Scarcity - A New Theory of Everything

I don't know about you, but if someone put two Enzo Ferraris in front of me and let's say my brother, I'd be the bigger man and choose the Enzo Ferrari. Scarcity becomes null and void the moment we train out our egos. This should be around the same time behavioural science makes the rounds at middle school. I see your point of bringing forth this theory... Just because we're stuck in animal mode doesn't mean scarcity is the model. You ought to come up with a new theory titled: Continuing Sacrifice

How about it?

Originally posted by Americanist
I don't know about you, but if someone put two Enzo Ferraris in front of me and let's say my brother, I'd be the bigger man and choose the Enzo Ferrari.

You and me both.

Scarcity becomes null and void the moment we train out our egos. This should be around the same time behavioural science makes the rounds at middle school. I see your point of bringing forth this theory... Just because we're stuck in animal mode doesn't mean scarcity is the model. You ought to come up with a new theory titled: Continuing Sacrifice

I was pretty picky about which definition I chose to embody the concept of scarcity, as seen in Fig. 1, to illustrate just how generalized I intend the meaning of it.

n. insufficiency or shortness of supply

The point is sure we'll both have Enzo's and no doubt we'll both be happier for it, but we won't know everything nor will we be able to see or experience all things simultaneously. So there's still "insufficiency or shortness of supply" and because of this scarcity will still exist.

Mentally people will still want to compete, even if only for fun. This requires a mindset that allows for a zero-sum game. However imagine if both players knew everything. Where all games are solved. Then there are no more zero-sum games because both players already know all the solutions & outcomes.

Scarcity is the notion that things should be zero-sum in a non-zero sum reality. In a zero-sum reality non-zero sum is the goal.

The point is these things are inextricably tied together because the grass is not greener on the other side, it's simply just another side of the same thing.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by Xtraeme]

Scarcity is the notion that things should be zero-sum in a non-zero sum reality. In a zero-sum reality non-zero sum is the goal.

I cited Nine Inch Nails lyrics on my page for good reason. God is the sum of all things zero.

So there's still "insufficiency or shortness of supply" and because of this scarcity will still exist.

We're surrounded by infinite possility is more my point.

Mentally people will still want to compete, even if only for fun.

I classify that statement as an assumption on your part... The game is already played out because time is a non-factor. We already know what we're here for. The goal is to recall the "rules," or as I'd like to say... "Remember."

reply to post by Xtraeme


Good points.

the OP mentioned the behavioral sciences...that's a field I used to be in. My wife is an expert in the field.

indeed, competition for things like attention and social status have been observed through scientific study to be a greater factor in shaping human behavior than the availability of resources per say.

my simple example of kids wanting what the other kids have, even if they have their own of the same item, is a simple example.

the human animal is somehow not factored in.

furthermore, all this stuff about what we 'could' develop in the future, is pure speculation, really. and to repeat, it won't change the game.

as kissenger said, 'power is the ultimate aphrodisiac'. even those who have fantastic wealth, still treat people like livestock, and compete with one another, just to be bigger and badder and more influential.

the human animal does not 'evolve' by virtue of technological advances. that's just not how natural selection works. we'll still be the same flawed animal.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

as kissenger said, 'power is the ultimate aphrodisiac'. even those who have fantastic wealth, still treat people like livestock, and compete with one another, just to be bigger and badder and more influential.

I sure hope you're not a fan of Kissinger... The quote you're referring to speaks volumes on ego. Dealing in wealth and power is the equivalent of potty training a dog. They mark to be more influential. All we have to do is take it for what it's worth... A piss.

the human animal does not 'evolve' by virtue of technological advances. that's just not how natural selection works. we'll still be the same flawed animal.

To the contrary... Virtue can easily evolve through understanding. With an expanded perspective flaws become easier to correct.


Ask your wife, if she thinks you've made any improvements after marrying her!

Originally posted by Americanist

as kissenger said, 'power is the ultimate aphrodisiac'. even those who have fantastic wealth, still treat people like livestock, and compete with one another, just to be bigger and badder and more influential.

I sure hope you're not a fan of Kissinger... The quote you're referring to speaks volumes on ego. Dealing in wealth and power is the equivalent of potty training a dog. They mark to be more influential. All we have to do is take it for what it's worth... A piss.

the human animal does not 'evolve' by virtue of technological advances. that's just not how natural selection works. we'll still be the same flawed animal.

To the contrary... Virtue can easily evolve through understanding. With an expanded perspective flaws become easier to correct.


Ask your wife, if she thinks you've made any improvements after marrying her!

How could you take from what I said that I am a fan of Kissenger? I just mentioned that because it's a frank confession of what motivated the man, and others like him. How could you think I like his ilk, when I said in the very next sentence - which is in your quote - that they treat people like cattle?

And in terms of evolution, again, I have to disagree. I don't think we're more evolved. That's just not what the word means, or how the principle works. We just have the benefit of a long history of written records to help us learn from the mistakes of the past. But with every new child, the process begins anew.

Consider the issues of slavery and sex trafficking. Some of our most brutal behaviors are very much still with us. Even in a highly technologically advanced society like America, we still have a tremendous problem with violence...and other more primitive societies sometimes have very little.


My wife has indeed been a very effective trainer of this particular dumb beast. I owe her a lot. She's helped me change in many ways that I am glad for, even if I did it kicking and screaming the whole way. She's an amazing human being, gifted with deep compassion, and sharp mind, mighty patience, and an incredible rear end.

I'm a lucky, lucky man.

But I don't know if evolved is the word. I just feel more, tamed.



[edit on 3-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

Originally posted by Americanist

So there's still "insufficiency or shortness of supply" and because of this scarcity will still exist.

We're surrounded by infinite possility is more my point.

I'm not disagreeing with you. However I'm trying to define the types of infinity that are acting on us locally and how these relations change over time.

Maybe this diagram will better explain how I'm seeing this:

Mentally people will still want to compete, even if only for fun.

I classify that statement as an assumption on your part... The game is already played out because time is a non-factor. We already know what we're here for. The goal is to recall the "rules," or as I'd like to say... "Remember."

I'm first a scientist and second a philosopher.

That said I primarily base my ideas off what's been shown by empirical evidence; and that is humans as a rule, even when we're cooperating, compete. As TrueTruth pointed out it doesn't matter how much is given to a person they'll typically take more if there's more to be had.

As for my second mode of thinking I'm of the opinion that if this scarcity hypothesis is correct then after Q4 is fully under-way "self" should be thoroughly divided-out. That said you're very likely correct that at that point we probably won't care about competition as much, if at all, in the way we currently understand competition.


[edit on 19-1-2010 by asala]

I see your point about humanity competing, yet this doesn't account for racism. My brother once put it this way: Racism is predictable because nobody likes/favours competition. Maybe this is about "choice without consequence" which happens in lack of omniscience (no more zero-sum games) and our natural instincts contradicting each other, because if you look at young lions playing you know this all serves a purpose other than entertainment...Male mammals are attracted to motoric exercise as a means of training towards predatorial behaviour I think...In other ways it establishes social status, as grownup males also fight in non-lethal combat to determine the alpha-male.
Yet if we look for lack of consequence, which also means lack of good and evil, then it'll be before Q4 which is omniscience I think and be beyond the limitations of choice. Because zero-sum games necessitate non-omniscience and yet the competatory drive, so it'll be a natural factor made possible by choice. Just my thought on "fun and games"

reply to post by dzonatas


Yeah there is entropy and in some way it makes outcomes hard to determine...The other day we wrote a maths-test and I had the honour to explain the outcome of following premise:
The function P(|h-p|equal or bigger than e)equal or smaller p(1-p)/ne² tells you about the probability that the difference between an observed statistical value and its mathematically predicted probability p exceeds the interval e when executing n experiments. Thus lim n->infinity P(|h-p|equal or bigger e)equal 0, since probabilities of

So only one event will occur as two events can't share one probability, one of them ultimately is more likely to occur and cancel the other out. But in eternity, they are actually equally likely to occur, yet eternity isn't a point in time, otherwise a finite sequence of events would suffice to take you to that point in future. Alas there's no point when things become predictable, might behave in two ways at once (again, I don't know about the quantum mechanics here) or when the impossible occurs. However, it tends to become more likely as time goes on

Have you ever considered a constant state of present?

What I'm getting at is everything happening at once.

Originally posted by Americanist
Have you ever considered a constant state of present?

What I'm getting at is everything happening at once.

I used to have high regard for Peter Lynds paper, "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Continuity." In it Lynd postulated there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined. It is concluded it is exactly because of this that time (relative interval as indicated by a clock) and the continuity of a physical process is possible, with there being a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for their continuity through time. This explanation is also shown to be the correct solution to the motion and infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, originally conceived by the ancient Greek mathematician Zeno of Elea. Quantum Cosmology, Imaginary Time and Chronons are also then discussed, with the latter two appearing to be superseded on a theoretical basis.

In other words reality is merely sequences of events that happen relative to one another; time is an illusion.

This theory works well with the idea of a cyclical universe that contracts back towards a point of singularity and then bounces back out.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
I used to have high regard ...

I say it exactly like this because through a study of virtual particles in quantum physics we've come to realize that the empty space in a proton actually has a mass. (@19:40)



If that's the case then nothingness isn't nothingness. Which is to say time may seem like nothingness, but in fact isn't.

This is why I spent time in this post trying to give a basic treatment to the sheer oddness of 0. The fact that the additive identity is 0, but is similar to any other number is just plain weird. Even stranger is that in performing a 0/0 operation we see we get 2 which relates to the formula:

(a - b) - c = (a - b) / c,

where (a - b) = c^2, then c = 0 and c = 2. Almost seeming to describe a sort of quantum tunnel or emulating the uncertainty principle.

So time may seem like nothing, but then again at the smallest level everything seems like nothing, but actually somehow is something. So while originally I was quite enamored with Lynd's idea. I have to admit if time is nothing and everything else is nothing, then we have to admit we're simply measuring nothing and thus we can't remove those terms from our equation because we're otherwise left with 0.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Xtraeme]

Alright, have some time on my hands and can finally respond to a few more posts.

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

Didn't take the opportunity to thank you for the nice comment in the last post. So thanks! Hopefully the thread has managed to stay interesting & relevant.

Originally posted by Cherryontop

 

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.

This Hidden_Hand character sounds pretty intriguing! I'll have to read some of the author's works. Any specific posts I should check on?

Omnipresent, omnipotent, etc...and our next step was this. We have come back here to play the "game" of life.

I think this can work two ways. One approach is to say we have limited space / energy / matter. So we keep breaking it up and reusing it like legos to create new experiences.

The other is the idea of infinity where there is no bottom nor is there a ceiling. Thus breaking through one end is just reaching an archetypal level of a different "octave."

It's this idea that spurred me to play around with the notion of what a sentience would have to do to achieve omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence. Interestingly what seems to fall out is a rather nice pattern: three revolutions around a circle. Implying that there's a middle, bottom, and top for a full progression. In a way this makes sense in that there's a sort of intuitive holding-of-hands that's going on here. Even though this seems to imply a finite upper-bound vertically, an omni-verse would allow other universes to exist laterally where similar experiences might be playing out or in reaching the top that might allow for the creation of a new multiverse. If this is the case we can view all realities as an ocean of marbles, increasing in volume, all laying one on top of the next.

It also occurred to me that if Fig. 3 is right then any given "multi-verse" very likely has 7 constituent sub-verses:

1. A reality where all things are in a state of decay and the entities in it are fighting against conceptions of self vs group as proportioned to control over nature (sound familiar?).
   
2. Another where things are becoming more ordered through direct acts of will / choice and where the sentiences are in a perpetual conflict against self vs group as proportioned to control over asymmetry (an Abrahamic interpretation of this is Heaven).
   
3. A universe where all things can be overcome (thus allowing for omni-powers taking 3 rounds or levels – with the top and bottom representing two additional 'verses).
   
4. A 'verse where all entities strive for peace and oneness with each other where the only struggle that exists is one between creationism versus nature.
   
5. Last, and most terrifying, a universe where all entities are striving to gain power and separate from each other in a constant fight against creationism / nature (if this isn't a description of Hell I don't know what is).

It would be nice to think that if this does represent the template of our reality that entities could transfer from one sub-verse to the next.

Or even better, I would much prefer a reality where the only universe that exists is one where all things can be overcome, but taking what the chart shows and looking at all the possibilities I have to admit these may in fact be various "realms" of our local multi-verse.

I think I'll keep my fingers crossed though and continue to hope that we're in the central reality where all things come to pass.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Xtraeme]

So time may seem like nothing, but then again at the smallest level everything seems like nothing, but actually somehow is something. So while originally I was quite enamored with Lynd's idea. I have to admit if time is nothing and everything else is nothing, then we have to admit we're simply measuring nothing and thus we can't remove those terms from our equation because we're otherwise left with 0.

Let's say accumulated energy has mass (mass then being the equivalent of matter, so the two interchangeable). If energy and matter are in flux then time relates to transition periods. With "One" force behind energy and matter time would cease to exist... Now all we've been left to contemplate are shapes and what gives rise to structured states.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Americanist]

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Americanist]

Originally posted by googolplex
... 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.

Well said! I've always wondered about this myself.

Sure it's easy to look at nature and see it as an overwhelming opponent. However just like people of the past looked down their noses at inventors trying to create heavier-than-air flying machines I think these modern-day equivalents will end up eating their hats in the end.

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.

One thing that I love about this beautiful blue ball of ours is that even with all the fantastic technology we possess we're still finding new things here on Earth.

It's astounding.

When people show no interest in Mars or other projects surveying of other planets / satellites it baffles me! How can someone not be amazed that we're literally sending robots to explore other worlds? If there are discoveries to be had here, you can safely bet there that are going to be amazing finds elsewhere in our solar system.

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.

I think information is the cause and manifestation is the effect. Put those two things together in a zero-sum reality, coupled with intelligence, and it makes for one hell of a fun simulation.

Really nature is the ultimate Easter-egg hunt.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by nik1halo
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.

Heh, it still hurts to try shove the entire thought in to my head all-at-once and I've had months to digest it.

...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.

I'd love to hear your thoughts once you've made up your mind either way. The principle is generic enough that it seems to act as a framework for most belief systems. So I've had a hard time trying to put chinks in the thing.

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.

Can't help with the insanity, but I can help offset the blindness. Here are all four images at double the resolution:

Four Seasons of Scarcity & Sentience -

1. Primary graph (Fig. 1 @ 1548 x 2038)
   
2. Addendum (Fig. 2 & 3 @ 1594 x 2084)
   
3. Omni cycles (Fig. 4 @ 1368 x 1628)
   
4. Density plot (Fig. 5 @ 1212 x 1916)

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

I never been any good at accepting compliments, but thank you. Hopefully the idea stands the test of time and actually merits the praise.

Cheers!

[edit on 19-1-2010 by asala]

All with you on the take something away and everything will try to fill the vacuume. This vacume builds up towads 0degK and quantify as mass turns to light, relative to fuel, and what other stupidities the Cohens dint sj't

reply to post by Xtraeme


The theory of relativity demolishes "present" because nothing is instant and no information can be conveyed faster than the speed of light. Come quantum mechanics, we observe non-locality, instant synchronicities...However I think it's still valid that we have our latencies..even though we're not lightyears apart, information still takes time, most of all in our brains. Our perception of time itself is manipulable by the state of our brainwaves and ingesting certain substances..So who are we to know time?

George Carlin once said "there is only recent past and immediate future"

If all information came about instantly (which it does on a quantum level as far as I know so don't take my word for it but quantum physics is after all all about querry and response) everything would happen at once, there would be no need for time, because there is only the instant moment... So time necessitates entropy and locality, and for me personally, a miracle.

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

I just don't like the idea that scarcity inevitably causes a class system.

I, too, was mortified at the thought that a class system is "by design." However once I reviewed the notion looking at every system man has ever created, it seems like greed (psychological scarcity) coupled with physical scarcity (natural lack of resources) ultimately forces a scenario where one person necessarily has more than another.

You've looked at every system man has ever created?

That sounds perhaps too good to be true (at least in any thorough sense. I can't make such a claim, but there are periods in history where, however briefly, people have co-operated in difficult times. Reading Orwell and Chomsky on the Spanish Civil War will give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

As for your point,

I can see that our current societal reality-tunnel makes the two highly interlinked, but I believe that rewriting our society's reality-tunnel would break the connection.

Consider if the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds to the end of time-space and we can't overcome this fundamental law of nature then the universe is ultimately a zero sum game (see 2nd image, Fig. 3, scientism universe). If that's the case how can a man-made system, like capitalism, which is based on the idea that two people can win equally (a non-zero sum game) be possible?

Here's something that does get me. People always refer to things like the laws of thermodynamics as if they were real. They are observations, consistent ones it's true, but we don't know if they apply 100% of the time everywhere in the universe. So that's a big "if" in the first statement.

The second if-clause answers itself, at least for me: people working together can co-operate and make rational choices and plans, whereas, at least in current scientific doctrine, the universe can't choose when and where to apply its "laws".

I'd also say that capitalism, while in theory (always written by apologists for capitalism) allowing for people to win equally, certainly does not do so in practice. Capitalism causes inequality, indeed encourages it.

There's a lot of utter nonsense talked about the free market. It's a myth.

Years ago I was involved in discussions with someone who considered themselves a libertarian. He gave me an article purporting to explain how the free market guarantees competition and the best price for the consumer. You can look at it here.

The trouble is, looking at what actually happened reveals that this article, not untypical of its kind, describes an entirely imaginary reality. The short narrative is that power companies were getting together to defraud California. An industry report of the time (which I can't find now, sadly) said that routine maintenance work was deliberately neglected and "peakers" (if memory serves, the term for power stations intended to come online at moments of peak consumption) were taken offline at crucial times.

When Gray Davis, then Governor, began a lawsuit against the power companies, they got together, had a secret meeting with Arnie, and instituted the recall camplaign. Guess what? When Arnie got in, the lawsuit went away.

That's the way it works in the real world. (To those readers who think this is too conspiratorial, I would say a) what the hell are you on ATS for anyway, and b) Mark Twain said it all on conspiracies... A conspiracy is merely a group of people pursuing policies in private that they dare not admit to in public.)

Sadly it can't, since nature has the final say, meaning inherently someone is gaining more than another (it's the recognition of this that causes boom / bust cycles).

Sorry, got to call you on this: this is sloppy thinking. Firstly I disagree with your logic on getting to the "nature has the final say" part, as adumbrated above. Secondly, more importantly, a reading of economic history makes me fairly sure that boom and bust cycles are artificially created in order to profit a tiny clique.

If you haven't already seen The Money Masters it's full of interesting and ignored history. And it leaves one in no doubt that this recession, like many others, is part of a gentle fleecing of the sheep.

This is why it may fundamentally require a rewriting of our human psychology to deal with a world where necessarily someone has to lose.

Reminds me of George Carlin talking about how kids today never get told they're losers... "you're the last winner!"

I don't know what a rewriting of our human psychology would look like or even be possible. I would guard yourself against treating things that we've made up (here I'm talking about the noun phrase "human psychology") as though they were real. Again, I'd assert that this is not a world in which someone necessarily has to lose. Even in the cut-throat world of capitalism there are some deals made for mutual advantages. It's possible to quantify advantages and disadvantages to see who gains most from a business deal, but it's important to remember that this quantification is an invented process... people just make this stuff up.

What's somewhat comforting is that in understanding this it gives us an idea how to min-max such a design because, in grasping this concept, it demonstrates the obscene power vested in economics in that it literally sets the imperative of an entire society even more so than politics, philosophy, & morality. Which suggests that if we're to be fair to all peoples we must admit to ourselves that someone in society ultimately get the shaft. Thus we should design our cultural-value system based on the majority position on how to allocate money on the macro-scale.

The majority position? Are you sure? Sounds un-American to me...

For example, imagine a system where people not only vote for their representatives, but they also vote on their funding priorities rather than having to lobby (more complete thoughts on this here). This would allow the proletariat to reinvent their society without having to engage in physically violent revolution.

Nice thought, but these things can always be subverted given enough resources. That's what Washington is all about. Personally I'd be happier with laws that brought home responsibility to the CEOs of corporations. If their asses were really on the line for the decisions they made, I think things would be pretty different.

Lobbying is of course a huge problem, though.

In dealing with a physically scarce world where we don't even have the base resources necessary to sustain each human, morality is inherently subjective and ultimately meaningless.

Logically I'd characterise this sentence as a category mistake. Questions of morality may deal with issues of scarcity, but those issues cannot affect morality, which is based on conditions that pre-exist questions of scarcity and glut. For example, is an appeal to the sense of fairness one's basis for constructing a morality? Answering this question tells you what's going to happen when that morality confronts issues of scarcity.

And yes, morality is always subjective, and from that strict sense, meaningless.

If I had to will something to be a universal law (where people are considered an "end" and not a "means") the only thing that could be said to be "a sin" in this scenario is taking more than a person needs preventing someone else from having food, water and shelter.

I wouldn't disagree with that: in fact I'd make it an even worse sin to be pursuing a corporate policy of profiteering from, for example, water, as Bechtel and others have done in the third world.

Of course, that begs the question, at what point does profit become profiteering? I'm not going to try to answer that, but I'll acknowledge the question's existence.

Nice points as always, and it's always good to see people working things out. Hope I've helped in my haphazard way.

Nobody's poor if nobody's rich. That's a psychological compound. It's just what we compare our wealthfare to- and we are both greedy and jealous so we are driven despite being in a much more apt position to survive in comparison to people living with lower living standards in say the jungle. They're getting along and we fret because of our fragile economy, what a joke. They have more existencial worries. But because we do not we have a really odd way of valuing stuff, and if stuff has value, we will trade it. That's psychological scarcity. But this is what this thread is all about- if there's scarcity, people could as well exploit that. So call it capitalism if you want to- However, different economic models, however utopian, surely appear more pleasant than a bleak "dog-eat-dog". After all, we humans hate competition. We like a good challenge, but dislike to be challenged.

[edit on 13/12/09 by thricearound]