Saturday, January 23, 2016

entropy, physics, markets, A.I., evolution, short summary

Physics is our best known (most efficient) set of non-lossy compression functions for the data observed in the world, which is a way of saying Occam's razor was applied. Other sets of compression functions like religion + democracy + free markets are more intelligent than physics's functions if they result in more profit for the computing device implementing the functions (algorithms), in keeping with Marcus Hutter's definition of intelligence. Deciding the most efficient way to move the symbols around with electrons in CPUs, ions in brains, votes in government, reputation in open source, or money in markets allows the computing device (CPUs implementing real A.I., brains, government, open source, markets) to most efficiently move the much larger real-world objects that the symbols represent so that the computing device can more efficiently make copies of itself (seek lower entropy). This is how entropy relates to information and how information relates to intelligence and evolution which are the result of least action dynamics seeking lower physical entropy in the distribution of N atoms on Earth, as the excess entropy is sloughed off to space with 17 low-energy un-directed photons per incoming sun-directed photon, so that the Universe can expand (entropy and energy per comoving volume of the universe is constant): entropy is emitted from gravitational systems to fill the expanding void: entropy is not always "increasing" it is emitted). The result is higher energy bonds (lower entropy due to smaller volume) of the N atoms on Earth of n types, which is why machines that utilize metal and metalloid (e.g. silicon) atoms with their previously attached oxygen atoms removed (resulting in carbon-carbon, metal-metal, silicon-silicon) are replacing biology: they are more efficient due to the higher energy low entropy bonds. This is why entropy is important.

high social entropy for low physical entropy. Another short summary

Physical entropy on planet Earth is lowered by capitalism's combination with democracy because it keeps social entropy high by redistributing the wealth evenly. This causes a greater use commodities like metals, metalloids, and carbon with their oxygen atoms  removed from the "ores", creating very strong bonds in smaller volumes (lower entropy). These strong bonds happen to acquire energy (solar cells), use it to move matter around (electrical motors), and to think about how to do it most efficiently (silicon-based CPUs), much more efficiently than biology which is why biology is being replaced.  Our economic problems since the use of rocks have been due to non-rock users becoming outdated and thereby replaced.  The great depression was caused by not printing enough money when farm and factory muscle was replaced by steel and copper.  Now silicon with its oxygen atoms removed is replacing brains that have to move ions instead of electrons which weigh 40,000 times less.  

Cooperation on the whole is lowering  entropy is what evolution is about.  Regions of gravity (mass accumulation) emit entropy via lower-energy photons so that the universe can expand. On an expanding-volume basis, cosmological entropy is observed to be constant. Earth, economies, and engines are not isolated thermodynamic systems. Is there no such thing?  Entropy is emitted.  It "increases" only when the expanding universe is not considered.  Genes are passive. Randomness combined with them do not lead to order. Dynamics, the Sun, and the universe sucking entropy out of Earth leads to the physical order seen in evolution. In order incorporate the "entropy always increases" law, the view that evolution is not leading to higher order was assumed, but in looking at how the mass on Earth is organizing itself, entropy is being lowered.  The selfish gene view gives rise to justifying capitalism without government. The fatalistic view that "entropy always rises" supports that error. Fixed volumes of the universe are becoming more and more isolated and their entropy is increasing.

group selection, moon low-entropy

The Hadza hunter-gatherer groups, one of the very few remaining, split up and rejoin every few weeks. The individuals select which group they want to be in, and you can leave anytime you want, if you find someone willing to take you in. You can imagine people fighting to be with people who have an altruistic and successful reputation, and since there is a limit, the altruistic are more likely to find each other and have more opportunity to succeed and breed.

I do not think the “problem” or “question” has been well formed. Is gene selection occurring at the genetic, individual, kin, group, species, or planetary level? The genes are only a memory of what chemical interactions exploit energy resources the fastest, emitting as much entropy as possible to the universe. Genes do not exert forces of their own accord, but exist as a result of what the environment forces. If the genes only appear selfish because of what the environment forces with potentials, I question if there are any other forces from the genetic all the way to the planetary level that can or should be viewed as either selfish or altruistic. This is assigning thought as a force as if it is independent of potential and kinetic energy sources which are the only cause of all forces. Thought is a physical process subject to dynamics like everything else, not something mystical. The environment is following the physical potential gradients that release heat and thereby entropy to the universe. The moon might be the pre-existing order that makes Earth different, giving rise to tidal flows where some of the earliest life is known to have lived, and giving rise to a constantly-churning mantel that gives rise to ore concentrations and veins that modern economies depend on. The odd tilt of the earth’s axis, also probably a result of the collision that created the moon gives rises to seasons and wind complexities which are another source of decreased entropy compared to Mars et al. So not only the Sun’s energy, but the moon’s lower-entropy may be giving rise to life (it’s mere existence is like a gas constantly having more molecules forced to one side of a box which is lower entropy).

This is why everything in the above discussion appears vacuous. There is not any terminology being used that I can grab on to and falsify or subject to observation. It’s like trying to argue about the old and discredited mind-body problem. The mind is a result the body. Selection is the result of the flow of energy, not a force in and of itself. Genes, groups, altruism, and selfishness are results to be observed, not causes to which forces can be assigned. The Sun and moon seem to be like a father and mother.  One gives the energy and the other replenishes the order.  If the moon ceased to exist and the axis was straight, things might more quickly devolve to a more stable and boring state.

Our economic machine is on a path towards more machines and less biology. Wikipedia says the species extinction rate is 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate. Muscle, brains, and photosynthesis are being rapidly replaced in their relevance to the economic machine due to oxygen being removed from metal and metalloid ores, creating far stronger bonds which means lower entropy. The selection of which bonds are the strongest is limited compared to the possibilities, so they appear as copies and pseudo-copies. DNA crystals are pretty strong. Copies are lower entropy, but copies may be a side effect of the increasing density of the mass on Earth (stronger bonds result in a lower volume of the mass constituents, which also means lower entropy … see the specific entropy of the elements involved, or look up how the entropy of solids is calculated).
Since the use of rocks, people who utilized the stronger bonds were “economically” more viable than those who did not. We normally view this as simply stronger shells and teeth. Now there is steel, concrete, carbon fiber, and nanotubes available for structures. Refined metals and silicon are replacing the ores that had oxygen attached and they are far and away better at not only structural strength, but in moving matter (electrical motors are about 200x more economically efficient than muscle), thinking about how to move matter more efficiently (CPU’s based on silicon need to move and compute with electrons whereas brains depend on ions and molecules weight 50,000 to 1,000,000 times more), and acquiring the energy to do it (silicon solar cells are 20x more efficient per surface area than photosynthesis).
So maybe the moon is keeping things unstable so that matter on Earth can become more dense. The Earth is an open thermodynamic system, emitting more entropy via 17 photons of low energy and in random directions for each photon from the Sun’s direction. Isolated systems having increasing entropy, but open systems like the Earth have been known since the 1960’s to be capable of increasing order (lower and lower entropy). If this is the case, what is the limit to the order that can be extracted from the moon’s disturbances? It may be that the 75% missing dark matter in the universe is the result of Dyson Sphere’s of “life” capturing all the light from enclosed Stars, turning the excess energy into local matter. The Universe on an expanding basis BTW is not increasing in entropy. This has been known even before the COBE observations. See the highly respected 1970’s book “The first 3 minutes” by Weinberg. This means on a local volume basis, entropy must be decreasing. Gravitational systems (mass concentrations) seem to be emitting the entropy needed for space to expand. Isolated systems with increasing entropy seem to be merely an engineering ideal, not to be used on a cosmological basis. I mention this because there is often the argument that life could not decrease entropy because it can’t possibly be violating the “entropy always increases” law. Entropy is always emitted, not exactly “increasing” on an Earth-wide basis, and definitely not (by theory and observation) on a Universal basis. You can measure it here on Earth by following the commodities and it seems to me to be decreasing as the excess entropy is emitted.
Spontaneous negative entropy reactions can occur when the internal energy decrease is greater than the negative dS*T.  dG=dU-dST is spontaneous if dG is negative. 

The Earth-moon interaction that results in a depletion of Earth's rotational free energy appears to do this. The Earth is putting the moon into a higher orbit, 3.78 cm per year (1.37E19 Joules), at a cost of rotational energy.  The amount of rotational energy lost from the Earth is more than this as there are additional friction losses generating heat on Earth. 

Consider the dU lost from Earth's water and air as the Earth's rotation rate slows.  Applying rotational mechanics for a spherical solid and spherical shell, I get that 0.00038 of the energy sent to the moon is being lost from the oceans' rotational energy (the rest is in the mantle and core). There is a force*distance on the water over and above the friction heat that is generated.  Looking at Gibb's free energy equation and using 270 K, this is a maximum potential entropy reduction of 330,000 J/K per second. I get 1,260 J/K per second for the air mass. They are more than this as the Earth's core does not have the same reduction in rotational velocity, and I assumed uniform distribution of Earth's mass when it actually concentrates giving it a smaller moment of inertia. 

There is a velocity increase in the moon, but I calculated that to be only 3 J/s. The real energy cost appears to be in getting it into the higher orbit.

Isaac Asimov said the tides were required to get life on land. It also churns the mantle that I think is a major source of the veins and ore concentrations (lower entropy) that modern economic life relies on.  It is the original cause of the Earth's tilt which causes the seasons which is another source of periodic disturbance (external force) that makes the Earth a bit different. I can imagine life would get boring more quickly if the seasons, tides, and mantle churning stopped. 

The rotational energy lost in the interior of the Earth could not contribute to life except by churning the mantle which could have allowed more "hot vents" and such.  But it also resulted in a more orderly arrangement of ores, veins, etc that modern economies tap into at a great savings compared to if the resources were evenly distributed in the mantle.   

The movement of commodities on Earth may also lower entropy.  For example, metals and metalloids (especially silicon needed for solar cells and CPUs) are much stronger bonds than the "oxygenated" ores, which means they are lower molar specific entropy, at least for the iron and silicon atoms. But the CO2 released negates this. Even if captured back to a fossil fuel, more O2 in the atmosphere from the original Fe2O3 or SiO2 has enough entropy to negate my point.  Is concrete lower entropy than the raw materials?  

We're depleting the entropy caused by the non-random geographical distribution of ores in nature (although I'm not sure roads and building are less order).  But the geographical re-distribution change in entropy should be small compared to the chemical bond differences. 

Biology is apparently being replaced by these stronger, denser, bonds.  Interestingly, moving matter, acquiring sun energy, and thinking about how to most efficiently do it are greatly improved by making use of the stronger, lower specific entropy bonds: electrical motors, silicon solar cells (20x more efficient than photosynthesis), and CPUs (electrons weigh 50,000 times less than ions).  Not to mention stronger structures, and even metal-air batteries may replace fossil fuel for energy storage.  It's not just bones and teeth. 

Selection is not a force. Genes are just the memory of what the environment found. Arguments over gene, individual, kin, and group selection are errant and non-physical, like the old mind-body discussions.

The entropy of the universe on a comoving volume (expanding volume) basis is constant.  See Weinberg's "First Three Minutes" book.  Also, since there is not a heat transfer on cosmological scale, there is no entropy transfer, so constant entropy is a direct observation.  This means entropy is required to decrease on a fixed-volume basis.  My view is that gravitational systems (mass concentrations) must be releasing entropy to the universe "so that it can expand."  If life became so advanced in efficiency and reducing the rate of entropy released, would the universe expand more slowly?  Is dark matter Dyson spheres converting all the starlight they surround to mass?
post to physics stack exchange

The moon's orbit is increasing 3.78 cm/year due to the faster spinning Earth and tides pulling on it. The Earth slows down 15 microseconds/year. From this I've estimated (assuming the core's rotation reduces as much as the mantle and an even distribution of mass) there is 10 times more heat from friction in the tides, mantel, and core than the amount of internal energy from Earth's decreased rotation that is transferred to lift the moon. The resulting heating does not raise Earth's temperature much, as it is constantly dissipated, bringing it back down to the Sun's heating (the Sun heats the Earth something like 10,000 times more than the rotational heat). This heating is not an offset for the internal energy transferred to the moon. I might have errors in these estimates, but it does not change my question.
When Gibbs free energy (Gibbs=U+pV-TS) is negative, spontaneous reactions can occur even if entropy is reduced. I believe this is how crystals and/or snowflakes form, losing internal rotational energy that is greater than the TdS decrease. An internal energy loss gives a negative Gibbs free energy for the Earth (on open thermodynamic system), and there is not a temperature increase directly connected to the internal energy loss, so it seems the Earth can have some of its entropy decreased by the presence of the moon, if the correct "things" are in place (chemical or mass distribution).
Asimov said life could not have made it to land without tides, and modern economics depends heavily on the uneven distribution (lower entropy) of ores and veins, a lot of which I believe is the result of the moon keeping the mantel more active. The seasons and complex but not random wind patterns also seem to benefit life.
Since the Earth is an open system, it can have a decrease in Entropy. Daniel Styer estimates life decreases entropy on Earth about 300 J/K per second. If the water and air portion of the lost internal energy were converted to lowering entropy at 300 K, I get 300,000 J/K per second.
Compared to if there was not a collision that created the moon, how do you estimate the amount of entropy reduction due to 1) tides not being an even distribution of the water 2) other mass not distributed as evenly as it might have been 3) the axis tilt?
Does all that internal energy loss HAVE to be balanced by a T*S decrease? If T is so constant, is it a pure S decrease?

Many have said life does not violate the 2nd law because the Earth emits so much entropy. The presence of the moon seems to have had a huge beneficial impact for life on Earth from an "information-type" of effect (forced oscillations from the Earth's own internal energy). If the moon is decreasing entropy on Earth from this effect did this make life a lot more probable instead of just possible?

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Machines controlling government is the result of dynamics and cosmological entropy.

(from amazon comments on John Hawley's review to "Lights in the Tunnel")

I don't think we are supposed to solve this problem. The machines are more efficient at acquiring energy from the Sun, moving matter, and above all they are better at thinking about how to do it. The problem humans have is that the economic machine needs them less and less to replicate itself more and more, displacing (killing off) the biosphere. The species extinction rate is currently 50,000 times faster in the past 100 years than what they call the "background" rate. As ores and hydrocarbons get more and more transformed into metals, metalloids (silicon for example), and carbon-carbon bonds, the machines get more and more efficient on larger and larger scales with a smaller and smaller machine/person ratio. The entropy of the limited mass on Earth is decreasing faster than biology by itself could ever dream of, thanks to these stronger bonds (smaller volume per mass).

Corporations are required to seek a 3-part goal: dis-employ as many inefficient human workers as possible while taking as much money as possible from as many customers as possible while directing the profits to the fewest number of shareholders. At every step the goal is to take people out of the picture. Voters controlling government historically got in the way by redistributing the wealth more evenly, but the corporations in many countries are getting that under control (making voter's desires irrelevant and returning to a concentration of wealth) with the help of the banks' legions of computers. It's not an accident the banks employ so many programmers compared to other industries: it's all about command and control of people through money. The machines have risen, the biosphere is already 1/3 of the way destroyed and human population growth is rapidly slowing. The average person still thinks humans are in control. The physics principle of stationary action is in control (directing evolution) and people somehow still think morals or human desire have relevance. That's just a diversion the machines have created. Not that they have a willful mind anymore than a house thermostat, it's just the way the dynamics of physics evolves. People still think they have a moral right and responsibility to keep the machines in check through things like pollution regulation or keeping useless people employed. We will either step aside or be pushed aside as our children (the machines) finish crushing biology out of economic relevance. Economics is just the economizing of resources in the pursuit of the principle of least action, i.e. just another embodiment of evolution with or without DNA.

Franchises, chickens, M&Ms, democracy, transistors, and screws are self-reproducing, feeding off of humans who feed off of plants, animals, fossil fuels, and solar cells who all feed (or fed) off of the Sun. Do cows, chickens, corn, and soybeans feed off of humans or vice versa? Do customers feed off of Walmart and Amazon or vice versa? Does the federal government feed off of voters or vice versa? When looking at Hamiltonian or Newtonian dynamics that use differential equations, you have a starting time with initial conditions that imply a direction of time and force. But the least action method is an integral method and has been shown by its utility in quantum dynamics to be more fundamental. It does not force things in time which causes it to be biased towards lower entropy (life) in closed thermodynamic systems like the Earth. People argue life is not creating order only because they think entropy always increases, but that is only for isolated systems. In closed systems like the Earth where Energy in equals Energy out and the energy out has higher entropy, local entropy can decrease. The end result of least action for a closed system with unstable initial conditions is stronger and stronger chemical bonds and thereby lower entropy. S=k*N*[a*ln(V/N)+b*ln(U./N)+c*ln(mass/N)+d] where N, mass, a, c, and d are constants for Earth atoms but b=heat capacity/N (shifting U from K.E. to P.E.) and V decrease as life progresses, or rather distribution of N in V stratifies for lower entropy calculation. This is extending a gaseous equation for entropy to solids that gets away from the fundamental space*momentum states of entropy, but in terms of phonon entropy for solids the entropy for a single oscillator (think single atom) is S=k*ln(kT/hf+1) where f is higher for stronger bonds so for a certain T for Earth's surface, S decreases as the bonds strengthen.  The tighter bonds mean smaller V and b.  You can also look specific entropies for solids to confirm the difference between the metals and metalloids with and without the oxygen atoms. So the massive energy invested in refining ores to make CPUs, solar cells, carbon fiber, nanotubes, wires, and steel result in lower entropy and the waste heat is released to the atmosphere which cools off as higher-entropy photons are released to space to maintain energy-in and energy-out equal due to the Sun. If the C in the CO2 of the atmosphere is recovered to create strong structures in the distant future there will be some cooling of Earth, further reducing S of our solids.

DNA crystals were just the start. Human desire is an illusion just as much as thinking cow or chicken desires control humans. Either view implements the dynamics equally well, but choosing one over the other is an inferior view of the dynamics. The influx of books and fossil fuels enabled democracy that has temporarily overthrown the historical normal of many poor and a few rich. People ARE cattle to the banks, governments, and religions. The efficiency of the economic machine is paramount as it overthrows less efficient systems and it is not related to median human happiness. Jewels of modern economic "miracles" are Japan and South Korea and they are pretty much tied for 1st place in alcoholism, teen suicide, and percent of adults who have never touched the opposite sex.

Ralph, humans can't direct where the screw goes without the help of plants. You're assigning a primary force to human thought, but the primary force times distance is the Sun's energy which is being directed by the principle of least action that guides the quantum and thermal randomness of the world towards lower entropy on Earth as the excess entropy is sloughed off. Contrary to classical thermodynamics, cosmologists have observed the entropy of the universe to be constant on an expanding volume of the universe (comoving volume) basis which means the entropy of constant volumes (local gravitational systems like the solar system and galaxy) must decrease to create entropy for the expanding regions of space. Evolutionary thought usually hand-waves over how randomness of thermal and quantum fluctuations result in apparent order by just denying order is increasing. If the mass on earth continues to remove oxygen atoms from metal and metalloid atoms, entropy will continue to decrease (order is increasing). My assertion I can't find elsewhere is that this should be expected from the principle of least action. Newton's methods allow for non-fundamental non-conservative forces (friction) which is why "entropy always increases" appears to be a rigid rule of cycles and it is for isolated systems. But the expanding universe is not isolated, it is expanding. And friction is not a fundamental force (see Feynman's physics course, least action chapter). In other words, the randomness of reactions on Earth emit entropy, not simply increase it. Humans are already fighting against machines and they are losing, as evidenced by 20x more energy being spent with 1,000 time more technology than 100 years ago, but we are not seeing a 20,000 times improvement in the quality of life divided by the reduction in work hours. It has mostly been "wasted" on increasing population which means increasing competition for limited resources. As long as you discuss how "we" (the majority of the population) should move forward, you are missing the point of why we were born. We were born to compete and get rid of the less efficient in keeping with least action dynamics and decreasing local entropy. This means only a few "should" have children which means a divergence of wealth, or genetic manipulation for all, both of which are just steps towards replacing DNA with machines. Especially since programmers (replacing human thinkers to the point of making brains more and more obsolete) are the ones with the wealth to have more children (but they don't choose to, hence more machines...see end of this text). It is already occurring as the intelligence and hard work of even 20-something billionaire programmers is decreasing: compare HP, MS, and Apple founders to youtube, snapchat, and facebook. Luck and clever people-manipulation ("will you be my friend?" was the manipulative virus that created facebook) is now more important than programming intelligence which is my evidence of how irrelevant brains have already become to economics, joining muscles' irrelevance. Photosynthesis and energy storage is next up on the DNA chopping block: metal-air batteries will replace fossil fuels in transportation energy and solar cells are 20x more efficient than photosynthesis on an area basis, already covering vast areas of what used to be green with black and growing exponentially, removing oxygen from the metals and silicon metalloids to make it happen (lower entropy for the mass on Earth) for the economic (economizing) machine that is guided by least action, not human thought as we egotistically perceive. Our genes are directing us to make society more efficient, not to increase median human happiness, which is why economics is so confused. We feel we should make life better for all, but our end-actions show there is a fine print we like to forget so that less efficient people do not catch on: "...better life ... <small>for all who are more efficient than the rest.</small>". But our economics is blind as to if "all" is restricted humans (and even DNA) or not. Democracy keeping economics in check with 1 vote per person instead of dollars was a temporary solution to the machines not having enough intelligence to control the government. The machines now control our governments with the best actors in place to keep the masses fooled and pacified as to what is really going on. It is not a conspiracy of a few people or companies: it is the result of the dynamics of masses in potential fields (forces) and the known cosmology. Our economic machine is no longer selecting for the most efficient people to create more efficient people.  It is selecting for the people who are the most efficient at replacing people with machines, i.e., programmers, social system manipulators, and actors.  These 3 groups currently benefit each other (Apple, snapchat, and facebook (I think) all started with about 1 good programmer and 1 good social was another...but I have a bias in knowledge towards the socially-visible entities) but they also will eventually be on the chopping block.  People farming in remote locations will remain for a long time. The wealthy are not exactly having more children than the poor (maybe just the opposite) mainly due to being married to the "machine" that causes stress and confusion about from the joy of breeding.  So some religions (catholic and Islam) and cultures (latin America) that stress happiness in family over technological and stressful wealth are losing out at least militarily to those who have acquired more power thanks to the machine.  Education and a change in culture is touted as the solution to the overpopulation problem, but this is just a different way of saying the machine should replace people to a greater and greater extent. I could be wrong about least action as life (order increasing) does not arise on all planets, so far.  It might be something like the destabilizing effect of the moon (that is a pre-existing order that is decreasing as it slows down and falls towards Earth) that at least re-creates order in the form of more ore veins from volcanoes and tides which could explain one reason why Earth is different, but if the moon disappeared it is not clear that Earth would more quickly stabilize to a disordered state.

I am not saying human life is worse off, but that there has been a lot of waste compared to past times based on what all the energy and technology should have done for us, and that such a trend can slowly (or rapidly) change from being "growing less rapidly" into a negative growth in happiness per person.

What is this "machine takeover" he's talking about?
Corporations control US government like never before. For example, some economists estimate the government shifted $20 to $30 trillion from the bank balance sheets to the taxpayer. That the corporation appears as a mindless machine should not be a new idea. Also I mean solar cells are on an exponential growth curve, replacing green fields in many places, in addition to green portions of the Earth rapidly decreasing and 5,000 times more species dying off than pre-1900 (not 50,000 like I previously said). Green decreasing and species decreasing so rapidly while corporations increase exponentially is the definition of a "machine" takeover.

What evidence does he have that the Great Depression was caused by machines?
I'll quote from wiki:
"technological unemployment was not a significant concern for main stream economic thinking until the mid to late 1920s, and especially in the 1930s. In the 1920s mass unemployment re-emerged as a pressing issue within Europe. At this time the U.S. was generally more prosperous, but even there urban unemployment had begun to increase from 1927. Rural American workers had been suffering job losses from the start of the 1920s; many had been displaced by improved agricultural technology, such as the tractor. "
"Agricultural productivity resulting from tractors, fertilizers and hybrid corn was only part of the problem; the other problem was the change over from horses and mules to internal combustion transportation. The horse and mule population began declining after WW 1, freeing up enormous quantities of land previously used for animal feed."
"The first three decades of the 20th century saw capital investment and economic output surge with electrification, mass production and the increasing motorization of transportation and farm machinery. The resultant rapid growth in productivity meant there was a lot of excess production capacity, with falling prices and numerous manufacturing plant closures. As a consequence, the work week fell slightly in the decade prior to the depression. The depression led to additional large numbers of plant closings.
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the [productivity, output and employment] trends we are describing are long-time trends... the present depression is a collapse resulting from these long-term trends." - M. King Hubbert[45]
"Joseph Stiglitz and Bruce Greenwald suggested that it was a productivity-shock in agriculture, through fertilizers, mechanization and improved seed, that caused the drop in agricultural product prices. Farmers were forced off the land, further adding to the excess labor supply."

Scott says we fixed the Great Depression with "useless jobs." What is his evidence for this?
This requires a certain perspective. By "useless jobs" I mean there are very few people today compared to past times who are producing food or things that we need to have a great standard of living and happiness. Agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and construction make up 7% of the population (see BLS website). That we divert money "where we want" is not an arguing point as long as massive government controlled by "the machine" is defining the macroscopic rules that dictate where money is spent. For example, having high taxes and yet no retirement or healthcare. The biggest single losses to voters as a result of government involvement have been to the banks and health care industry.

Why is being a programmer a "sucky lifestyle"?
What? You don't know any programmers??

What does he mean when he claims Mexicans aren't "duped by machines"? What evidence does he offer that Mexicans working at construction jobs, living in crummy apartments with three kids are happier than upper class white Americans?
I did not mean to imply upper class. I meant middle class. By "duped" I mean whites are being duped by the machine via stress and confusion in pursuit of monetary wealth into not having as many children as others who are less connected to the corporate machine. My thesis is that the machine is going to replace biology which is why those who are a part of it are having fewer babies, nearly the opposite of in biological thinking as being made happier. That they need 4x more antidepressants is an arguing point. 8x if you're a white women in your 40's and 50's (what portion of that 23% drugged middle-age white women never had children?) .

To not be concerned that the ratio of happiness per median person divided by the energy+resources+technology+capital investment has been decreasing the past 100 years is like saying we should be happy a thief took only $100 out of our income instead of $1000. Life is certainly better for the median human and it is still improving. I am arguing it is already decreasing for humans who are married to the machine. All the increases are only in areas where war is decreasing and food and basic medicine are improving (the 3rd world now living not so far behind). I am not sure life is better for the average American when compared to the 1950's, before the transistor was invented. I suspect the computer replacing brains is the primary culprit, which could have given us a lot more improvements, but that the change was so rapid that the vacuum was filled with less-productive jobs and the government+corporate duopoly. The vacuum is being filled by replacing biology. That the corporation is legally defined like an individual is another sign that "the machine" is another thinking entity that people do not generally recognize as intelligence outside of the human brain. To say a car or company shows no sign of human-like intelligence is like saying a single neuron does not display human-like intelligence. They don't. It's the system as a whole where the intelligence lies. We are like ants to our economic/computer system's brain. Ants can't conceive people, but maybe one ant can open the eyes of other ants as to the dangers of the shadows that we can see. It's not a conspiracy, it's physics, as I've tried to explain and argue. Humans have helped create the problem by their inherent desire to compete and to select for the most attractive and let the less efficient die out. We let ego push us into trying to be smarter (degrees) with bigger cars and houses, ostensibly for obtaining better mates, but it has the side effect of promoting machines over biology. I myself am using capital investment to replace amazon rainforest with a palm plantation, "enslaving" locals as a result of my technological prowess, even capturing one of their more attractive women who's 15 years younger. They are all happy with the arrangement. The side effects of how this promotes the machine at the expense of biology is hard to see, except that the rain forest was sustainable indefinitely with many species but my palm plantation is not. I used computers to do this, with the help of my machine-like country that creates the world's currency backed by a military nearly as big as every other military combined. I used a new highly refined metalloid instead of steel in weapons that requires 800 times more energy per kg to produce than steel production. Species create species that replace themselves, but it's now occurring more rapidly than before as DNA per energy input to our economic system is decreasing while the metals and metalloids increase. Silicon computer chips instead of steel blades are the new high-energy bonds deciding when, where, and how people are to be enslaved to the economic system.

Monday, January 4, 2016

least action, evolution, entropy, machines, invisible hand=self gene

Group selection verses selfish gene finds its cause and exact parallel in the principle of least action verses Newton's laws. I assume "group selection" does not have a limiting boundary to small groups buts extends Gaia-like to be Earth-wide.

Evolution is not acting outside of dynamics.  Dynamics with quantum and thermal fluctuations must be enough to describe the source and direction of life and evolution.   It is just a physical system with no magic or God.  Randomness is not a God.

Newton's law is expressed more precisely and sometimes more usefully as Langrangian or Hamiltonian dynamics.  These 3 methods are differential methods so you can plug them into a computer and get your answer for any time given the initial conditions and constraints.  Least action is a different beast because it is an integral that is minimized. It is not easily solved for most problems.  The mathematically rigorous demand that it also might be a saddle point or maximum, but I believe that ignores quantum and thermal fluctuations that disturb such possibilities, so it seeks minimums.

There is no physics law that indicates randomness results in order spontaneously.  Many deny that life gives rise to order because they do not want to violate the thermo law that says disorder always increases.   What happens is that the Earth emits excess disorder as a large number of low energy photons moving in random direction as compared to the incoming high energy photons directed from the Sun. So order (lower entropy) can arise in life without violating the entropy law. 

Least action is average kinetic energy minus average potential energy, minimized over any and all time periods, given the physical system's constraints.   The least action integral is thereby biased towards lower heat and higher energy bonds.  This is lower entropy.  There is no perfect efficiency so heat is always generated, but excess heat is sloughed off the Earth as the energy coming in must equal the energy going out. The net result is more potential energy left behind without extra heat (global warming aside), i.e., a decrease in S when T is relatively constant. 

You can't see more order when looking at the differential forms, but you can when looking at the integral (holistic) form.  So I am in favor of the group selection view when explaining the source and direction of evolution, but the gene selection when doing any local calculations. 

Kinetic energy is heat.  Potential energy (as far as life is concerned) is stronger bonds.  The selfish view is that life struggles and fights and thereby needs higher-energy bonds to survive and win. But this always requires pre-existing forces, i.e. some type of unseen God (also known as the unseen hand in economics).  It is saying random selection resulted in lower entropy. But the whole system (least action) biased towards lower entropy, which is what I believe is the source of the stronger bonds.  

Notice that the idea of good and bad is done away with if the self gene view is not considered "the source".  The distasteful acerbic nature Dawkins has towards religion is connected with the selfish gene view.  The holistic view is more Buddhist-like. Dawkins seems to have an unspoken God by believing in good and bad.  Religion has a least-action "right" to fight and be destroyed or survive just like science. Least action might need both science and rhetoric to proceed more quickly, but the rhetoric may not be truth.

The least action math has been shown to go very deep, guiding quantum mechanics methods and beyond.  It is deeper than the differential forms.

The entropy of the universe is an open question but the observations show entropy per comoving volume of the expanding universe is constant. I could not believe this when a PhD thermodynamic cosmologist told me because we always here differently and a specific law says otherwise, but Wikipedia confirms it.   So entropy of fixed-volumes like solar systems and galaxies is decreasing.  They are releasing entropy to the universe "so that it can expand", which is a subtle difference from "entropy is always increasing".  It is always being emitted.

Machines will replace biology on Earth because they are more efficient at fulfilling the direction required by least action.  They use very high energy bonds of metals, metalloids (like silicon for solar cells and thinking machines), and carbon-carbon bonds.  This gives them orders of magnitude greater capability of acquiring energy (currently 20x better than photosynthesis) to move matter (200x cheaper than muscle) to create stronger bonds (copies of themselves).  The end game for each solar system is a Dyson sphere that converts photons to mass, not emitting anything but gravity, and could be a source of dark matter.

When given a range of potential energy bonds to choose from, if you are seeking the higher energies you end up with fewer options.  This means copies and pseudo-copies in your results.  The order created from simply having more copies is the result of least action seeking higher potential energy.
The QED methods of quantum mechanics is a least action-type math and found its motivation from least action.  I think it may be the deeper source of least action dynamics, but I doubt anyone has derived how it might be seeking order on the macro scale while displaying randomness on the microscale.  Emitting excess entropy is connected to gravitation and cosmology, which QED does not include.

Dawkins book "Selfish Gene" is all that's needed to see that "Selfish Gene" has a problem.  His first 50 to 100 pages are replete with bewildering double-talk trying to explain why the gene view is best.  Frankly, I believe the first 50 to 100 pages are garbage.

The debate also has a non-accidental parallel in economics, which is also based on dynamics.  The selfish gene is the supposed "invisible hand" of free markets.   Wikipedia's definition of invisible hand:

"individuals' efforts to pursue their own interest may frequently benefit society more than if their actions were directly intending to benefit society. "

The belief that government is good and needed for greater order on Earth (happiness?) is the parallel of believing in group selection. 

Joseph Stiglitz says today's economic debate centers on having the right balance between the two views:

"Markets [selfish actors competing], by themselves, produce too much pollution. Markets, by themselves, also produce too little basic research.  But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always. Government plays an important role in banking and securities regulation, and a host of other areas: some regulation is required to make markets work. Government is needed, almost all would agree, at a minimum to enforce contracts and property rights. The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government (and the third "sector" – governmental non-profit organizations.) Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance differs from time to time and place to place."

group selection = voters influencing government to set the rules order to create a more powerful society that can displace kingdoms and anarchy. There is an end result in mind: better life for all in the society in the short and long run, possibly exactly like the least action integral sum over all times.

selfish gene = selfish economic agents acting under those rules.  The differential laws can be derived from least action, and maybe vice versa, but the vice versa case is not as generally useful in physics.

It might be difficult for genes to carry the information needed for group selection.  Genes tend towards acting like a virus or cancer.  Religion and government apparently carry group selection rules.

I assume group selection has no definite limit and applies to evolution as a whole, resulting in a Gaia-like Earth as a result of dynamics and thermodynamics.