....AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL THE IGNORANT MASSES !!!!

I've Been Patient, I've tried to be reasonable.
But it's time to speak clearly and plainly.
I dare anyone to respond, to attempt to show
the following statements are wrong.

But be warned, they are not wrong, and I will
embarrass you if your responses are lazy
and ignorant.


In another thread I wrote.


SPS has officially crossed the first big hurdle in
it's inevitable comeback.


And someone responded, doesn't matter who, this
is aimed at everyone within earshot.


"economic viability" apparently isn't one of the "tests of potential
success".



What is important is that people believe it can succeed.

If 'you' knew a whit about reality, science or nature, you would
already know this. Obviously, you haven't progressed
beyond the simple blackboard versions of each.
Which is to say not even an entry level of understanding of
how reality works.

Natural processes are responsible for the creation of the
most spectacular 'solutions' or creations known to exist.
Life and intelligence.

If we apply the processes responsible for our own creation
to this problem, our energy future, we will be applying
the greatest problem solving process in the
....known universe.

We will be applying the processes of Darwinian
evolution to this particular problem.

If you think you can do better, you define arrogance
and ignorance.

I'm sure that you believe in Darwin, after all, most
that don't are pegged as kooks, religious nuts
or worse.

So, do you believe in Darwin?

I am simply claiming we can apply the processes of Darwinian
evolution to this, and any, given problem. Therefore producing
a problem solving technique that rivals nature.

A problem solving technique that defines
.....the best this universe... can provide.

But I'm certain you will reject and ridicule this possibility.

And even worse, you will do so without even understanding
the very first thing about this idea. To dismiss and ridicule
what you know absolutely nothing about defines...again
.....arrogance and ignorance. Which is a typical and
common response.

So, are you typical, common, arrogant and ignorant?

Or will you even attempt to get the gist of this idea?

I cannot explain it in ten words or less. I cannot
convey it to the close-minded that believe science
has already discovered ...all.. that it ever will.

Are you that type? If so, please don't pretend
you have any knowledge, love or appreciation
for science. And don't bother responding.

Let me know, if you wish to have an intelligent
discussion, and are open to new ideas.

Then I can explain why that quesion is entirely
irrelevant to a solution to this problem. And how
to use Darwin for generic problem solving.


HINT: It is not possible to know in advance the
final product of an evolutionary system.
The best solution must be allowed to emerge
as it will from evolutionary processes.


Unless, of course, you believe 'God' or ..fairies decided in
advance our every single human characteristic
and nuance.

Are you that type?

Do you believe in rational thought, or not?
Do you believe in Darwin or not?

Do you believe we are intelligent enough to apply
the lessons of Nature to our problem solving?

Or do you believe humanity is little more than
well-behaved animals.

Let me know, because /I know/ that if we apply the lessons
of Nature in a rigourous and scienific way, we can
.....CHANGE THE WORLD.

And make the world a far better place.

I believe this, and all I want is that as many
others believe this also. So that humanity
can at last exit the Dark Ages.

And finally find our way to Utopia.

It's there for the taking, I know this for a fact.


Jonathan

http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/



s

jonathan wrote:
What is important is that people believe it can succeed.

If 'you' knew a whit about reality, science or nature, you would
already know this. Obviously, you haven't progressed
beyond the simple blackboard versions of each.
Which is to say not even an entry level of understanding of
how reality works.

Getting people to "believe" something can happen may well lead to it
happening *eventually*. Yes, our minds, our science and technology, can
do remarkable things.

However, physical reality is still real too. And so it *is* still
entirely legitimate to ask - how *will* it be easier for us to solve
our energy problems quickly? Solar power satellites? Fusion power?
Thorium breeder reactors?

After all, it looks like global warming isn't giving us much time.

Extinction is part of Nature's grand design of life too. So the
remarkable emergence of life is no excuse for humanity not to be
*careful* and watch its step.

John Savard

jonathan wrote:

What is important is that people believe it can succeed.

Also, we should believe that everyone gets a pony.

Paul

wrote in message
oups.com...
jonathan wrote:
What is important is that people believe it can succeed.

Getting people to "believe" something can happen may well lead to it
happening *eventually*. Yes, our minds, our science and technology, can
do remarkable things.

However, physical reality is still real too. And so it *is* still
entirely legitimate to ask - how *will* it be easier for us to solve
our energy problems quickly? Solar power satellites? Fusion power?
Thorium breeder reactors?



Thanks for responding, I was in a nasty mood when I wrote this.

Here's the point I'm trying to make, probably not all that well.
Typically we envision the final product in advance, and
then spend all our efforts and time building the 'thing'.

The problem with this 'man-made' process, with a long term
and complex problem, is that by the time the thing is
finished, the landscape has shifted out from under your feet.
The problem is no longer the same, and by the time the 'thing' or
solution is finished, it's already obsolete.

By pre-conceiving a /tangible product in advance/
we are doomed to failure.

An evolutionary approach would set an /abstract goal only/
in advance, and let the solutions find themselves
along the way.

There are several massive advantages.

The loftier the abstract goal, the more likely is success.

As a world-changing goal serves as an attractor, it draws
people in, and generates an internal dynamic no amount
of check writing can hope to achieve. The best and brightest
will /want/ to be a part of the problem solving process.

This will generate success and ever more excitement.
A positive feedback loop is established that takes
on a life of its own. As time goes on, the discoveries
and solutions converge towards success, instead
of ...away.. as in a man-made process.

It may not seem intuitive, but natural processes
are goal driven. The solutions are found in highly
iterative or cyclic processes. Where countless
small pushes take place towards the ultimate
goal.

As opposed to a man-made solution of a single
magic bullet solution.


After all, it looks like global warming isn't giving us much time.

Extinction is part of Nature's grand design of life too.


The culling of bad adaptations, or bad ideas in this case.
Until only the successful are left to propagate.
Nature tries every possible solution at once, so that
the best solution will remain standing. This is how
a system converges on the best solution.



So the
remarkable emergence of life is no excuse for humanity not to be
*careful* and watch its step.

The goal is the thing we need to plan carefully.
In the most abstract, the goal of nature is to
resolve or join the opposite extremes in possibility.
Such as the dynamic union of genetics and mutation
through natural selection.

For instance, the opposite extremes of host and parasite.
Nature attempts every possible solution, and the ones
that allow both opposites to thrive /as one/ is chosen.

The goal must be as lofty as possible.

In this case, resolving the tangible with imagination.
Or, finding where the greatest benefit to humanity
and our biosphere converge on a single solution.

The union of opposite extremes.

Such a goal maximizes the attractiveness by appealing
to the broadest possible base by expanding the possibility
space to the maximum possible. It not only gives the
best change to initiate a problem solving process
(build a concensus and get the ball rolling)
But it also provides the best chance for ultimate
success.

This is exactly what JFK did in his Moon goal.
He united the possibility of winning the cold war
(the tangible) with the dreams of massive technological
advances that inspired dreams of a better future.
And within an urgent context, which is crucial, by
setting such a demanding time frame.

We have ...all of that here....in our energy future.

A possibility of creating untold prosperity (the tangible)
while creating dreams of an ever brighter future.
Within an urgency that climate change imposes.

By producing the perfect evolutionary goal, we cannot
fail to solve this problem.

By failing to act until a single magic bullet solution is
designed, we cannot succeed.

The goal is the thing.

To find a long term sustainable solution to our energy needs
before climate change is irreversible.

I use SPS as an example of the kind of solutions
likely to be found, so that others can envision just
how dramatic a change to our future such a goal
could produce.

I settled on SPS by applying the /very same/ logic
used to produce the above goal.

The union of opposite extremes in possibility.

I believe the above sentence provides an abstract
solution to .....any real world problem.
The above sentence is an abstract, and universal, problem
solving 'equation'. Try it out, it works for everything
involving real world/natural systems.

For instance, the opposite extremes in possibility
of our energy future would be what?
Infinitely abundant vs infinitely clean.

Where do those two extreme potentials overlap?
The sun, and in space. Making some form of
SPS the obvious, and most appealing initial
solution. The most likely to set the problem
solving process in motion. Even if in the end
the process converges on something entirely
different.

What matters is to set the problem solving system
in motion, NOT finding the best solution in advance.

For instance, an example of a natural solution to
merging the opposite extremes in possibility.
There's no way to pre-conceive this solution.

The opposite extremes of host and parasite, in a
scientific poem of sorts.


_______________________________________

From The Nature Is Beautiful Department
_______________________________________


"The common barnacle (Sacculina) begins its parasitic life
as a free-swimming larva. The female barnacle (as insidious
as any woman!) settles on a crab, crawls to a leg joint and
pokes a small entry hole. She then squeezes her soft parts
inside (leaving her shell behind) and wends her single-minded
way to the abdomen where she dines on the available nutrients.
As she grows, she forms a protrusion in the crab's
shell and then sends out extensions - or "roots" -
of her own body throughout the crab, even to the very tips
of its eye stalks. As a result the crab soon no longer sheds
its shell, grows, or produces eggs or sperm.
In essence, the crab becomes a zombie vehicle
which lives only to serve its parasitic guest.


As if that weren't disturbing enough, the female furthermore
makes a pinhole in the host's abdomen to attract the
tiny male Sacculina, who squeezes himself into the crab
in the same fashion as the female had earlier. They then
fertilize each other for the remainder of their lives, and
manipulate the crab's hormonal system so that the crab
periodically scales a high rock, pushes out the
parasites' young'uns, and even waves its claws in the
water to spread them on their merry way

- just as it would do for its own offspring."




s










John Savard

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:

What is important is that people believe it can succeed.

Also, we should believe that everyone gets a pony.


Why not, the world is what we make it.
There is no such thing as an objective reality.
Reality is subjective, and this open to change
through our imagination.

If people believe they can be a part of something that
could produce prosperity for billions. While changing
our future from one of post-apocalyptic nightmares
to a Trekkian Utopia.

Would they be more or less likely to support it???

This is about designing a self organizing system that
takes on a life of its own. As nature does. This is
a science now, a brand new one. That has the
potential to change the world in ways no one
can now imagine.

Dynamic of Complex Systems
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html

Self organizing faq
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Calresco
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm

Physics at Princton
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/


s














Paul

jonathan wrote:

I've Been Patient, I've tried to be reasonable.
But it's time to speak clearly and plainly.
I dare anyone to respond, to attempt to show
the following statements are wrong.

But be warned, they are not wrong, and I will
embarrass you if your responses are lazy
and ignorant.


In another thread I wrote.


SPS has officially crossed the first big hurdle in
it's inevitable comeback.


And someone responded, doesn't matter who, this
is aimed at everyone within earshot.


"economic viability" apparently isn't one of the "tests of potential
success".

The scientific results usually suffice :

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/I...NCE/irrad.html

http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/wrb/w...tm/soilres.htm

Water water everywhere ... and not a drop to drink.

Ever build a solar still? I suggest you try it.

You'll find out everything you know is wrong.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

jonathan wrote:
By pre-conceiving a /tangible product in advance/
we are doomed to failure.

An evolutionary approach would set an /abstract goal only/
in advance, and let the solutions find themselves
along the way.

In that case, I was criticizing you for the *exact opposite* of what
you were intending to say.

Solar Power Satellites aren't actually all that wild - my real target
was the people who think we should pin all our hopes for space on the
"space elevator" or "beanstalk". That is a "tangible product" that we
would be envisaging rather too far in advance of our ability to make
it. Instead, our goal should be to produce energy, or open up space,
and so on - by the best means at hand, as they turn up.

Of course, we have to envisage tangible products for a *short time* in
advance, so we can order parts.

John Savard

wrote:

Of course, we have to envisage tangible products for a *short time* in
advance, so we can order parts.



In that case you had better tell Energia to start cranking up their
production line for these things, as you're going to need something like
these to build them with: http://www.buran.ru/htm/38-3.htm#vulkan

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:

Of course, we have to envisage tangible products for a *short time* in
advance, so we can order parts.



In that case you had better tell Energia to start cranking up their
production line for these things, as you're going to need something like
these to build them with: http://www.buran.ru/htm/38-3.htm#vulkan

Pat

I think we should build in orbit a giant solar windmill, powered of
course by the solar wind. Attach a small generator to it and * bingo*
instant energy.

The breeze from the windmill would also cool the earth and solve the
global warming problem.


* i dunno how I thought of this - it just sort of evolved *