personal philosophy. The answer, I am starting to think, has a lot to do with scarcity, and the lack of knowledge as a fundamental motive.

The act of developing my own personal philosophy is inherently self-serving; it serves the purpose of organizing, reflecting on, and expanding my understanding of the world. Before now, I had been using my philosophy to question the world around me and make sense of it. Now, I am using your theory to question the motive behind the creation of my own philosophy.

I really like your theory because it goes very deep and transcends a lot of fields of study. I will be looking into your theory more in the near future and hopefully I'll have more to say about it than I do now. For now, I'm just hoping this thread doesn't die.

reply to post by Wang Tang

I asked myself why I am even bothering with all the effort of developing my own personal philosophy. The answer, I am starting to think, has a lot to do with scarcity, and the lack of knowledge as a fundamental motive.

Desire. Sounds pretty positive doesn't it? But what is desire other than a person trying to fill something that is missing?

When I am hungry I want or "desire" enjoyable food. Does this mean I have a compulsive desire to eat? Not when I am full. I eat when I "lack" a full stomach. Of course, not everyone is the same. For some people they eat when they are emotionally distressed because they lack (or desire) satisfaction. No matter how we construct the scenario though or what the situation is. Scarcity is always there in one shape or another. It is only the semantics that make it seem otherwise.

Corollary #1: Any positive statement can be expressed equally, but in a different form through its inverse (e.g. x*.5 = x/2)

Even a direct assault where we as sapient actors declare, "Fine! I won't eat even if I *AM* hungry. And even if I *DO* want food! So how is scarcity driving me now!?" Even *this* is driven by the same unrelenting and unabating absence. All we accomplish is to redirect our desire, or lack, so it is fixed and fixated on beating back the animating force of scarcity.

And what prize do our protests get us? A slow trudge against the current to fill the psychological void by letting another deficiency deplete to zero.

Scarcity is inescapable and universal.

We literally repulse from absence.

We try to divide it out, like infinity trying to escape the number-line (Lim x→0 5/x = infinity).

and after reading your Scarcity Theory ... I really like your theory

I greatly appreciate that, but the idea is no more mine than is the air in my lungs.

The paper is free to be copied and redistributed as anyone likes.

I hope this finds you well,
-Xt

originally posted by: Xtraeme
The idea then is each theoretical universe in many ways is defined by the characteristic that is missing. So in a reality controlled by natural processes, the ability to act independent of nature (as pure unimpeded choice) is the hidden or latent factor all creatures are impelled to work towards.

A year or so ago I read your thread titled A Thought On Contradictions and Truth.

It almost sounds like you are trying to say that if a multiverse exists there are characteristics we can look for to test this theory. Would that be right to say? If so, do you see this being physically testable?

Very interesting thoughts.

originally posted by: Xtraeme
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 "functionally executable language" of the universe.

What a truly fascinating idea.

My training is in geology with a little bit of geophysics experience. An article published in November of last year in Quanta Magazine titled 'Strange Numbers Found in Particle Collisions' seems to agree with what you are describing.

www.quantamagazine.org...

From the article, “If it were true that there were a group acting on the numbers coming from physics, that means you’re finding a huge class of symmetries,” Brown said. “If that’s true, then the next step is to ask why there’s this big symmetry group and what possible physics meaning could it have.”

Who is the original author of the scarcity essay? I did a search on books.google.com and scholar.google.com, but I am not finding any related papers. I would like to read the original material. Thanks for sharing.

a reply to: Xtraeme

Need to give you credit for the enormous research you are doing. However, I think you are on the wrong track. You have brought a lot of Economics and Politics in an otherwise metaphisical subject matter.

My philisophy is quite the opposite. I call it the Horn of Plenty. All scarcity is created by the mind when in fact they is abundance.

originally posted by: crowdedskies
a reply to: XtraemeMy philisophy is quite the opposite. I call it the Horn of Plenty. All scarcity is created by the mind when in fact they is abundance.

Not all disasters are human made. I can't speak for the original author, but I am curious how do you explain the untold horrors of history as being a kind of abundance?

It is hard to imagine the world existing in a state of plenty when even in the year 2017 there are mass starvations in Venezuela and Yemen.

www.independent.co.uk...
www.aljazeera.com...

This is to say nothing of the decline of primates and other species that are now on the cusp of extinction.

chinadialogue.net...
www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.theguardian.com...
phys.org...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.nytimes.com...
www.bbc.com...

These are physical realities that have little to do with our psychological state.

One take away from the essay is that scarcity can be a type of abundance and vice versa. The closing comment and the following quote made that clear to me.

QUOTE:
" 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.

My interpretation of this is if there is nothing to do, because everything is amply satisfied, that abundance becomes a sort of scarcity. I think that's part of what the author was trying to get across. In an odd way that then means scarcity can be a kind of abundance because it allows for increase.

a reply to: Xtraeme

Thanks for the link! Good stuff, and important.

Saving to read through later.