ZeroSumGame

From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Definition- ZeroSumGame

  • Any closed system.
  • A game which forms a closed system. One player can not get ahead of the other player(s) without taking away from them. (Examples: Othello/Reversi, a game of Poker, Chess, etc) Most games feature a closed and limited economy, and therefore are ZeroSumGames.

Summary

Each section attempts to summarize a view supported in the following discussion.

Prosperity for all is a grand delusion.

Life on Earth and beyond will always be a ZeroSumGame.

  • Any closed system is a ZeroSumGame.
  • Land is limited by usable volume.
  • Adherence to the StatusQuo prevents fundamental change.

With unlimited construction material and energy everyone can always have TheGoodLife. Our current SocialCollaborations allow the SocietalLeadDogs and their PoliceForces to maintain their place via maintaining the StatusQuo. Attempting to change the status quo involves risk only the desperate will attempt.

  • Wealth only has relative meaning
  • ZeroSumGames facilitate competition
  • The very Universe, our outermost container, is a ZeroSumGame.

The universe abides by conservation of energy.


Prosperity for all is inevitable.

The only thing we lack to create near infinite prosperity for every member of Earth is better technology.

  • Life on Earth, in general terms, is not a ZeroSumGame.
  • There is no limit to the value that can be created.
  • The resources of the universe are limitless.
  • Economic growth benefits everyone.
  • The ZeroSumGame is in the hearts and minds of of HumanBeings.

There are no real closed systems in the universe.

  • Energy conservation is not enforced in the quantum.

Prosperity for all is inevitable

The only thing we lack to create near infinite prosperity for every member of human kind is better technology.

  • Life on Earth and beyond can be viewed as a ZeroSumGame with an ever-expanding playing field.

'The resources of the universe are essentially limitless 'Competition will encourage diversity and efficency which will in turn expand the existing playing field or create new ones. 'During transition periods ZeroSumGame rules apply. 'Historical View of Technological Progress on Planet Earth

  • There is no limit to the value that can be created.
  • Economic growth benefits everyone.

See WikiNorms for a discussion of the use of summary sections.


Discussion

Historical View of Technological Progress on Planet Earth

This thumbnail sketch of history from a western perspective should serve to demonstrate basic trends. It is by no means meant to be a comprehensive history of human civilization as a whole.

History shows a basic cyclical pattern characterized by broad horizons, exploration, scarcity, competition, technological breakthrough, followed by broad horizons. Technological progress creates broader and broader vistas of new exploration. At each step the value creating potential of each individual will increase and the quality of life also improves.

Dark Ages

Families and clans create just enough basic necessities to survive. The marginal surplus value is used to protect the clan against attack from neighboring clans. Specialization is limited to the family level. Each family takes care of all the needs of the family. Arable land with access to fresh water was the primary limiting factor. The definition of arable land was fairly narrow. Clans with sufficient surplus value might try to acquire more land from neighboring clans. As the rich lands were taken desperate clans might use marginal land. ZeroSumGame strategies dominated the interactions between clans competing for limited arable land.

This competition provided incentives to develop better farming strategies that would make marginally arable land more productive. This competition also encouraged clans to develop better strategies of defense and conquest. These new technologies somewhat eased the competition for arable land, creating pockets of relative stability.

Middle Ages

Pockets of stability form as clans join to form nations. Peasants pay for stability by farming for the nobility. Specialization increases as the nobility uses surplus value to pay for luxuries. Specialists (craftsmen) are still a small but growing minority. Trade between clans and nations begin creating more surplus value for the nobility that controls the resources. Freelance farmers and craftsmen are still vulnerable to hostile clans.

Renaissance

Trade begins in earnest creating specialized communities. Nobility redirects surplus value toward improving transportation between specialized communities. Increased trade helps improve farming methods and tools making it possible for one farming family to provide food for Competition for access to trade routes increases dramatically. Colonization provides new vistas of arable land along with new sources of cheap labor creating even more surplus wealth for the ruling class. (Western brutally and indiscriminately wiped out cultural diversity at every turn.) More of this stored wealth continues to filter down to the newly developing working class. Like-minded artisans begin to form communities that network together sharing and creating new and better tools and methodologies. These guilds begin forcing more stored wealth from the ruling class by controlling the price of their goods. The tradesmen and the craftsmen begin storing wealth that is comparable to the minor nobility. Peasants begin to benefit from the accelerated creation of value as craftsmen begin to create affordable goods.


Life on Earth, in general terms, is not a ZeroSumGame.

The only thing we lack to create near infinite prosperity for every member of Earth is better technology.

I believe you are incorrect. The very Universe, our outermost container, is a ZeroSumGame. (For an example of proof, look at the ConservationOfEnergy.) Our planet can only not be viewed as a ZeroSumGame when we narrow our focus to just the world, with the constant input of solar energy from our star, Sol. However, as there is a finite amount of volume on the earth, and there is a finite amount of most resources, our world and life on it is still a ZeroSumGame. We can find better ways to utilize what we have available, leading us to view the game field as expanded. However, in a short order of time, like a vapor, we expand and fill up that niche so that once again we have reached a ZeroSumGame.

Any closed system is a ZeroSumGame, and we live in a closed system. You can only split the resources so many ways, and if it is a non-replenishable resource, once it is gone, it is gone. Even replenishable resources, such as wood and wood based products, requires land, and that is limited by usable volume. Limitations creates ZeroSumGames (which is why any closed system is a ZeroSumGame).

To us humans, the only way to change our society from playing ZeroSumGame to an UnlimitedPotential is to remove the limitations on usable volume, allowing for us to utilize replenishable and free (solar energy) resources as much as our society requires.

Food is potentially unlimited. Its primary limiting factor is usable volume (land/water) to grow it in. Wood is potentially unlimited. Its primary limiting factor is usable volume (land) to grow it in. Energy is potentially unlimited. Its primary limiting factor is usable volume located near convenient places for our social and cultural groupings.

With unlimited food, competition over just surviving eases. With unlimited construction material and energy, everyone can always have all the material comforts they require for living TheGoodLife. However, we are not going to see this in anything but personal imaginings and dreams. It is counter to the current political and economic structures of our various SocialCollaborations to do this. Our current SocialCollaborations allow the SocietalLeadDogs to maintain their place via maintaining the StatusQuo. The last such efforts to try and correct this (Socialism) was corrupted by the SocietalLeadDogs and resulted in systems where the masses had less freedom and a worse LivingStatus then before they tried. As is generally the case.

There are more failures in nature and life then successes. Are you willing to trade what you have for a flaming failure? That's the odds. Not many would make that trade unless their LivingStatus was very low. A strong success is coming out with almost as good a LivingStatus as you had before starting the change.---StarPilot


WRONGO Star, you have been duped again by generalization.

Conservation of energy is an emergent property in our epoch of the universe. Most physicists believe there was an inflationary period shortly after the big bang where most of the matter and energy we see was generated. Energy conservation is not enforced in the quantum.

But that is not the real issue. The real issue is that their are no real closed systems in the universe. The myth of the closed system has led to all sorts of misunderstandings in many sciences. The net effect of the entire universe at any place determine what happens there. There is no was any system can be isolated and exist.

Postulating closed systems is certainly useful, and necessary in reductionist science, but reductionism reached the quantum brick wall and understanding synthesis is the new frontier.

Further, value is subjective, you can't stop some people from thinking outside the box.

In economics, there is no limit to the value that can be created.

Indeed, particular resources are limited, like the land area on earth. But we are not constrained to use only particular resources. Without management, we might fail to survive the transition from using scare resources to using alternative abundant ones, but ultimately, for all practical purposes, the resources of the universe are indeed limitless.

The problem is that people perceive life, economic, etc. as zero sum games. They think that if others make less money they can make more. They act as if money was a finite resource, they apply closed system reasoning to problems that benefit from a more holistic view. The truth is that economic growth benefit everyone. You cant sell anything unless people have money to but it. Together we can create wealth beyond our wildest dreams.


But that isn't the NatureOfWealth. Wealth only has relative meaning. If you have less wealth them me, I am better off, wealthier, then you. That amounts to a ZeroSumGame. Sure, I can give you a dollar, and you can give me the same dollar back, and we can do this one million times so we each received $1,000,000! Wow! Only... after all that transactions, you end up at 1 over me (you finally keep it), or I end up even (I finally keep it). {Oh, and let's not forget that the government will then want their ~$400,000 from each of us in income taxes off of that series of transactions. So that's the Government up by ~$800,000, and us down by that amount.}


While our economic system makes more money every day (literally in the printing, and effectively via credit lines and such), only the relative amounts matters.

Second, there wouldn't be ConservationOfEnergy if the Universe itself wasn't a ZeroSumGame. All the energy was present at the first event. It has just been transitioning through various states and communications. (InformationPhysics supports this model, as I see it. The growth of space comes from the eating of ZPE, after all.) Otherwise, why would the growing of the energy in the Universe have stopped? We should still be gaining energy, unless it is a ZeroSumGame. If we are not gaining energy, then we are either static, or we are losing it. Static is obviously a ZeroSumGame, and if we are losing it... well, that's a limited resource situation, and again, we are back to playing a ZeroSumGame.

It will be the Wealthy, the Desperate, and the Fool Hardy that will go into space. In the beginning, the Fool Hardy. Then the Desperate. And finally, the Wealthy. The exact same as any other new colonization in Man's history.

Remember, all games are ZeroSumGames unless they are limitless resource, in the production, harvesting, processing/refining, and distribution. While the Universe itself is growing, at least as far as we know today, its total energy is not. ZeroSumGame.

Situation: Earth. Locally, our concern is usable volume. That is limited. ZeroSumGame.

Situation: Wealth. Only meaning is to itself, making it a relational basis. ZeroSumGame.

Race: Human. Potential: Great, but ultimately still limited. Emotional Happiness: relational basis. All, therefore, ZeroSumGame.

StarPilot Tip: Humans should simply choose to use a positive emotional level as their relative basis, such as content. Makes for a more pleasant viewpoint. ;)

---StarPilot


Like I said Star, the zero sum game is in the hearts and minds of of HumanBeings as you exemplify. As long as people think that way there will be dog eat dog competition. If we can fix your perception perhaps there is hope for humanity in our time, if not, perhaps our children will overcome it.

You need not perceive wealth in terms of someone elses hardship. You can define it in terms of your power to actualize your dreams. Accomplishment will then be a measure of what someone has actually accomplished rather than how much money they accumulate.

Energy is the currency of quantum information, and, in our realm in this epoch, it is in aggregate conserved. There are good information theoretical reasons why this conservation would emerge, not that information itself has any conservation property. I admit to questioning the inflationary model myself, but not on the bases of conservation, as quantum mechanics does not have a conservation of energy principle. You can't just declare that the accepted model of the universe is wrong because you think conservation of energy is absolute just because you thing it is. In the quantum energy is a perceived distortion of nothingness and the total energy of the universe must add to be zero. There is no bound on how big or small the distortion might appear.

You can argue that by definition the universe as a whole is a closed system. But from an information perspective it is dynamical because information is lost and noise introduced(it is an info scrambler). You can deny that this happens but the proof is in the pudding.

About 1 billion tears ago the universe was a hot plasma that was relatively uniform. Because there were few differences, they was relatively little energy to be observed. Then hydrogen atoms condensed out of the soup and space as we kn ow it was manifest between them. Suddenly there is a differentiation between atoms and space, a differentiation manifesting energy. A couple of billion years later second generation stars were busy creating heavier elements, then planets emerged and life was born. In the distant future even heavier elements will be stable and quantum effect will occur on a much larger scale creating more order and diversity of systems on larger scales.

In the information game perceivable organization is everything and the emergent diversity is clearly not a zero sum game in any practical sense.

You can argue that the universe is a finite resource except for the simple fact that it is becoming more diverse and will continue to become more than it is organization ally forever. You can say information is finite in any instance, but it is always growing and growing without any practical bound.

If all this is too complex to understand there is another reason resources are inexhaustible. Nothing is every really destroyed and is reusable for new creation.

Limited space of earth? didn't expect that one to bother you StarPilot. The expanding universe insures we can never reach the end of space, it is forever. Indeed earth population is a great concern, but this is mostly due to the gross mismanagement of our resources. We can alleviate that by being responsible (DeclarationOfInterdependence).

We can play zero sum games if we want. But why play win-lose when we can play WinWinWin. There are no limits to what we can achieve. There is no law of nature that demands that we can only be happy at the expense of others. Our social nature actually gives most of us greater satisfaction in win win over win lose much of the time (women particularly). We can still race to create more value if we must appease our competitive nature.

Hot Tip: Don't bet the horses. Don 't play zero sum games unless you don't mind losing cause WE gain nothing and you may lose.


Warning: Cold Water being tossed...

If that's how you feel, it may be time for you to give up and go away then, Jim. We cannot fix a problem by ignoring it because it is ugly or inconvenient, and that seems to me to be what is happening here. I hope I am wrong and not because IamAnAsshole today.

 'You should know by now Star breath, I don't give up. I would love to be proven wrong, that's how I grow, but your industrial age attitudes are being supplanted in the communication age.' --JimScarver...
 The only thing old about me, is my view of physics. I do not understand why you think ZeroSumGames are bad. They merely are a condition of what's going on.
 I love to play games. Risk is one of my favorites. It is a ZeroSumGame. In the board game, you are limited to the number of army pieces of your color, traditionally speaking. That is a limitation, that is a ZeroSumGame. But if you never reach that limit, it does not affect you. But even if you do reach that limit, it merely forces you to better position (be more efficient in the placement and use of) your armies.
 ZeroSumGames are not evil. They can be effective motivators. Perhaps you should quit trying to damn them outright, and judge each based on what particular game it is? Some games are not worth playing. Some games one must play. Some games are fun. ---StarPilot

Infinite Potential

You can dream on about infinite potential all your life, but the truth is, the best WE can do is give each individual the potential to achieve their dreams... but only of the dreams WE approve of.

 'untrue tricycle pilot.  Do we control a deer in the wilderness? We need not enslave each other either.  Any dreams that do not infringe on each others freedoms or use an unfair share of limited resources can be fulfilled. I can apply abundant resources to any dream I want and you cant stop me.'
 I can control a deer in the wild. Strap a battery and shock pack to it, and I can make sure it only goes where I want. The deer won't be happy, but if you are willing to enslave a feeling being, you do not care significantly about how they feel.
 I can control you. I do in fact do so. I participate in the community. The community participates with your community via various network links. By use of CooperativeBully tactics, I exert control on you so that you do not have a total range of freedom. And if I chose to apply resources to the issue, I could further limit your choices.
 If I have more resources then you, I can effectively control you. This is already been covered repeatably. It is the PoliceForce, it is the RichGetRicher... You have to break off all form of participation with any human community to have a full range of choices. And even then, the community may choose to track you down and imprison or kill you. As the community will have more resources then you, it will be successful, if it is willing to allocate the resources to doing so.
 You even agree to this, down below. People being limited to only acceptable dreams and choices. Tsk tsk. Even you call for enforcement of the ZeroSumGames of society by action and word. Limitations create ZeroSumGames. Even when they are good limitations. ---StarPilot

Achieving Dreams

Not all people's dreams are worth permitting. Such as ruling the world as an absolute god. So write off, we are differentiating and tossing out a good bit of what WE shall consider the dark, depraved, and destructive dreams. Notice this is on purpose. If Society supported all, there would be no Society in existence. We have to filter out these destructive dreams as best we can.

 'you are correct rocket nose, our SocialContract does that.'
 Then you are interfering in people's dream. Sure, it's a dream to kill all the White People, but it is there dream. Picking and choosing... differentiating... We are already getting picky. So, not all people should have the right to live there dreams then? Tsk tsk. I'm just teasing you, but the point is... Limited choices = ZeroSumGame. ---StarPilot

So let's look at what's left... the nice, positive dreams. What do we see? We will see it is a ZeroSumGame.

Not everyone that dreams of being a great author, can or will be. Even if they have the talent to do so. There is only so many authors whose works can be published, read, and be passed around to friends. Even with the Internet and easy self publication, there isn't enough time in an individual person's life to read everything, so only a limited number of authors will be read. As people influence in each ("this is a great book, you should read it, you'd like it"), this creates the effect that many will only read something a friend recommends to them, further reducing the available readership. This means a limited supply. And this doesn't address things like the authors themselves having to make a living until they can survive well enough on writing...

 'We ARE all great authors already aren't we?  Indeed, WE can only provide the opportunity to be an author WE cannot guarantee success.'
 That wasn't your statement. Everyone to live their dream. My point is that is silly. Even granting a level playing field of equal opportunity and equal talent, there are only so many that positions available. Limited number = ZeroSumGame.

Not everyone that dreams of being a great musician, can or will be. Even if they have the talent to do so. Again, there are only a limited number of spots in society for such, and the reasons are similar to that of the authors above.

 'Every can now be their own music production company with just a decent computer.  thousands of performers are at mp3.com and imua.  This is another area that has already been liberated by technology, someday soon anybody anywhere in the world will have the power.'
 But people do not dream of being a musician. They dream of being a star. Those that simply want to make music, will, and those are happy. But not everyone can play to sold out sports arenas. There is a limited amount of celebrity positions. Limit = ZeroSumGame. ---StarPilot

Not everyone can be the President of the United States. Limited supply.

 'Then how come there is no one on the ballet worth voting for?  Somebody out there must have the vision to fulfill the dreams of our forefathers, let's give everyone the chance.'
 The reason is the collective we have allowed to form at our national level. It is the system that SocietalLeadDogs have worked out, and maintain. If you do not like that, go join their collective so that you might try to inject change. ---StarPilot

We can continue to go down the list. In Society, there is a limited supply. That means that it is a ZeroSumGame.

 'Ok star, there will be competitive positions, not everyone can be a star. But there are no limit to positions their can be. People can choose non-competitive positions.  There are no limit to the services that can be offered or problems that can be solved.  There will come a time when anyone who wants to be a StarPilot can be.'
 If you have to choose a non-competitive position, then you are not living your dream. You have done something else. ---StarPilot

The Nature of Volume

As far volume goes: 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % of all space is unusable to us. Why? Location, location, location. It is not near any harvestable resources. Even if there was unlimited energy, we'd still need other resources. Unless you are thinking, let's just turn that energy into whatever we need via super magical advanced future science.

 'You need to get pretty far from the sun to have limited energy star. We can eliminate the gross waste we see today through effective taxation/incentives.'
 Wrong. Mars is about our current limit of being able to utilize solar energy. Perhaps at some point in the future, our ability to harvest usable solar energy effectively will be sufficient to need just a small solar cell out in orbit around Neptune, but that is doubtful. Human economics inside our Social Collectives tends to be the main motivating and limiting factors on what we can and decide to do, as a collective.
 And as I've said further down in this monster, that is the far future to us. It does us no good now.
 Why haven't we eliminated the waste? Because WE do not want to. Our CollectiveIntelligence is a CollectiveStupidity, just as any such large collective is. ---StarPilot

I'll go into why that won't work in the future later, but anyone familiar with the HumanAnimal and its Society should be able to understand why that will not work.

 'Anyone who understands the human animal knows how to make it work.'
 Understanding does not grant knowledge on how to make it work. I can understand that a car goes forward and backward, and that it's wheels turn, but that does not mean I can make a car work. This is a slight of hand logic... you are implying we can work humans as we choose by just understanding a HumanAnimal, and that isn't so. ---StarPilot

But space is expanding. Well, that new space is not in a useful location to us. All it is doing is adding distance between useful locations, and therefore it is reducing, not increasing, useful volume. Limited supply means... say it with me, boys and girls, ZeroSumGame.

 'Useful locations are anywhere we make a civilization and every frontier.  There are a useful proportion of elements on planets and comets everywhere.  They made Brasilia in the jungle.  Las Vegas in a desert. Useful means simply used effectively.'


 Not quite correct. And you support my arguments... If you only have planets, big and small (Small includes asteroids and comets) for resources... let's see. We haven't FTL. Without FTL, an interstellar society is impractical. Without FTL, we will effectively be limited to this solar system. That's a very limited volume. And not all of it is useful to us, again. We cannot survive near Jupiter, for instance.
 Las Vegas is a place you should rail against. It is wasting lots of water. And energy. Very short sighted. It was built where it was because it had a social resource... gambling was legal there.
 Brasilia was built where it was out of hubris. And it is failing horribly, from what I've been told and heard.
 That's right. Useful. If it is not useful, it will not have prospects of remaining. Brasilia is talked about being abandoned, or at least more intelligently rebuilt.
 It all comes down to: 'Location! Location! Location!' Geo-politics is the destiny of all. And as we have well established, usable locations are in limited supply, therefore that's a ZeroSumGame. ---StarPilot

Of the remaining space that has harvestable resources, we cannot use 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % of it. We are just too fragile, and cannot survive the local environment.

 'Who goes outdoors anymore anyway?  Well I do, but we can and do bring the life organism indoors independent of the external environment.  There is plenty of silicon in the universe to window in our worlds.'

Will this ever change? Not significantly. We will, I think, expand what we can harvest and where we can harvest, but compared to the volume of the Universe, it will not change the numbers. Again, we are talking limited supply which means ZeroSumGame.

 'We can always go further star.  There will always be more worlds to discover.  Why are you forgetting that, senior moment?'
 Nope. I was just down yesterday. Between the Columbia, and the HumanVultures, and all the talk of killing all space programs forever. They continue to chip away at any endeavor to expand, and take every opportunity to try and stop anyone from trying. We have to try... Space calls us, beckons us to grow up, and leave this crib of ours. All life must leave the nest, or die. But there are always those that take the short view, because to do anything else requires thought, and effort.
 Besides, we are talking here about the Now and the SoonToBeNow. Not in the far, far, future. We have to survive the now, and help the CollectiveIntelligence to understand that only by expanding can we increase our ZeroSumGame so that we do not bump up against the limitations of usable volume and harvestable resources. When there is plenty for all, and all has access to that plenty, will all be capable of living TheGoodLife. When competition is not driving us to compete in ZeroSumGame, we have less reason to bicker and fight. And that path suggests to me a way to StopWar. Or at least slow it down.
 We have to get up and go out. There is no choice. We cannot presume that the next generation will do so if we do not do our part. Procrastination is one of man's most perfected art forms. ---StarPilot

Magic Make Any Resource and 42

Ok... so usable volume will never be an unlimited resource to us. Let's examine why even with the potential to take advantage of the fact that the Universe has to add back up to 42 (Side bar: 0, or 1, or 42, it has to equal itself after all changes, so that in itself is a limited supply, even with the potential for infinite number games of differentiation. Fixed amount limited supply ZeroSumGame). Why cannot we just harvest the infinite differential energy, and using E=mc2, stamp out whatever we want? Because that requires knowledge, and with Human Society, those that have the knowledge will guard it jealously. Infinite energy is useless if you haven't the blue print to make ripe apples, or a personal star ship, or whatever you want or need. To follow this debate, one has merely to pay attention to the NanoTechnology field, which has been discussing this for the last five years, at a minimal. When you can turn any pile of discards/sewage/garbage into whatever you want, what will Human Society do? Control the patterns (information), of course. Just as we control the patterns (information) now. You don't buy a song when you buy an album. You buy the sound patterns. Same with software. And in NanoTechnology, it all becomes software. Same with an Infinite Differential Engine and your handy, dandy Energy to Mass converter.

The black hole at the center of out galaxy has inexhaustible energy for the next 10 billion years. By then we can find an alternative. And the answer is not 42, the answer is that understanding our world is an endless process. Pardon? Inexhaustible, but only for 10 billion years? That's a limit! Were you sleepy, or smoking something? That is a logical conflict in just seven words. Whee!

Ok.
[ ] How do we get to the black hole at the center of our galaxy to harness that power?
[ ] How do we get the power out of the black hole at the center of our galaxy?
[ ] How do we locate that power anywhere we want it?

Oh wait... There. I just To Do'd it for you. So someone in the WE can answer that. They will want to know that in the future, I'm sure.

 And it is still 42. The Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything. :-D

Besides, I see you weren't disagreeing. So, in the future, SocietalLeadDogs and the Haves will control everything through the control of information. Nice to see you agree with the NanoTechnology Futurists. I thought you would have disagreed, actually.

I don't think we will understand our world until we have made it uninhabitable. We do not seem to understand how something works, until we destroy it. Bleah. Maybe that's because we are but infants, though. Accidents do happen... ---StarPilot

The Nature of Humans

It is counter to the HumanAnimal to be nice. WinWin (and any number of Wins you wish to add) fail more often then they succeed, because we are HumanAnimals. We are not LogicalBeings that suffer bouts of Emotionalism, we are EmotionalBeings that suffer bouts of Logic. The HumanAnimal must be changed so that it is neither Human nor Animal before we can create a WinWinWin oriented society. Why? There will always be humans willing to cut off another human's nose, and when we have two such individuals involved, the WinWin breaks down. It is only win the emotional darkness/negativity a person attaches to those they must cooperate with to succeed is less then the emotional light/positively for the potential outcome will people cooperate.

 'wrong again camel pilot.  The majority of humans are social and like win win solutions. They don't want to hurt anybody. The meek shall inherit the earth.'
 Sorry. It is you being delusional, my friend. Did you know that every healthy woman is a cold, remorseless killer? The Department of Defense does. It has done enough billion dollar studies on that. If it wasn't for the machismo of our culture, the DoD would replace all combat troops entirely with women. They hate more then men, they hate faster then men, they hate others on sight easily, they kill faster, and they have no psychological scarring from doing so. Women would rather kill each other, then cooperate. But the CooperativeBully force of society keeps them from doing so... as they want to be around to insure their family, especially children, survive. Women understand better that those they care about need them, and hence, biological greed keeps them cooperating. But only until they can kill their rivals without any repercussions.
 Doesn't the Pentagon uncover the most interesting of things? Your mother loves you and hates your neighbor instinctively, because she has a strong hardwired understanding of Life's ZeroSumGame. And our society works so well because of it. Cooperation through Greed. ---StarPilot

Everyone Gets Rich

Furthermore, we cannot make a world where everyone Gets Rich. That just means everyone gets poor. Historically, (and this includes currently) our systems of economics works in which the Rich get Richer, and the Poor get Poorer. The counter balance to this is that the Poor eventually get feed up with their increasingly desperate situation, and have a revolution where they kill the Rich and take their stuff (resources). That's the threshold... how much misery will the masses put up with, before they'd rather change the status quo. The Rich understand this, and work to keep the Poor from being able to do so. If they can remove all the useful resources from the Poor, the Rich can and will maintain their position, until a new resource that they do not control enters the theatre.

 'Poor is living with the threat of no food or shelter. By one standard wealth is a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. True wealth is more than that. Every citizen in the golden age of Greece and Rome was rich, except the slaves. Today the slaves are our industria complex, our computers and robots to empower us all to achieve even greater heights.'
 Every citizen was not rich in the golden ages of Greece and Rome. They were not as well off as the average citizen of the industrialized nations. WE are rich, compared to the richest of Greece and Roman citizens. There is a lot of hype and smoke blown around by the ancient Greeks and Romans... you shouldn't buy into so easily. Never before have so many humans lived TheGoodLife. But as always, we are perceived to do so at the costs of those without in the world. And there is something to be said for that. After all, 800 acres of rain forests are cut down a day, so we can buy a "Good And Tasty" from McDonalds for $0.99. ---StarPilot

The Future

The future is not bright. We will have to work hard to make sure that the future is just a nice, soft, fuzzy, wuzzy, content future. We only need a few good friends and family, a comfortable place to sleep (and live), adequate food, and some mental diversions to be content. If we achieve that, we have done well. Anything more, and we are taking away from others ability to have a contentful life.

 'The future is what we make it.'
 Correction: The future is what WE all make of it. Most people aren't making anything of it. I count that a drag force, entropy.

You cannot live the GoodLife without taking away from others, somewhere in the world. That is the nature of Life. It is and has always been a ZeroSumGame. This is not a bad thing. If it wasn't for Life being a ZeroSumGame, you would not now have the intellectual ability to think about how to improve your life, and secure your improvements by helping to improve others lives. It was Life's ZeroSumGame that cause our ancestors to differentiate to be able to better utilize the available resources then those they competed for those resources against.

 'New Jersey is the most populated state in the union and it is mostly uninhabited.  It is all useful good forested land.  Should we choose responsible policies according to our DeclarationOfInterdependence we can capitalize on these resources not only without hurting anyone, but sustaining growth of population and bounty of the life organism for all.'
 What about Singapore? Tokyo? Delhi? No place in the US is really significantly settled. Although many are certainly wasteful. I live on one of the richest soils in the world. Soil considered more valuable then its equal weight in pure gold. But we are paving it over for parking lots, shopping centers, and housing sub-divisions. Does that make sense? Not to me.
 America's great plain states are capable of feeding half the world by themselves. But our government pays our farmers not to grow food, to gain some measure of control over food prices. That is letting people starve to control a perceived economic value. That doesn't make sense to me, but it makes sense to people considered more knowledgeable, and wiser then me. And that has been determined by the world's CollectiveIntelligence. You know... by the WE. Small wonder I might not think the future is guaranteed bright, is it? ---StarPilot

Wealth

The nature of wealth is that the more I have, the less you have. I do not need to take your wealth away from you directly to take it away from you. By me gaining more wealth through the shared pool of wealth that is the wealth pool, I create economic hardship on you. There is less available for you, and in our shared economy, I'm willing to pay more of my wealth to gain what I want, and therefore prices can be raised by vendors. That reduces your economic power, as you cannot gain the wealth I have, you have to spend more of what you have to gain the equivalent goods, etc. By me growing richer, you grow poorer.

 'There is no wealth pool, star, it is a myth, capital equals created value, it grows on trees and is produced by our labors in what can be an ever increasing long term value if we choose provide the economic incentives to choose wisely.'
 There is a wealth pool. You like to compare apples and oranges, but there really is a pool of wealth. Consider: We both live in a small country, called Examplia. Every year, the national government destroys 9,000 Examplia dollars, because they are old, and prints 10,000 new Examplia dollars. Every year, I place 2,000 Examplia dollars into a vault, for safe keeping. Is the available money pool to you increasing or shrinking? Your share is effectively shrinking. Unless you are saving even more Examplia dollars then I am. ;-)
 You like to speak about 'perceived' value. Let's look at a good example of that. Real estate has a perceived value. This perceived value tends to increase. Why? ZeroSumGame. Limited resource (land: usable volume) with a demand (convenient location). Precisely, more people would like to have it then before. SupplyAndDemand. Does this perceived increase of value create more money in the wealth pool? No.
 You can leverage that value, because the banks consider that value always increases, and therefore you will be a likely candidate to repay a loan. By leveraging that perceived value, you can get the bank to give you some of its share of its money. Has the wealth pool grown? No new currency has been added to the pool, so no.
 You then take that money, and buy more land. Has the wealth pool grown? No. If land prices increase, your perceived economic value will increase, but that is not related to the actual wealth pool.
 Notice that... perceived. What happens when the big factory in our town shuts down (because the company is relocating it), and there are no jobs for the people? They move away. Your two pieces of land suddenly devalue... because there is no longer people willing to buy it. They are all moving away, to find jobs to feed themselves and their families. SupplyAndDemand again... your land has no perceived value. Since most of your wealth was tied up in perceived value, the bank forecloses, and kicks you out... It ends up selling the land for 1 penny per acre to a corporation that wants to turn the 100 miles square miles of the former town into a giant chicken farm. In the bank's records, the whole deal is a loss. Why? Because they gambled that you would be able to pay back the portion of wealth pool they gave you more wealth pool (interest). They lost some of their share of the money pool, rather then gaining on it. Again, ZeroSumGame.
 Most of our economy leverages your real share of the wealth pool to grant you additional perceived value. But when those perceptions of value collapses, as periodically happens in any market, then everyone goes back to the base of the economy... how much of the wealth pool do you have? Do not confuse the game of "HowMuchWillThatTulipBeWorthTomorrow" (also known as the Dot Com game) for the wealth pool. Wealth pool is a simple ZeroSumGame, the other is a game of peperceivedpeculative value. ---StarPilot

Information Lost

We have discussed this idea that information is lost. That is incorrect. Information is never lost. It is still in the state of everything, and our history. The fact that we cannot differentiate the information does make it lost, it just makes us not intelligent in dealing in that information. Intelligence is merely differentiation. In the future, we may become intelligent enough to do so, I do not know. I will not presume that we will not.

 'Shine a flashlight into space star, and then try to get the energy back in the batteries.  You can never catch the light. It is lost to you. You may argue that it exists somewhere, but you can never use it.'
 Are you so sure? There seems to be a lot of presumptions in your reply. We can set up ways to catch the light beam, and even utilize that for work of our design/choosing. I may have gained what I wanted from shining the beam, in which case, that beam wasn't lost to me. (Flying an aircraft, going for a night landing, all that light shining out from my lamps is not lost information to me, even though the majority of it will just go out into space... it is useful information to me... the way ahead is open, or... there is something... like trees, the ground, etc.)
 Second, that information of the light beam isn't lost. It is information, in transit, until it is received by something. Remember? What happens then depends on what listener received it, but if it results in a state change in the listener, you have already admitted that the information certainly isn't lost then. Information is only lost if we cannot distinguish it or it's resultant state changes in the receiver. (Your example was that if caused an internal state change in the receiver, but we could not distinguish what internal state change, so it was effectively lost to us, AIR). ---StarPilot

Diversity

That's a red herring, Jim. We live in the Here and Now. If in 3 billion years, there is twice the diversity then as now, it still does not affect us and our limited resources. Especially if our descendants do not survive until then. At some point in the future, we will cure AIDS. But that is meaningless to those with AIDS right now. There is a limited supply of the drugs that will increase those people's lives... so they are playing a very high stakes version of ZeroSumGame for those drugs.

 'Okay, that is very long term. but we will certainly win the war on AIDS because we have the will.  If it was zero sum we could only expect to break even.'
 Logical slight of hand. You are switching the subject from AIDS patients competing over drugs that will help them survive longer to a conversation of more people will live then die of AIDS. Second problem: We are projecting that AIDS will not wipe out Human Race. I do not expect it will, and you do not either, but we do not know that. We merely believe it. Only time will tell if this is a correct presumption on both of our parts. ---StarPilot

It is fine to look to the future, but just because at some point in the future we will have synthetic fossil fuels, hydrogen fuel cell powered mainstream transport, and personal flying units, does not help in dealing with the here and now. Petroleum is a limited resource, so we are all playing a ZeroSumGame over it.

 'it is a crime to burn it, but as you say, we will stop the madness eventually, that is not zero sum.  We will most likely stop burning it long before we run out.  There are hundreds of years worth in the ground that we know about, much more we don't know about no doubt.  We will probably see a significant switch to cleaner renewable fuels within 50 years.'
 LOL! We will stop burning it? We will stop playing that game, so that means that game isn't a ZeroSumGame? That is not logical. As long as it is a limited resource, it is a ZeroSumGame. The fact that we choose to stop playing the game does not change the nature of that game. Nice slight of logical hand, Digital Magician, but it doesn't get by me this time. :-D ---StarPilot

It is not a mindset, it is the reality. But I'd like to see how you plan to engineer the Human and Animal out of the HumanAnimal. I certainly hope that doesn't happen in our children's time. I really don't want to see it.

 'By providing incentive to do good and create value instead of incentives to create garbage, not be control. Human behavior is predictable given what incentives they are faced with.'
 So, we need to get rid of capitalism and Americanism then? Currently, our economic system gains value by the creation of garbage and the replacement of those items that were discarded. This is the driving force of consumerism, which is the driving force of our economy.
 Also, you speak of countering not being in control. That's part of our natural Evil. We desire to be in control, as it allows us exert power to maintain the status quo at a minimal, and possibly increasing our positions. Do you propose we get rid of any would be leaders, such as SocietalLeadDogs and their PoliceForces? We are going to need the world's largest mass graveyard then. There will always be those willing to take the lead, as it allows them control. And there will always be those that cooperate with the leaders, as it allows them control by being the instrument of enforcement. That's the PackAnimal's natural WinWinWin. And that is called CooperativeBully. ---StarPilot

Eternal Resources

You are confusing your own arguments. Either nothing is eternal, or everything is. Which is it? You claim that nothing is eternal by stating information is lost. As information is the energy of the Universe, that means it's a limited supply, which makes for a ZeroSumGame. Then you claim nothing is lost/destroyed, and everything is eternal, just reused. But that is still a limited supply, which is still a ZeroSumGame. Even with perfect recycling, Jim, that does not mean you have an infinite supply. That energy is still tied up in whatever you've put it into, until it is freed to be used again. Think about it Jim... Just because you have 100,000 Legos, and you build and reuse them, that doesn't mean you have an infinity of Legos. What is used is used until you break down what you've used them in, and then build something new. Limited Supply. ZeroSumGame.

 ' consider the CaseOfTheElecronCollision, now consider just the universe consisting of you, me, and our electrons.  In our word each of our electrons gained energy without any energy being introduced into the system.  That's no zero sum game.  The universe is tricky in how information is synthesized and hidden reused.'
 Again... red herring. You are trying to shift the window of consideration so that the energy seems to come out of nowhere. It did not. The electrons already had their energy. The electrons gained that energy when we accelerated them to those rates. Unless we are in some alternate reality? In which case, that doesn't apply to our discussion. ---StarPilot

It's not I that seems to not understand.

 'I understand there will always be gamblers and those that delight in winning at other peoples expense. I don't deny it.  Let them.  I don't expect I can change them.  But let them do it to each other.  Don't try to make me play your game.  I choose WinWinWin.' -- JimScarver
 So long as you understand that WinWinWin is doomed in large groups, then have fun. ---StarPilot

LoseLoseLose

We don't play WinWinWin because we are hard wired against it. Unless everyone's conditions for acceptance are met, you will not get a WinWin, just a LoseLose. See the above on having to change HumanAnimal to NotHumanAndNotAnimal, as well as why people do not cooperate.

 ' We live in a collaborative society already star.  Most people are not bullies and our lives and property are to some extent protected from them by our collaboration.  Clearly it is not impossible.'
 I pointed out that we are already a CollectiveIntelligence as well. What's your point? :-D
 Most people are bullies. All people are evil. That is the nature of the HumanAnimal. If I think I can take from you and get away with it, studies have shown I will. That is true of the average Human. Why is that? Personal Self Interest (Greed). All systems where the resources are shared equally break down due to Greed as soon as the community has one member that does not respect all the others. Small communities can and do utilize WinWinWin, of equal sharing of the resources resulting in all benefitting, successfully. But only because their members respect each other. Once the community grows beyond the number of mutual respect, they fail and have to employ coercive methods ( Standard historical methods: MightMakesRight / MyWayOrTheHighway / MyWayOrYouAndYourFamilyWillBeTorturedToDeathBeforeYourEyes )
 Ultimately, we only cooperate to take from others. Whether it is passive (you and I cooperating to keep what we have so others won't take/have it), or actively.
 Oh. It's a fact that every day, we cooperate less and less. Our PoliceForce is growing more and more sullen, and dropping the protection of your property or your life on it's list of priorities. This is a fact throughout the civilized world. What are you going to do when the PoliceForce no longer cooperates at all? ---StarPilot

Conclusion

I tell you what. You work to make everyone poor and have the same amount of resources. I'll work to expand our usable volume and usable resources. When we reach the point that the majority is content, then we've reached the optimal state for Humanity, and we can work to maintain it. Sound like a plan?

 'we have the right to the same amount of resources, that doesn't mean we have to use them.  Those that use more than their share should pay those who use less and invest in exploiting abundant alternatives.'
 So, you admit it. You want to make everyone poor then. That's what that sounds like.
 Capitalism already pays for those resources. The trouble is, that no longer gets provided to the people that live near that resource as it once did (Saudi Arabia), or it has never been passed on from the ruling SocietalLeadDog. There was a time that every person in Saudi Arabia shared the wealth of their Oil Resources. Now, only the Royal Families benefit from that sale, and over 50% of the nation live in abject poverty in such levels that we wouldn't allow a stray dog to live in. Should we pay them more? The Royal Family wouldn't share it. Or do we go and restructure their entire culture, so that they once again are paid for us taking their share?

I bet on HumanAnimals, not horses. I know them better, and rarely lose a bet. This is one I don't mind losing, but my experience leads me to the expectation of winning it.

 'you may be right in our lifetime star, but ultimately you are full of star doodoo :)'
 I call that StarDust. :D ---StarPilot

You are waring me down StarPilot, you clearly have made up you mind and don't want to be confused with the facts.

Does there exist in the universe any closed systems?

 No, it is impossible to isolate any system such that no information gets out and none gets in.

In the 18th century scientists imagined closed systems like a room with molicules bouncing around inside. If you knew the initial speed and direction of each molecule, you could determine their position at any time in the future. The 21st century reality is that if you move one gram of matter one centimeter, one light year away, the position and velocity of the molcules in the room will be changed radically after only 10 bounces. The closed system paradyme was a usefull one for reductionist scientists, taking things apart to see how they work until we hit the quantum brick wall. The paradyme is not useful in understanding synthesis, the new frontier of Science, which requires that a holistic view replace closed systems. You can remove your closed system blinders Star, look at your calendar.

Is the universe a closed system?

 Closed in relation to what? Itself?  This is self referential and undecidable by Godel.  Closed systems only have meaning in that they are isolated from the rest of the universe.

Well is the universe a closed system in any practical sence?

*  No, there is no evidence that it will ever reach any kind of equilibrium.
*  No, we cannot know the state of the universe, we can only percieve a small window defined by our light cone.

No matter what reteric you use Star, if you accept the definition of zero sum game in terms of closed systems, such systems are an ideal that have no reality in this world. Any information in or out, a single example is all that is needed, and the system is not closed. Why do you insist on ignoring all the examples I provide.

You might reasonably argue that life is a zero sum game by some other definition. But life evolves from the simple to the complex, clearly not zero sum. You agree that we will populate the galaxy and beyond, again, clearly not zero sum.

Indeed there are temporary resource shortages locally that behaive like zero sum games, but because the system is not really closed, the shorage can be overcome by leaving or finding alternative resources.

There is no country that works like your Examplia. The way it works is I have an idea to create value, i go to the bank, the bank loans me money, the government issues the money to the bank. There is no fixed supply, the supply is limited by the free market and the interest rate set by the government.

You insist on ignoring the sucessful collaboration that modern society represents and declare that humans are incapable of collaboration. Not only does our collaboration speak for itself independent of what sociologists say, but recent studies confirm that humans get more pleasure from community cooperation and we are even get pleasure penializing the bullies at our own personal expence. Sure we have a competitive side also. Civilized societies appease that side in sport and fantacy.

Choosing WinWinWin, again, is a personal choice. You don't have to choose it Star or believe it is possible to choose it. The idea that we don't have a choice is rediculous. The idea that the majority does not want WinWinWin solutions is wrong. It may be that many of our leaders today advocate win lose today, but that does not mean WE have to follow them. -- JimScarver


On the otherhand Star, you are absolutely right. If we refuse to play win-lose when it is necessary, we cannot WinWinWin either. This win-lose necessity can become less necessary over time, but cannot be excluded. -- JimScarver


Sorry Jim. It is you that are refusing to acknowledge your own facts and contrary beliefs, not I.

According to you, nothing travels faster then the speed of light. So moving one gram of matter, one meter, one light year away, will not affect our room for at least one year. If at all. At that distance, it's effect will not be felt, so it does not affect your room in the first place.

Ok. The universe is an open system? WHAT information transits into and out of our universe, Jim. Come on. Just one example. Oh, and remember, we need more information coming into it, then going out. Or we result in a limited situation, and that is always a ZeroSumGame.

Anything you can name, has to have come from somewhere. According to your own statements here at WikiWorld, nothing spontaneaously is created. So you are playing rose tinted glasses to say "The Universe is Open.". You don't believe it. You've said that elsewhere. So you are the one digging in your heels and being StupidStubborn.

I'm StupidStubborn often enough to recognize it. I know that is a particular fault of mine. But just because I'd prefer to think that all people are innately good and intelligent, and just have occasional bouts of moral weakness, succumbing to temptation, and bouts of just not thinking before they do something, does not make it so.

Shifting you view point does not change the facts of the situation. It just allows you to better lie to yourself. I thought you weren't into that? Must have been a false impression.

Banks don't go "Oh, you are going to create more value. Here, let us help you." Banks go: "Why do you want the loan of our money? Because you wish to buy property? What property? Ah. Yes, that seems reasonable. Sign these papers..."

Go to a bank with the idea of trying to get a loan to build a private, reusable space plane. They'll laugh you out. Why? You'd certainly create more value if you succeeded.

The UbiquitousPublicTransportation idea is a great idea. How about going to your local banks to get funding to start it in your region. It has to start somewhere. You will not though, will you? Why? Because you know that they'll laugh you out of the bank. Again, another real life example where banks are not aiding you in the creation of value.

The nature of wealth is that it is a limited resource game (ZeroSumGame) we play as both individuals and society. The nature of the related games we play that are based on that game, are seperate games with non-linear points on it (Perceived Value). Banks loan you money because they believe that you will give them more money back. If they don't believe you can, or while the possibility exists, but the odds are not in favor of it, they refuse. This is a bank choicing WinLose, rather then WinWinWin. A bank is nothing more then a CollectiveIntelligence focused on wealth, Jim. A society of HumanAnimals cooperating on agreed upon conduct to increase their wealth pool and their percieved social monetary value.

You need to take off the rose colored glasses and get off the opiates, my friend.

People want to play WinWinWin? That is pure BS. Go approach 10 different people on the street with a WinWinWin proposal. 9 out of 10 of those will screw you for their own short term advantage, even though the long term advantage would be of greater value to both of you. Go ahead, Jim. WinWinWin can be powerful, but it is like Newtonian Physics. It only works in very limited situations. Look up the Psychology study of the human behavior game, Greed. It's a study/game that went like this: You sit a group of 10 people down at a table. There is a bowl in the center of the table with $10 in it, all in ones. For every minute that noone takes any money out of the bowl, the researcher will double the money in the bowl. The people at the table may choose to take any or all of the money they want out of the bowl at any time, once the timer starts. You know the results of that experiment? The people always raid the bowl until it is empty in a mad free for all, before the first pay out cycle (60 seconds). Every time. LoseLoseLose... not win. That is the base of the HumanAnimal. Note: That experiment wasn't repeated once... it was repeated over 5,000 times in various locations around North America. Now they only run it as a demonstration of the HumanAnimal.

WinWinWin only works when everyone's immediate Greed level is being met equally, and the weight of any breakage of it for individual short term gain is not sufficent in every involved individual's personal appraisal.

You also are wrong on bullies versus cooperators rewards. Bullies get their emotional rewards at the exercise of their power over others. You have to be patient to get a reward for WinWinWin. The two mindsets you are talking about are seperate and distinct. Seperate systems. Apples and oranges. And in pay off, the bullies will get rewarded as often as they want... they just have to go find a victim to bully.

Jim, you are the one with the blinders on. You argue against your own beliefs and ascertations you have made previously here. I know a thinking, living being can change their mind at any time, but I do not think you have changed your mind on IP, nor on any of the other major elements of your own beliefs. So why are you being so StubbornStupid on this Jim? That makes no sense to me. It's like... The only time I've seen similar behavior is Reborn Christians arguing their religious beliefs and religious morals.

I believe Look To The Stars. I do not base this on my personal database of experience and projections. This is based on my own emotional and intellectual preferences and humor. To stay here on our sweet MotherWorld of Terra is a guaranteed death sentence for our descendants. Eventually, our sun, WE will [[Reach The Stars|]] will go RedGiant, and its body will expand out to about Mars orbit. Our MotherWorld will become a cinder in that mass.

On top of that, there is a limited supply of usable material and volume here on our MotherWorld. Odds are if we stay, our society will war on itself and bring about a collaspe of our intra-world living (it's a SmallWorld and growing smaller with each new connection of politics, trade, or inter-sociatal grouping marriage). It only takes one "bad apple" with the will to be a spoiler now to destroy major cities. Heck, I've got the knowledge and access to destroy Atlanta, Washington D.C., Boston, Chicago, London... I'm not a bad apple. I'd never purposely use what I know in such a way. But I know how easily I've gained my knowledge, and therefore how easy it would be for others to do so.

The limited short range vision employed by most people and their organizations leads to the destruction of our biosphere. Right now, our MotherWorld is the only place we can survive in a 'self sufficent' manner. And that is in limited areas. We have yet to master being able to live indefinately in the majority of volume and their environs on our MotherWorld.

I simply prefer to think that WE as a species will pull our act together. That is an emotional and mental preference of mine, but there is little evidence we| will. Still, I prefer to think so. I believe most other people do as well. Life is very good at that... giving itself justification and rationalization for its own purpose.

The mega-volcano that is the Yellowstone (that's where Old Faithful is, isn't it?) will one day erupt. That's guaranteed. When it does, there will be total devastation on the North American continent, reaching to the Pacific Ocean, to New York City, to Nashville. Instant, hot death will be most of that area. The world itself will enter into what is called a NuclearWinter, with all sunlight blocked out around the world for 1 to 7 years, at a minimal, and possibly up to 50 years if it is a "big" mega-volcano eruption. (The odds are against this eruption being big enough for double digits of NuclearWinter, though.)

Yellowstone is not the only active mega-volcano. Nor is a mega-volcano the only guaranteed event that will occur that will have a very devestating event on our MotherWorld, before Sol eats it.

It is guaranteed that at some time in the future, if we do nothing, that a large comet or asteriod will strike our world, create tremendous earthquakes and tidal waves, set the world literally on fire (from 25% upward to all the land masses), and kick up enough dirt and other material to create a NuclearWinter effect that could last significantly (again, from 1 year to 50 reasonably, depending on the particulars). If we get out in local space, this is something we can prevent, if we want to apply a little fore-sight and some resources.

To stay here is to die. We have to leave here, or it will all be ultimately pointless. A minor diversionary game of SimCity that the greatest collective, God, chose to play, but only for a few seconds. I prefer to think we are more special then that. I prefer to think we are at least a few good evenings diversion for the Universe. :D

If you want people to truly engage in WinWinWin situations more, Jim, you need to not handicap yourself by ignoring the truth. It is a narrow band where HumanAnimals will play such. You need to recognize that, so that you can find more ways to convince more to seek out such a combination, rather then sticking to their tried but true, WinLose.

It would help if you did so more often, yourself. If you really believed we at base prefer to play WinWinWin, you would give away CoralCalcium. As it is, you are making people choose between that and other items. If CC was that good for them, it would improve their health, it should be given away for free, to improve everyone's health and mentality, so that they'd be kinder to each other, and engage in more WinWinWin, hence creating FutureValue. You don't though. Why? You are playing the same games as everyone else... WinLose, personal greed. You can blame society for the system it has, for it is the system that WE made it, and continually remake it. But it is the stable system we've created.

You yourself have argued that the balance point of systems are what emerges, because that is the only behavior that is self-sustaining for any system. If you believe that, why do you again argue against the ZeroSumGame system that is our society? You yourself have implied that enough time has passed in such a system, enough diversification has been tried and discarded, for our system to have discovered its self-sustaining balance point. If you think that, then why have you decided to fight against the WE? Is it that you just want to piss on the WE, like a 16 year old teen boy must piss on all of society to show he is his own man, his own society, and has no room for society, but aches for his own place among it?

I have no problem if you state: "Because that is just what I choose/prefer to believe". But to claim it is fact when it is not, that I do have a problem with. I know why I prefer to think that we will expand our species playing field WE that WE harvest more resources then to the stars||Look To The Stars. But it isn't based on the fact that such has to happen due to the fact that we live in a system whose resources are always growing and people are always getting smarter. (And as I've stated previously: it doesn't matter, Jim, even if there will always be more resources available. It only matters to [[us|]] use, else that will become a ZeroSumGame.) The only thing we can truly be sure of is that we cannot be sure of what will happen. We can guess, we can predict based on past knowledge of what has happened and our experience. But we cannot truly know.

As I've said, I do not think we are doomed, as a collective||WE. Because of that feeling, I believe we will [[reach the stars|]]. For me, it is that simple. I'm an optimist about people, because I prefer to think all people have good in them. I just prefer to live and believe it. Despite what I know. :-D I feel it is better to feel good and expect a nice day, and have that day be a bad one, then to expect every day to be a bad day, regardless if the day turns out to have been a bad or good one. Life is just more enjoyable to me, that way. And that's what life is about... our personal enjoyment of it. It is a gift to be alive, to be able to feel, think, and experience. That gift should be appreciated, every day. Soon enough we will return to a less gifted form of StarDust. ---StarPilot


Hey Star Pilot, the universe may be a ZeroSumGame. However, everybody/everything has its period of prosperity. Even in economics, companies in the long run, will not make any profits. However, in the short run, they will. Even though the universe may be a zero sum game, you should not forget the period of prosperity of person/entity/thing. This period may last days, weeks, years, or even centuries or milleniums. If this period of prosperity lasts more than the life of the individual/thing/entity, in its own little world, it has always won. - KooMar


Ridiculous Star,

The speed of light is instantainious to the traveler and the space delay has nothing to do with it anyway. The simple fact is that if the system is effected by anything outside of it, A SINGLE EXAMPLE, IT IS NOT CLOSED! PERIOD! This has nothing to do with the speed of light. YOU ARE STILL IGNORING THE EXAMPLES.


 Sigh. no. You are building a simplier model of the system so that it is excluded. It's your viewpoint.
 Jim says: This is open see? Let me draw the line to put this outside my system. Now look what happens to my system when I move this thing outside my drawn boundries... see? It changed? Input! Output! It is open!


 StarPilot says: That's because you are arbitrarily defining an element of your closed system outside of your example system and then using it.
 Jim says: No I am not. See? This is my system here. It does not include this element!
 StarPilot says: Your system does include that.
 Jim says: No it does not because I said it does not. Shut up and learn what I say. This is my system! You cannot have a closed system. All are open!
 That's the game your are playing Jim. Even when you ACKNOWLEDGE that we can define the lines as including that little bit, you then turn around and exclude it so you can go 'It's open'.
 I've been riding along this, trying to help you understand that ZeroSumGame is not about the score of the game. ZeroSumGames are about the resources. I've been having some tweaking your nose on a few things, and genuinely trying to engage you in a debate on some other matters to keep myself from getting too bored, but you seem determine that you are absolutely right on a matter that you are absolutely wrong about. This is not a viewpoint issue. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of language. You cannot change that by pulling all those worthless games. ZeroSumGames are about resources. If the resource is static or reducing, it is a ZeroSumGame. If the resource grows faster then the rate it is used, it is not a ZeroSumGame.
 Life is a ZeroSumGame. It uses more resources then becomes available. There are several resources that are limited in the Game of Life.
 Your score in Life is what you decide to measure it by. There is nothing written anywhere in the rules to the Game of Life that says your score plus the sum of all other living being must total Zero. Score is an arbitrary value we use as a measurement when competing to see who is winning. So long as you using a score, you are competing against others so that someone wins and someone looses. But that's your choice. Have fun. Score another million points today. ---StarPilot
 I see you ignoring the examples. Remember, nothing travels faster then Light. Not even Gravity. We were not talking about instant transport. You were saying if I move a gram of matter one meter one light year away, it's effects on the earth was instant. That isn't true. Please commit a full brain reset on what you were saying. It takes a while for that to reach us. Remember? Nothing is instant. Just parroting back what you had said elsewhere. -SP
    I never said when you move the gram of matter Star, that is not an issue.  The fact is that if I moved it at the right time, it would change your result.  If we move a kilogram, one meter away and you still have the same problem.  It effects the system, so the system is not closed.  I am not ignoring any examples because there have been no examples provided.  Closed systems do not exist in this world.  They are an ideal.
    Er... do that again Jim. Ignore the facts. That's so cool for a scientist to do. Actually, it is not, but I don't expect better from a scientist. Ignoring the facts is the prime attribute needed by scientists.
    If you move one kilogram one meter, one kilometer from me, it affects me. Fine. That doesn't mean I'm an OPEN system. That just means you have poorly defined your system modeling me. Or you have oversimplified your model of the system to exclude it.
    However, my physical body has several systems which act as Zero Sum (closed) systems. For instance, my body tries to maintain a hydro status. Once my hydro reserve levels are met, everything that comes in liquid must have a matching amount of liquid level out. In some fashion. Only if their is an excess of liquid used versus liquid inputed, will I have a problem. And strangely enough, the whole system acts like a ZeroSumGame... with tissues competing for a piece of the hydro. Despite the fact that I have an input of hydro, and an output of hydro.
    We make closed systems all the time. You want a completely closed system, go examine the logical systems you have programmed. Just because it's data and code doesn't invalidate it as a closed system. ---StarPilot

We only observe open systems in the universe. If anyone can observe the universe entirely, say God, then again, it is an open system, as observation is interaction in this universe. The most important point you ignore entirely, the universe is eveloving from lower levels of organization to higher levels of organization. In a zero sum game this is not possible.

 Wrongo. This is like saying there can be no Heaven without Hell, or no Hell without Heaven. There is nothing that prevents a more complex 'economy' or 'ecology' from forming inside a closed system. To claim different is to show you are confusing your systems again. Zero Sum is about working with a limited supply. Remember the Legos. If you have one million Lego bricks in your house, that does not prevent everyone in your house from trading them, using them to make their own basic super blocks for whatever purpose. It only prevents there being more then one million Lego blocks from being used in whatever purpose at one time. How does this prevent more complex systems from evolving? It does not. -SP
      The legos are not a zero sum game for another reason.  If the game is, who gets the most legos, then it is zero sum. But if the game is, who can create the most value from them, then the value is not limited and not zero sum. The legos may be worth 10 cents a peice, but a peice of art or useful object made from them could be worth almost any amount. If you said 100 legos rather than a million it would be hard to argue that great value could be generated, but a million is enough legos to make stuff of real value.
     Zero sum games by definition do not allow for value creation, they define value up front. Play poker on a desert island and pennies may be more valuable than dollar bills, but the values must be fixed before hand and the same for all participants to have a zero sum game. In real life values are never like that except in games. -Jim
     So close, and yet so far. GrassHopper, you are confusing the score for the sum of the parts. Chess is a ZeroSumGame. But the percieved value of my supported Queen attacking your King is much greater then my Queen unsupported attacking your King. But both of those are merely transitory scores assigned by you and I as we play the game. The resources are still the same. 64 squares, {8 pawns, 2 rooks, 2 knights, 2 bishops, 1 Queen, 1 King} each, alternating turns.
     In Othello/Reversi, you score is directly equal to the number number of pieces with your color showing. In Monopoly, your score is how much money and mortgage value your owned property is worth. Your score in a ZeroSumGame may be directly, indirectly, or not at all connected to the limited resources.
     Ten or One hundred or one million pieces of Lego, it does not matter, Jim. Only in your mind does it matter, Jim, as at one million, you think something interesting might be made, since you cannot directly comprehend the number. But your brain comprehends the truth when we deal in small enough lots your brain can envision. A vast difference between your reality of understanding, and your dreams and imaginings of the future. Perhaps that is why you have such a conflict over this? ---StarPilot

On earth we have a dynamical system, it is easy to see how life can grow and evolve, we have a constant source of energy, the sun, bringing information into the system and information streaming constantly out to the far reaches of space. To consider the earth a closed system is certainly absurb.

 Again... Wrongo. Only by shifting your viewpoint so that the Sun is not part of your local system, do you gain an infinite amount of external solar energy. The sun is broadcasting away it's energy, YES? 'YES'. But you wish to argue that the Earth is an open system, so therefore you pick a limited view so that you can play scientists and ignore the larger set of data that contridicts you. Have fun. But you are losing credibility by doing that. You state that everything is one system, but here you are trying to break the Earth free from everything else... Oops. It's one or the other. You argue against reductionism, and yet that is what you are doing. Whoopsie. -SP
     What your problem with it?  No matter how we cut it up, there is information in and out, not closed, period. -Jim.
     It is simple. You are pulling a Clinton and deciding that a bit of oral isn't really a bit of oral. That's my problem.
     You are purposely picking a viewpoint to justify your view about the facts, when we are not discussing viewpoints (opinions), but facts as to what is a ZeroSumGame. The earth isn't a closed system if you are hosing it with energy from outside the system. But the sun isn't from outside Earth's system. They are part of the same system. (Anything interacting/yeilding or processsing resources is part of the system.) It's the same pansy twittering you do about useable volume... when there is no evidence that we will even finish figuring out how to use all of our 'land' on this planet, let alone get a human community off of it permenantly. We are discussing the reality of now and the near future, remember? Not in 3 billion years when humans are super evolved and going to Andromeda for a nice weekend vacation. If that is what you want to discuss, stop. Because this will not matter to them, in that bright Distopian science fantasy future where Jim holds that they still will not be able to travel faster then light.
     I've been sensing a pattern with you doing that, Jim. Changing the discussion from what is being debated to something more fitting with your view point, and ignoring the rest. Are you out to collaborate or merely impress your beliefs on others? You should know from your own studies of collaboration that you like to mention that CollaborativeIntelligence requires a willingness of those collaborating to consider the other's point, and not merely to impress their individual will on the group. If you are not going to consider others, but merely impress your views, this is not a collaborative community. It's merely an indoctrination site. I know I'm stubborn cuss, and I dig in my heels from time to time, but you have dug yourself an incredibly deep hole here, and the only reason I can see why is, you are being contridicted on something you know next to nothing about, but you think you know a fact (or maybe even two) about it, and are using it to shove your personal beliefs around on whatever reads this page. THAT'S what has me digging in my heels. You know encyclopedias more then I do about physics, but you do not seem to have a real understanding of games. And the more you dig down on what you don't know, the more it motivates me to poke at you for trying to side track to something you do know more then I do about. All viewpoints are equally valid, after all, but you want to disagree even on that. ---StarPilot

It is a bit harder to understand why the universe itselve also behaivs as an open system. As you have eloquantly expressed, by pure platonic logic, you can define the universe as being closed. Yet this countradicts observation where we clearly observe a dynamical evolutionary system of increasing complexity, not a zero sum game. Time can help us understand how this can be. If we look at the current epoch of the universe, consisting of starts and planets, and say, this is a closed system, we can easily see the error. Information from the distant past, clearly eneters the system and information is sent to the distant future.

 It still contradicts nothing. All you've stated is that we have an event where energy and matter transitioned into a form we understand to some degree at some point past the First Event. We haven't had any more, which means that the Universe has certainly been a closed system since then. In war, you need to do something more then once for it to not be a fluke. In practical logic, something that happens only once is special. You have only the cases of never, once, or many. Why is it that we have this event only once? I think it is most likely, because it was already there, but just crossed a threshold that allowed it to 'condense' into matter and energy as we can recognize it. That would mean closed system from the start. At worst, it is a closed system since the last 'condensation'. -SP

So we can increase our time window to include prior epochs and future epochs, but we still have information entering and leaving. If we extend the system to infinate time then we have an infinate system, not a closed system.

 You only have an infinite system if you have infinite events. Are we scientifically certain of this? HeatDeath is HeatDeath, after all. Or it isn't HeatDeath. Please stabilize which it is. If there is nothing happening, there are no events, and therefore time is ended. If there is something still happening, it is not HeatDeath, and time is by definition still passing. -SP
     There can not be heat death by the 3rd law. The universe cools, and slows down as it expands, but no matter how far it expands the temporature will be greater than absolute zero. Oganization will increase as things happen on larger and slower scales.  It is not death at all, is is the continuation of creation, forever. It will only seems cold and slow to us humans, not the gigantic life forms that will emerge in that realm. -Jim
      I'm picking on you using the term HeatDeath. You should not use it unless you mean it. The mere cooling of our universe does not mean death. It just means things change. You are a bright lad. Invent and use a different term. One that is closer to what you mean. :-D ---StarPilot

You insist Star that the modern theorys of an inflationary universe cannot be right and conservation of energy must be absolute because the universe must be a zero sum game. Resent analysis of COBE satilite data however has ruled out all of the non-inflationary models and points to some as being very likely. For the first time we have an accurate age for the universe, 13.7 billion years, and a smoking gun indicating that inflationary models correspond with observation. It is almost certain that most of the matter and energy in the universe was generated in an inflationary epoch billions of years ago.

 I insist that the Universe cannot inflate? What does the expansion of space have to do with the Conservation Of Energy? So you think there is more energy coming into our universe, even now?
     We can see inflation on a small scale with particle accelerators, but the conditions of the inflationary universe do not exist now in our epoch of the universe. I have a theorey that there will be another inflationary period based on magnetic monopoles rather than electrons preceeding the next epoch, but I have not proven it yet. -Jim
     Well, good luck in your experiment to do so. ---StarPilot


 I know of the COBE. And I remember that the age of our Milky Way Galaxy is 20.4 billion years old. So our Galaxy has been around longer then the Universe by almost a  full 1/3 of it's lifetime. Humm... Science is doing so well at matching and correlating to itself, isn't it?
     LOL, old science Star, you should know better than to doubt my science knowledge. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993375
     Really? You are so far wrong about the simple science of games, that it is making me reapraise what level of knowledge you truly possess in other fields. Especially as you just as stubbornly defend your views on something you know so little on. Adding in your confusion of seperate games as one game of your own making, and I really have begun to wonder if you really know what you think you know. You should not defend your understanding of games as strongly and fiercely as you defend your understanding of science.
     And as far as science goes... Science is like fashion. If you wait enough, it comes back to what it discarded earlier. It just calls it by a different name. ;-) ---StarPilot

How is this possible? Why does the quantum not enforse the principle of conservation of energy? Well, scientists would have loved to come up with a quantum theory that conserved energy. Unfortunatly, nature simple failed to ablidge.

 Rhetoric. There is a reason that stuff equals out before and after. We've observed that happening much too much for it to be happenstance coincidence.
      You are stuck in classical logic and old science, again, see http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993375
      No. I am not stuck. I'm willing to change what I believe, at least about the universe. However, I cannot say the same for some others here.

To understand how this can happen, you must understand that the constraints on the universe are logical, not physical. It is the logical universe that manifests what we perceive as the physical universe.

 No, I do not have to understand that. We build models to understand the behavior of the universe. But that does not mean that we truly live in a logical simulation in God's game machine. That is a matter of personal preference. As our consciousness is a cognitive neural net, we see patterns in everything. That is the nature of our computers. So it can be our natural bias to think our mental patterns (that's your Logical Systems) are the truth. In our IndividualUniverse, it is the truth, until reality (your nature) forces us to recognize the difference. And if we try very hard, we can ignore even that, even if it does kill us. You are making an assumption, Jim. And you know what assumptions do... -SP
     If there are physical constraints to the universe, such as an aether, or substate of some number of dimintions, we have not found it and all the evidence is against it.  My assumption is not arbitrary, I also assume there is no monkey in my hat unless there is evidence to the contrary. -Jim
     Sounds arbitary to me. You have decided that since you haven't seen a wall, that everything is logic/mental construct in God's computer, and the physical we perceive is merely a reflection of this metaphysical? That sounds VERY arbitrary. The lack of evidence for something does not prove or disprove. I am familar with the concept that the physical world is merely the reflection of the metaphysical world of the spirit. Of course, the realm of spirit is always a realm of logic (logical system). But deciding that is how everything works based on the fact that you cannot see a wall to this closed room of ours, that is just an arbitrary decision on your part. So WikiWorld's conclusion on reality was predetermined to it's birth? What else is predetermined? Let's get these out in the open. There is no point wasting time trying to collaborate those. Lets see the list of WikiWorldConstants. ---StarPilot

Understanding why the logical systems of the universe allow inflationary evolving dynamical systems, consider these facts. In ANewKindOfScience, Wolfram has demonstrate that very simple rules and initial condition create tremondous complexity and universal computing emerges with the capability of generating all concievable logical systems.

Well, computing takes energy doesn't it? No. Fredkin proved in 1990 that universal computing is possible without consuming energy. Although his result is theoretical, not necessarily practical, it does apply to the universe. Afterall the universe is a perpetual motion machine.

 Well, you just disqualified yourself in scientific terms. No such thing as a perpetual motion machine. (Have to pull you leg on that, Jim.) And we can always define a system where it requires energy to do something. Just a matter of making up an new measurement. We are fairly good at that. And once again, you are confusing the raw "goods" with the behaviors that utilize the raw goods. -SP
     You are stuck in classical reasoning again.  Are you saying the universe will stop? Or will it go on forever?  The 3rd law, in the LawsOfThermodynamics, implies it will go on forever, in other words, it is perpetual.
     No Jim. You said the universe would stop. HeatDeath. If it is still going, that isn't HeatDeath. That is merely a change. Please be more accurate in what you preach. Death is no activity. No more. ---StarPilot

Consider the Mandelbrot set. From the simple, finite equation, z = z^2 C, infinate logical complexity is generated. Google:mandelbrot set equation.

The existance of the universe itself would not be possible unless it were possible to get something from nothing, clearly not a zero sum game.

 How do you come up with that? Last I saw in science's database, there was a ball of quantum foam before the Bang, and it contained all the energy that became our universe after the Bang. Again, no claim of anything being added. Last science I saw, some of that foam took longer to condense into common matter and energy then others, but it was all present before the Bang. Where does the something from nothing come from? Are you trying that "separate and reduce" slight of logic again? Or just refering to it? -SP
     Give it up on conservation of energy. The evidence seems to exclude that possiblility and quantum theory has never demanded it. A ball of quantum foam before the big bang countradicts the big bang theory. Even is the big bang theory is wrong, the evidence for the inflationary period is strong. -Jim
     My point is that you are picking an arbitrary view point. Just as picking the Earth EXCLUSIVELY in a viewpoint allows a person to say, we have unlimited energy being input into the Game of Earth. And I will surrender on conservation of energy when you show me that the Universe is gaining energy. So far, you are just saying some of our energy/matter took a bit longer to form then others. You take your view point and I'll take mine. Eventually I think I might be able to teach you a broader one. :-P Or you will convince me a narrower one. Humm... I have seriously considered that Conservation of Energy is merely an emergent effect of our macro world, but that I considered long before I posted here. You seem determine, though, to squeeze out extra energy from somewhere. Of course, you have to, if you are to believe that the universe is not a ZeroSumGame. ---StarPilot

The basic principle that allow the whole to be greater than the sum of it's parts, synergy, enables growing evolutionary systems that are inconsistant with zero sum games.

 Again. Confusing raw material for the processes which in some way use the raw material.
     Wrong, you are confusing raw matherials with the value that can be created in a system. -Jim
 No, I am not. You are confusing resources with game score. Score is irrelevant to whether a game is Zero Sum or not. Score is merely a collaborative way to determine who is better succeeding at competing in that particular game in whatever terms are being measured by the score.
 As I like the example of football this addition, I will use that example again. Football is a ZeroSumGame. You have a limited number of players available. A limited number of actions you can take playing the game. A limited number of plays (4 downs) to try and score another set of plays. A limited amount of time. A limited number of time outs. A limited number of new playing and new kicking footballs. Football is a complete Closed System. The score of the teams is merely the measure we choose to measure who wins the competition. However, we can just as easily score any other sequence. And you'll note, in Fantasy Football, those other actions and score sequences are used to determine the winner of the Fantasy Football.
 Football is a closed, limited system. And yet, it constantly organizes into a more complex system. Rule changes between systems are environmental changes to the ecology of the game. The total ecology is the full game, but there are smaller ecology layers that interact to form the game's ecology/economy. ---StarPilot

In order to have a zero sum game things must be held constant. The only thing constant in the universe is change. Changing values, changing environments, changing technology.

 This is so wrong, it isn't even funny. ZeroSumGame is anything with limits. If we sit down to play poker, and each of us have a pound of chocolate M
Personal tools