Scarcity - A New Theory of Everything

reply to post by rich23

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by Xtraeme
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.

My original approach to this was to ask, "Is the idea falsifiable if a classless society existed in our past?" Thinking about this I realized SH accounts for both class-oriented and classless societies. If you notice in Fig. 1 at points (c) and points (a) we have 0 value to be produced & reproduced and 0 good to be consumed. This means there's no good for either the group or the self and therefore each person is contributing as much for themselves as they are for others. So the system is in equilibrium -- a classless society (similar to early proto-communist societies described by Marx and Engels).

So how to falsify the idea?

Since I'm inclined to think the idea encapsulates all things, one way that occurred to me that it could falsified, was by asking, "Does a class system exist in nature outside biological-life?" Evaluating this I asked, "Is there a natural order to the universe?" The question may sound silly because obviously, yes, there is a very definite hierarchy. Whether we look at galactic structures or how atoms bond there's always an order to how objects revolve about each other. We even have a delicate food-pyramid in nature with decomposers/bacterium at the bottom and top-level consumers as the capstone.

Now this might seem like comparing apples to oranges, but the way I'm viewing scarcity as related to human-exchanges is based on the notion that in any given transaction someone gains more or less than another. It's the odd ball scenario where both people (physically not perceptually) receive exactly the same amount. For instance if you purchase cereal that weighs exactly 312g, as specified on the box, but another person finds that their purchase weights 312.9g; then they've obviously received more despite paying the same amount.

The same is true with nature on a small scale. With entropy we see that things radiate away and for systems to sustain themselves they require a greater intake than outtake. No system we've ever observed can retake the outtake perfectly to then resupply the intake without loss. So again we see inherently in reality, even in a completely deterministic universe without life, things are given unequally to different objects.

This suggests that the ontology behind this notion of scarcity is correct in that there is an order, or an implicit class system, which doesn't preclude a classless society as a type of class system.

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".

In no way am I saying that we can't balance things out.

Actually one of the core aspects of the idea is to say for the entire thing to be symmetric we must be able to overcome the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If we can't then ultimately the universe wins and the idea of a non-zero sum-game was just a nice, albeit, fanciful daydream because nature ultimately has the final-say.

I'm suggesting we have to overcome this somehow and the only way we're going to do that is if we start looking for infinity, as a physical-tangible thing.

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.

I'm fully well aware that we're being taken for all we're worth. If I were to give details about the amount of wealth being siphoned out through hedge funds like Renaissance technologies your head would explode.

However there are a number of good intentioned people in the world of economics and when they catch wind of the changing weather they react by moving their resources to something that's more secure. Those who aren't manipulative scum trying to abuse their leverage, contribute to down-turns and up-swings by moving their investments due to normal market pressure which helps to create booms and busts.

These changing market indicators are very much the result of realizing where growth exists and where the resources for that growth have flowed in from (which is a pretty good indicator of what's doing poorly). This goes to my point that "inherently someone is gaining more than another."

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.

I've taken to using the expression, "We should define what's too much by what's too little." If there's even a single person who doesn't have food, water, or shelter and someone else has an inequality greater than everyone else, then the money from that person would be taken and given to the other to have enough to basically live.

Because really if a person can't survive and someone is at the top of the economic pyramid then clearly that person is in a position to help. By putting economic pressure on the individual with excess money it encourages them to use their wealth to drive down shortage of water, food, and shelter so they can keep more of their fortune. Money, as a tool, should be used to keep society advancing, functioning, and to help all people, not to allow a very small group of people to have obscene and unlimited glut.

Note this sits alongside capitalism and a free-market system in a healthy way. It doesn't say "Marxism" or "Capitalism." It doesn't have to be either-or.

I'm sure someone will say, "but this would destroy incentive to create wealth!" No, it wouldn't.

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

Just want to say again thanks so much for your thoughts and comments Rich!

-X

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Xtraeme]

As I was attempting to bone up on my knowledge of Judaic and Christian texts I found yet another curiosity...

(Curiosities pg.3, v1.9.4 @ 1554 x 2050)

While I had a Christian upbringing at about the age of 10 or 11 I had all but given up on the idea of there being anything more to reality than what we can see, feel, hear or touch. It was later that I decided I didn't have enough evidence to say either way and figured agnosticism was a more honest position than my younger atheistic-tilt.

After seeing this, and the correlations in the documents below, I'm left thinking all belief-systems have a dose of truth in them.

Four Seasons of Scarcity & Sentience (album) -

1. Primary graph v.1.8.9 (Fig. 1 @ 1548 x 2038)
   
2. Addendum v.1.8.9 (Fig. 2 & 3 @ 1604 x 2104)
   
3. Omni cycles v.1.8.9 (Fig. 4 @ 1556 x 2048)
   
4. Density Plot v.1.9.0 (Fig. 5 @ 1442 x 2048)
   
5. Curiosities pg.1 (Tao/ Bā gùa/ I Ching, Kabbalah, Sufism, Bahá'í, Hindu Tantric, & Kabbalistic tie-ins), v.1.9.3 (Fig. 2.3, 3.1, & 6 @ 1565 x 2059)
   
6. Curiosities pg.2 (`Law of One` tie-ins [addon]), v1.9.3 (Fig 2 & 5 @ 1558 x 2042)

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Xtraeme]

Okay, first off great topic S&F but I'll warn you I'm only eighteen years old so bear with me while my more primitive brain tries to grasp these concepts in equations. I've always been more interested on why things effect our present conscience than our future.

But basically what you are saying, through all the numbers and ditties is that we, even in our earliest form off being able to retain a single slot of memory, have always had the fundamental need to keep striving toward a process where our output will equal and eventually surpass the input we put it. Generally, less work more result. From a single molecule of dirt that evolves a property that helps it absorb a drop of water, and although physically turning into a mud, it retains its chemical/conscious survival and is able to return to it's original state....all the way down to the scale to humans where we need food & water to survive, looking for a way to cement it's survival while lessening the process of work, until working becomes no existent (human creates an AI that does our work, in a sense making us small gods already).

And then eventually after we have cemented our survival without the process of work, we have to naturally find something that keeps us entertained...such as harnassing the power of the universe. And when we reach that "God Power" we essentially restart to the beginning, yet again, feeding fuel to the fire that is desire.

Just like the government is our God on earth because they were the first ones to take power, we listen to them and abide by their rules. I guess that would alude that their is a greater universe out there that other Gods that came to power live in first, or we were once God's are reset everything from scratch.

Its the perfect never ending cycle...humans can die, planets can be destroyed, but it's assure the universe will always infinitely remain.

Is that somewhere in the ballpark?

It's a great way of looking at the big picture. Like I say history is what has happened, science is the revelation of what is happening, and math is the probability of what will happen in the future.

The problem I have with that, is where does individualism come into play? All of those principles describes on this philosophy are based on a very individualistic way of thinking. I need to survive. I need to do less work. I need more power.

Granted, we are all connected we are all one, we are individual pieces of a greater conscience.

But what this theory would also suggest that my conscience/energy would remain after my brain dies. That all my energy would float somewhere to parts unknown. But the fact that energy could never be created or destroyed, in a sense, would have me to believe that I could recall all memories or abilities from my past life and into my new one.

Unless of course our consciousness dies with our brain, which would make all future events after our death irrelevant. Because the basic fact about the universe is, we only care about the reality we live in, it's impossible to care about anything out of the line of sight. So if we die, our ideals...energy...future dies with us. Our ideals are transferred the language, but if we can't see anything, then we are just setting up the steps for a random generation to reach a God Power. That's useless...it creates a paradox.

You can't prove philosophy without science, doesn't mean its wrong, it just means we are reaching up for an invisible hand. And if an answer produces more questions than it did answers...can it really be true?

Forgive me, I may be way out in left field about this subject, because like I said I have a primitive mind compared to most people here. I could have missed something crucial in the other 10 pages...but the more I'm enlightened the more useful I feel.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Nostradumbass]

What an amazing thread! Thank you for sharing this, I can't believe this is the first time I have seen it. I honestly cannot really share anything constructive at this time due to the limitations of my brain but I am working on it with all my energy!

What I love about these theorys is that It always makes me ask the same question, was all this designed?Everything around us? When you look at something so vast as to civilisations and the universe and then see that they can be mapped my mathematical functions going back to the ere of pythagoras, the more I believe personally that there is a master plan, how much control we actually have in the material world, I'm not sure.

Thank You.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Here's one way I've tried to break this down to make better sense of it:

(1) a + b = a - b =>
(2) b = (a - a) - b =>
(3) 2b = (a - a) =>
(4) b = (a - a) / 2 =>
(5) b = 0

where b = 0 is the additive identity. What many neglect to notice however is that:

(6) a + 3 = a - 3 =>
(7) a = a

Thus,

(8) b is similar to any and all Complex / Real values

One thing that I should have fixed in this post, way back when, is that obviously `a + 3` doesn't equal `a - 3`. However! What I was attempting to convey was the idea that even though,

(9i) a + 3 = a - 3, is a false statement, we can say that since ∀A: ∅ ⊆ A, we know 3 has in it the empty set (∅). This means we have a mechanism to make the statement meaningful. We evaluate this by taking the false terms and allow them nullify each other:
(10i) +3 = -3, is false, and thus A ≠ A, implies the terms cancel leaving us with ∅.

In standard set-theoretic definition of natural numbers, we use sets to model the natural numbers. So in this context, zero (or the additive identity as equal to 'b') is modeled by the empty set and therefore (10i) as a member of the empty set allows for the statement:

(11i) 3 ≈ b (proof), in step (1). Which then allows us to evaluate step (6) to say:
(12i) a = a, because ∀A: A ∪ ∅ = A (which is what I was attempting to convey in step (7)).

Thus,

(13i) 'b', as the additive identity, is approximately equal to any and all ℂ and ℝ values (as a rewording of step (8)).

[edit on 12-3-2010 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


That's one mind-bending theory! I'm curious why do you think it'll take 100 to 200 years before the type-1 civilization happens? I demand quicker turn-around!

Some other things that come to mind:

1. Looking at the circle in Fig 1. I am trying to understand where the start is for the whole thing? I believe it's point B? The same point is the end then too?

2. Can you give a bit more detail about the concepts of exigency, good and value? Or point to one of Sartre's books?

3. The y-axis seems to represent time? Or is the circumference time? If it's the y-axis does this mean time starts moving backwards? That'd be trippy! LOL

4. Fig. 3 seems to be providing different meanings for fig 1?

5. In the main image you show the thing moving in a counter clockwise direction. In the 2nd diagram you show the thing moving like a corkscrew. So basically it moves from the X & Y in to the Z? Taking the shape of a corkscrew or logarithmic spiral. Is that the final shape? I'm trying to relate it to the "dodecaplex."

Awesome concept, thanks for sharing it!

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

That's one mind-bending theory! I'm curious why do you think it'll take 100 to 200 years before the type-1 civilization happens? I demand quicker turn-around!

Don't have a lot of time at the moment, but basically the physics & engineering community on the whole have both expressed a general sentiment that based on how technology is tracking (Moore's Law, Gilder's Law, Metcalfe's Law) we expect scientific and technological progress will result in significantly expanded connectivity, computer "intelligence," and breakthroughs at an ever increasing rate until a theoretical technological singularity occurs.

Dr. Michio Kaku frequently states this figure of 100 to 200 years in his talks about Type 1, 2 & 3 civilizations,




To everyone else who's added to the thread...

I intend on replying, I'm just strapped for time.

Thanks for all the comments! I really do appreciate them.

reply to post by Xtraeme


Guess that's as good a basis as any for projecting in to the future. Though I think I prefer your 2040 prediction better. =) It's only 30 years out.

Also another question,

* Since each cycle lasts three quarters do they themselves have any meaning separate from the type of cycle that is involved? You've listed Simplicity (Fall), Competition (Winter), Plenty (Spring) and Aesthetic (Summer). Are the descriptors static or are they relative to the cycle, as shown in Fig. 3? Similarly how'd you arrive at the title for each quarter, and why? Just curious about the initial impetus that kicked off the whole thought process.

Have some more time, since your questions are pretty concise let me see if I can hammer a few out.

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

1. Looking at the circle in Fig 1. I am trying to understand where the start is for the whole thing? I believe it's point B? The same point is the end then too?

Since we know the universe had a beginning I'm making the argument that if things come from nothingness (which seems to be objectively true with virtual particles) then at some point in history all creation came from absolute nothing including an all-powerful monotheistic God (assuming such a presence currently exists).

If things come from nothingness then the whole process would have started at point `b` in Fig. 1.

Alternatively if things always existed it would have begun at point `a`. However this goes against the core symmetry of the idea that nothingness begets somethingness and somethingness eventually results in everythingness.

The concept that all things will and must come to pass.

This is how we resolve the paradox of atheism being objectively true at some point in history while still allowing for theism to eventually take its place.

In some ways this seems like a generic mechanism for resolving paradoxes. When something begins where it ends then there's no biased "stopping point." For instance if entropy is the end-all and be-all then the end-state is a zero-sum reality. If neg-entropy were objectively true then all things would indefinitely become more ordered and this process would never stop, so entropy would never be possible.

I'm saying for any system to not be degenerate its opposite must come to pass.

If something begins where it ends then it can continuously segue in to the next state. In math terms I'm taking the limit of point `b` from the left as the beginning of all things. Then for the end of all things I'm taking the limit of `b` from the right.

So literally point `b` represents nothingness (empty set) and simultaneously everythingness (absolute infinity or more correctly the universal set).

If you have a hard time imaging this remember ∀A: ∅ ⊆ A, meaning ∅ is ∞'ly long.

3. The y-axis seems to represent time? Or is the circumference time? If it's the y-axis does this mean time starts moving backwards? That'd be trippy! LOL

I think after point `d` time may become perceptually non-linear, but on the whole progression would be better represented by the circumference.

4. Fig. 3 seems to be providing different meanings for fig 1?

I'm glad someone asked this question!

There are only two possibilities. We either live in the middle reality, where all things can be overcome, or we live in the scientism universe (for quick reference here's the addendum which includes Fig. 2 & Fig. 3).

The more I meditate on this the more I'm led to believe that sentience's transfer from one "world" to another. Meaning after we pass point `d` some people will transfer to the `group universe,` others will progress to the `self universe` and for those who aren't ready they redo the `scientism reality.`

To discuss all the things that have led me to this conclusion would take several pages of text. If someone genuinely cares & wants to know the details I'll write it out, but I warn you it'll be long.

5. In the main image you show the thing moving in a counter clockwise direction. In the 2nd diagram you show the thing moving like a corkscrew. So basically it moves from the X & Y in to the Z? Taking the shape of a corkscrew or logarithmic spiral. Is that the final shape? I'm trying to relate it to the "dodecaplex."

Good question!

I'm inclined to think the geometric shape of all reality, as a time-line, can be best represented by the shape seen in Fig. 4. Just like we see spirals even at the quantum level to the macro- galactic scale I think it's also true for time.

Even though Fig. 4 shows numerous spirals all starting simultaneously just think of a macaroni noodle or a drill-bit and you got the idea. Similar to the visualization in the addendum in the upper right.

The only reason I depicted all the different spirals starting at `b` is to show that they all start ticking down at the inception of reality. However one has to take precedence since we solve problems in a non-parallel manner. The semi-transparent lines indicates progression that isn't currently "active." Put another way we only start actively trying to attain omni-benevolence on the 3rd revolution of the universe.

As to how this relates to the dodecaplex. I see the 5-worlds as struts of a hyper-sphere. When a hyper-sphere reaches the end of its full 3-level logarithmic progression it then create another multi-verse of 5.

Expanding on and on indefinitely.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Also another question,

* Since each cycle lasts three quarters do they themselves have any meaning separate from the type of cycle that is involved? You've listed Simplicity (Fall), Competition (Winter), Plenty (Spring) and Aesthetic (Summer). Are the descriptors static or are they relative to the cycle, as shown in Fig. 3

The sub-cycles in Fig. 2 that ultimately create the worlds as shown in Fig. 3 are more or less static. However you have to try and view them from the perspective of whatever would live or exist in those universes.

For instance if you were in the Creationist reality, things would become more ordered over time. In the kind of world where neg-entropy is objectively true, as things become more ordered, they become better understood. So the positive goal is omniscience.

The negative objective would be freedom from a life where things naturally improve, to experience a zero-sum game, and feel self-empowered by having to fight for a given outcome without reality naturally providing that outcome.

The logic for all this is spelled out in Fig. 4 and discussed in more detail here.

So imagine starting in a world of plenty (Q4), experiencing aesthetic (Q1), and then finally unifying and having the ability to start to overcome the ordered nature of this reality (Q2). The negative path would then lead to our universe. The positive or upper progression would mean all choices have become known so there's no reason or desire to enact any of those things in "Q3 - Competition."

Similarly how'd you arrive at the title for each quarter, and why? Just curious about the initial impetus that kicked off the whole thought process.

While listening to Pachelbel's canon in D,



I was reminded of Vivaldi's four seasons. That the true breathtaking nature Earth can only be expressed by contrasting the beauty and solemnity of winter against birth of life in spring. Seeing the flowing rivers, calm lakes, floating clouds, fall rains, and mountain runoff, finding that they bind together as an intricate symphony.

1. Simplicity (Nurture) ... the beginning, reliant on something above us to provide for our being.
   
2. Competition (Adolescence) ... having to find a path, through confusion, discovery, school yard fights, cuts and scrapes, falling, prepubescent drama, feeling life is horrible and miserable...
   
3. Plenty (Coming-in-to-ones-own) ... finding ones self, striking a path, and moving upwards towards success, fulfilling dreams and goals.
   
4. Aesthetic (Wisdom) ... after navigating the waters of treachery, fulfillment, failure, success, a person arrives at a state of knowledge and acceptance that their life isn't measured just by the good, but by all moments.

I'd break these concepts down mathematically in to four sequences:

1. Simplicity (∅) ... the empty set, coming from nothingness
   
2. Competition (0) ... life as a summation (consider: a + b = a - b ⇒ 2b = (a - a) ⇒ 2 = (a - a) / b; where b = 0! So we can see dividing 0 by itself gives us the + & - components (or 2)).
   
3. Plenty (Absolute ∞) ... perceiving things as boundless and shooting for the moon
   
4. Aesthetic (universal set - Ω) ... the set which contains all objects, including itself. Meaning all experiences summed, starting to see that even bad moments were good moments in ways that helped jump start some new aspect of life.

If God exists, he's not just one of these, he's the all and at the same time absence of presence.

The unmanifest mover of all things.

π fundamentally represents this notion of, "that which perpetuates all things." It's why we see it in the cosmological constant, the cycles of the sun, the oscillation of particles, the spinning of planets, the patterns of life ... all things have these four seasons.

Perhaps this is why we have a 3rd law of thermodynamics - you can never reach absolute zero. Almost to suggest creations greatest fear is that all existence should be anything less than moving for all things.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


Thanks for the detailed answers, though this question slipped through:

>> 2. Can you give a bit more detail about the concepts of exigency, good and value? Or point to one of Sartre's books

You've got a way with words.

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Thanks for the detailed answers,

Happy to oblige.

>> 2. Can you give a bit more detail about the concepts of exigency, good and value? Or point to one of Sartre's books

Probably the most concise explanation comes from a 1965 Cornell lecture on Sartre,

Life in the biological sense can be either an imperative, a value, or a good, depending on the social class of the agent. For the unfavored, life is a fundamental exigency, an imperative. For the middle class, it is a value to be produced and reproduced. For the privileged, it is a good that is automatically preserved by the labor of others and, as such, is a means for realizing other supposedly more worthy norms.
(Good faith and other essays: perspectives on a Sartrean ethics, J. Catalano, p.57)

These definitions are somewhat extended in the sense ...

1. that I see exigency as any form of "urgency." As noted in the unabridged Random House dictionary,
   
   

   
   ex·i·gen·cy  /ˈɛksɪdʒənsi, ɪgˈzɪdʒən-/ [ek-si-juhn-see, ig-zij-uhn-]
   –noun,plural-cies.
   
   1. exigent state or character; urgency.
   2. Usually, exigencies. the need, demand, or requirement intrinsic to a circumstance, condition, etc.: the exigencies of city life.
   3. a case or situation that demands prompt action or remedy; emergency: He promised help in any exigency.

   
   
   In our current state nature implicitly creates urgency in our lives (whether it be through a struggle to locate food or due to natural disasters). If we can overcome this locally then the meaning of exigency changes dramatically. Instead the urgency that fundamentally moves us will be one of choice.
   
   No different than a rich Playboy tycoon who chooses to put himself in an exigent circumstance by traveling to dangerous locales, participating in extreme sports like rock-climbing, or any other activity that has the potential to jeopardize the persons well-being.
   
   -1 exigency is the most exigent point as dictated by nature.
   0 exigency is the state where neither choice or nature is more dominant. It's at this point that the new paradigm is born. The capability to enact independent of nature.
   1 exigency is the most exigent point as selected by choice. Giving us the capability or ability to enact whatever we choose independent of nature.
   
   Meaning if we reach 1 exigency nature literally has no sway. It's been completely overruled. Likewise if we can reach -1 exigency it means choice no longer has any bearing. Nature has full and final authority.
   
   So if we imagine Fig. 1 as a unit circle, then to overcome all of a given characteristic (nature or choice) requires navigating a distance of 2 units. For example navigating from -1 to 1 results in complete choice. 1 to -1 results in nature.
   
   This causes the spiral seen in the upper right of the addendum. Suggesting to overcome any characteristic requires traveling a total of 3 quarters as shown in Fig. 2 of the addendum.
   
   Where this usually confuses people is they then start to realize any given quarter is revisited 3 times. The characteristics seen in the 4 quarters on each new visit will take on subtle new meanings. This is explored in Fig. 4.
   
   
2. Life as a value to be produced and reproduced is somewhat complicated in that it's a function of good / exigency. Meaning as exigency goes to 0 and good continues to increase we eventually achieve infinite value to be produced and reproduced. So the component that puts work in becomes self-perpetuating.
   
   This begs the question, then what is the value to be produced and reproduced on the opposite side of the divide? The meaning changes relative to who the good is being produced for.
   
   If we achieve complete self-empowerment then we really have no need to empower our individual selves any further. So the whole thing flips from life as "service to self" to "service to others."
   
   The various meanings for this can be seen in Fig. 5. Right now it would appear we're going through (self & group) / nature. At the crossover this should change to group / (nature & choice)
   
   
3. Life as a good to be consumed is probably the easiest concept to grasp. Life can either be a good for myself or life can be a good for others. In some circumstances it can be a good for both, but usually the intention of a person is directed towards a single benefactor.
   
   Needless to say some people spend their entire lives trying to further empower themselves and increase their position. This variety of person usually follows Nietzsche's philosophy. Others, like Mother Theresa, are self-sacrificing and live in service to others.
   
   Just like exigency, overcoming any one of these characteristics requires navigating a full 2 units. So to overcome self requires traveling two whole units. This can be positive or negative.
   
   The positive (or good consequence) is the "self" achieving the goal of unlimited self-empowerment at the end of Q3. Since this also occurs at the point of y=-1, which indicates the greatest good to be consumed for the group, tells us something rather important.
   
   It's saying to achieve the greatest good for the group requires empowering all people such that there's no longer a need or desire to satisfy the self. If every person is infinitely sated, such that self is no longer an issue, then the only thing remaining is a focus on the group or assisting others.
   
   This is the goal I'm advocating.
   
   The negative interpretation of "end self" is terrifying. If the "self" is incapable of being completely filled this means some person, organization or thing will ultimately accumulate all power and won't relinquish it under any circumstance because its personal goal is to possess unlimited value to be produced and reproduced for its own benefit.
   
   This is explored in much more detail in this post.

Hopefully this helps make a bit more sense of what I'll admit is a complicated concept.

All the best!

[edit on 10-4-2010 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by TheMalefactor


And to give some other works by Sartre that address scarcity, beyond "Good faith and other essays: perspectives on a Sartrean ethics," you might find the following books worth reading,

1. Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings
   
2. Critique of Dialectical Reason, Volume 2
   
3. Jean-Paul Sartre and the politics of reason: a theory of history

reply to post by Xtraeme


Heady stuff. I've been reading up on Sartre. Prof. Spade's lecture notes have been a good starting point for me as a philosophy newb.

philosophyarchive...

I'm kinda interested in the "Curiosity" diagrams. Are these works put together by other people? Or something you naturally came to through studying this idea?

Looking at the curiosities pg. 3 diagram ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ) aren't there five wheels in Fig. 2.2 not four?

Appreciate the replies, it's made for some fun reading!

edit: fixed broken link

[edit on 23-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

... I've been reading up on Sartre. Prof. Spade's lecture notes have been a good starting point for me ...

philosophyarchive...

I've looked over Spades' notes in the past. There's a lot of good material on that page, thanks for including the link!

I'm kinda interested in the "Curiosity" diagrams. Are these works put together by other people? Or something you naturally came to through studying this idea?

I've been going it alone. The diagrams are solely my own work, derived from the original concept plus some additional thoughts I haven't had the time to write out.

My approach was pretty simple. I said (1) if God is an inevitability, and (2) we can see that as something being knowable, then (3) we have to ask ourselves, "Has that already happened?" (4) To answer 3 we then look at the knowable components, 2, and contrast them against older holy texts to see if there are any similarities. If there are it then suggests the answer is, yes, God as a developed sentience already exists.

Looking at the curiosities pg. 3 diagram ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ) aren't there five wheels in Fig. 2.2 not four?

For starters let me include a newer version of the print-out,

(Curiosities pg.2 [previously pg.3], v1.9.8c @ 1554 x 2050)

Four Seasons of Scarcity & Sentience (album) -

1. Omni cycles v.1.8.9 (Fig. 4 @ 1556 x 2048)

Earlier when you asked, "Can you give a bit more detail about the concepts of exigency, good and value?"

I answered, in this post, that life as "exigency" and "a good to be consumed" both have two components to them. Exigency can be enforced by nature or choice. Likewise "life as a good to be consumed" can either be for my self or something I work towards to help give to the group.

So if you look at Fig. 2.2 you'll see that basically the central circle is showing all of these things combined. Whereas the 4 outer rings show each of the components by themselves.

Appreciate the replies, it's made for some fun reading!

Thanks for joining in.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Xtraeme]

Recently as I was reflecting on the omni-diagram,

Omni cycles v.1.8.9 (Fig. 4 @ 1556 x 2048)

with regards to its connection to the famous tetracyt known as the tetragrammaton, additionally related to the kabbalistic notion of the ten sephirot / iggulim circle (hint: count the number of points on the apex of the spiral in Fig. 4 above), it occurred to me that:

1. Omnipotence - represents overcoming cardinality (0 ⇔ ∞)
   
2. Omnipresence - represents overcoming ordinality (∅ ⇔ U)
   
3. Omniscience - represents overcoming duality (+ ⇔ -)
   
4. Omnibenevolence - represents overcoming reflexivity (= ⇔ ≠)

The math that comes from this sort of analysis is somewhat mind-bending. Though if you see it through it shows that all elements can be unified and analyzed as representations of each other, but this requires treating mathematical objects much like one would units in Physics. All numerical values fundamentally have types; and if you know how to find the identity point between these types all things (even qualitative characteristics) become quantifiable.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


Just as a mental note for myself some of the translations are:

1. Reflexive-Ordinal identity:
   (A ≠ A) ≡ ∅
   note: (A = A) ≡ A, showing that reflexive-equality or -inequality can be simplified in both cases down to a single term.
   
   
2. Cardinal-Dual identity:
   0 ≡ (+ ∪ -)
   implying dualness has a cardinality of 2 (i.e. A + B = A - B ⇒ 2B = (A - A) ⇒ 2 = (A - A) / B, where B = 0, here for more). Also suggesting 0 as the union, or center, will have an ordinal position of 1 in a 0-index system. Any ordinal organization of the extremes of dualness will be arbitrary due to the evenly divisible cardinalness. This suggests an ...
   
   
3. Ordinal-Dual relation:
   ∅ ≡ ¬(+ ⋁ -)
   showing ordinalness is parallel to duality.
   
   
4. Cardinal-Ordinal Dual-Reflexive relation:
   (0 = [+ ⋁ =]) ↔ (∅ = [- ⋁ ≠]), or in other words 0 as summation / reflexive, and ∅ as absence reflected in lack of cardinality / irreflexive. Meaning this type of 0 ⇒ [ordinal = 2, cardinality = 1] and ∅ ⇒ [ordinal = 0, cardinality = 1]

For those who are more math oriented it's likely obvious this concept seems to represent a matrice of sorts. Some fascinating characteristics start to emerge as you think about these adjacencies, for instance ∀A: ∅ ⊆ A, meaning ordinal ∅ when related to the cardinal-space has a cardinal length of ∞. Suggesting ordinality and cardinality run parallel to one another.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


Correction ordinalness isn't parallel to dualness, rather it's triangular. Probably the easiest way to start to see this is to simply imagine dualness parallel to reflexivity; and [cardinal, ordinalness] as parallel and simultaneously orthogonal to [dual, reflexive]. Though there are some strange characteristics when considering (A ≠ A) ≡ ∅. It's hard to imagine ≠ ⊥⟂ ∅ in the instance when A ≠ A as being identical to ∅. Though this may make some sense in that ≠, as a binary operation, doesn't always imply ∅ in the instances where A ≠ B is true.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Xtraeme]

Great thread! I love reading about things like this instead of the usual conspiracy theories on this website. This made me make my first post. S&F. I wonder if there are books about this...

Great read! Thanks OP for putting your ideas out there. My brain has started to liquify a bit from all the interesting information, so I must break from reading.

However, I do have a question, and I'm not sure if it's been brought up in this post because, again, I haven't finished it.

Could the Big Bang and the creation of the universe be the end result of our conquest of everything? In other words, in your opinion, is the destruction and rebirth of everything in the universe by our own design?

Let's suppose that humans, or some other base species achieves a type 4 civilization. All knowledge would quickly spread to all living things. At that point, there would be no differential between different types of life, everything that was "alive" would simply be "life". We would all be joined as one, even lifeforms across all dimensions. We would all know everything, be everywhere, have all we could imagine, and existence would be hum-drum.

The only thing that would be scarce is novelty. Novelty brought about by challenges and solutions. Since all challenges in existence had been conquered, the only thing left to do would be to start everything over again. The only challenge imaginable was the greatest one possible, the destruction of all knowledge with the pursuit of relearning it all.

Before the destruction, we would know that after a time, life would again return to its present state of "god like" magnificence. It was impossible for it not to. Something, somewhere, at some time, will always begin life. It will always flourish and will always overcome all challenges. We would know it was inevitable because, well, we knew everything.

Therefore, there is no risk of destroying life, no risk of ending everything forever. It will always come back, just as strong. And it will always return to the same point of singularity.

Perhaps we are simply part of a cycle. And when I say "we", I'm implying life in general. There's nothing to say that humans are the ultimate incarnation of life. We could be completely obliterated, but life would continue. We are simply a part of life.

I should stop, my brain is a slushy now.