[p2p-research] essay with a smattering of P2P

[Matt Boggs]

One of life's lessons is that those in charge are the ones who write the
rules. Usually this just means that might makes right and the powerful set
the standards. Often to their own benefit. On a more fundamental level
though, it means the opposite. Those who figure out what the rules are, set
the standards by which society functions. Rather than spend my life trying
win according to rules which often seem incomprehensible, contradictory and
tilted towards those already possessing advantages, I set out to figure what
really is going on. I did not seek answers to give me comfort, but truths to
which I must answer. The following essay revolves around three
interconnected observations about physical reality, spirituality and
economics. It is not about how to win, because in life the finish line is
death. It is simply about understanding how life works and how it might work
better. The conceptual foundation is the cycle of expansion and contraction
and the infinite number of interactions.

In trying to make sense of life, there is a constant tension between moving
forward and reviewing the past. We neither want to be stuck in the past, or
miss any lessons it might have to teach us. There is no one guide to the
future, so it is a constant process of adaptation. Often the corrections are
so natural, we make them subconsciously, while other times they are the
source of endless agonizing. The larger society goes through this process
and political coalitions form to advocate for various propensities, such as
conservatism looking to the presumed order of the past, or liberalism
leaning to the formless energy of the future. That cycle of social expansion
and civil consolidation.

What is time itself? Is it a narrative path along which we travel from the
past to the future? That is the common assumption on which thought,
knowledge and the concept of history is based. It is Newton's absolute flow
of time and Einstein's relative fourth dimension. There is a problem though.
The past is a generally agreed upon series of events, while the future is an
infinite number of possibilities, fanning out from the present. According to
Relativity there is no absolute measure of time and since Quantum Mechanics
says circumstance is not entirely deterministic, many physicists propose
that multiple realities emerge whenever the laws governing the progression
of events are not deterministic. Schrodinger's Cat is both dead and alive.

Is nature really this inefficient? What if some basic logical error exists
in our thinking? There are natives of South America who think of the past as
being in front of and the future behind the observer. That is because their
frame is the event, not the observer. Something happens, is observed and
then is past. We, on the other hand, are a few degrees removed from this
basic reality. For us, time is that series of events recorded in our minds
and history books, so the future is in front of us and the past is behind.

Consider that if two physical entities collide, it creates an event. While
the material proceeds from past events to future ones, those events go the
other way, from being in the future to being past. What is the real
direction of time? Are we traveling this path from the past into the future,
or does the activity of what is present create a series of events which go
from being future potential to past circumstance? Does the earth travel the
fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become
yesterday because the earth rotates? Is time really the basis of motion, or
simply an effect of it? If it is an effect, than time has more in common
with temperature, than space. Energy creates and replaces events. Time is
the measurement, not what is being measured and that is why it is relative
to the circumstances of the measurement.

There is no such thing as a dimensionless point in time, as that would
require a cessation of the very motion being measured. Such a state would
have a temperature of absolute zero. The reason light is described as
timeless is because it has no internal motion, since that would have to
exceed the speed of light in order to happen.

The past is information. The future is where the energy goes.

Reality is composed of energy manifesting structure and information. While
the energy is neither created or destroyed, its constant activity is
creating and consuming the information. The timeline of energy is from past
events to future ones, while the timeline for information and structure,
being created and consumed, is from future possibility to past circumstance.
While this structure is constantly evolving, it does so at varying rates, so
that change can be rapid or slow. As long as structures can absorb as much
or more energy as they lose, they continue to exist, but this requires
adapting to the information which the consumed energy manifests, whether it
is an organism eating food, or an institution adjusting to changes in the
larger culture. As institutions become more powerful, they tend to become
less adaptive and insular, while provoking external reaction. As long as
structures grow and adapt, the future is an evolving continuation of the
past. When they can no longer adapt, the future becomes a reaction to the
past. Evolution and revolution.

While our brains are of the physical reality that goes from past to future,
our minds are the record of events which scroll away into the past.
Eventually though, our lives are units of time that begin in the future and
ultimately recede into the past, as the larger process of life moves onto
the next generation.

This dichotomy is analogous to the top down order, vs. bottom up process of
Complexity Theory. Order is the linear information receding into the past,
while process is the non-linear energy expanding into the future. As with
cosmology, where the gravitational structure of matter is contracting, while
the various forms of energy expand.

Space, on the other hand, isn't simply three dimensions. Dimensions are
really just linear projections. Lines. Three dimensions are simply the
coordinate system of the center point. While relativity tried to model time
as an additional dimension, based on the narrative series, it did succeed in
showing that space cannot be considered an absolute three dimensional grid,
as the perspective is distorted from one point of reference to another. This
is evident in basic political terms, since everyone has their own view of
reality and they often clash, yet both points of view are serially coherent.
You could say the Arabs and Israelis use different coordinate systems to
define the same space. There is no universal perspective, as the more
universal a concept, perspective, or point of reference is, the more
generalized and inconsequential it is to any particular situation. It's the
infinite dimensionality which makes life dynamic, since there is no ultimate
pattern into which it can settle. The mind feeds on chaos and turns it into
order. Without that constant stimulation, it stagnates. Then again the
opposite effect is that if we cannot discern order in the chaos, we would
fall to pieces, intellectually and emotionally. That's why we constantly
make up stories and other explanations to piece together what we do not
understand, rather than just accept that we do not understand. We have to
move forward, or we will fall apart.

When you have large numbers of points moving about, the one concept which
does define the overall situation is temperature. The scalar level of
activity. In fact the same logic which uses the speed of light to say time
is a fourth dimension of space, could use a given amount of energy to say
temperature is an additional parameter of volume, since a change in the
volume of this energy would have a proportional effect on its temperature.
Volume and dimension are the scalar and vector of the vacuum, while
temperature and time are the scalar and vector of the fluctuation.

So time and temperature are actually quite similar, as emergent effects of
motion. They describe the conceptual dichotomy of narrative and the larger
network of activity from which we distill the narrative. This relationship
between temperature and time manifests in the two halves of the brain, with
the parallel processor of the right brain functioning as a thermostat, that
perceives the multiplicity of the present moment, while the serial processor
of the left side records the linear cause and effect of time, from which
rationality emerges.

Physics is trying to solve a problem arising from our intellectual distance
from reality, not a problem with reality. Other disciplines, such as
biology, neurology, computer sciences, etc. are working around this
conundrum in their own fashion.

Since thinking is conceptual reductionism, we tend to be focused on the
contrasts, rather than the connected medium. With morality, this is the
conflict between good and bad. The popular assumption is of a conflict
between two extremes, but the attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of
the detrimental is the primordial biological binary code, of which we are
complex manifestations. It evolves from the bottom up, rather than
proscribed from the top down. What is good for the fox, is bad for the
chicken, yet there is no clear point where the chicken ends and the fox
begins. Life is a bootstrapping process of creation and consumption, just as
time needs to consume information in order to create new information.
Success is being the foundation of what comes next, while failure is being
fodder for it. Both are necessary and all are part of the larger organic
process. While we like clear and easy answers, rather than hard and painful
truths, it should be remembered that between black and white are not just
shades of grey, but all the colors of the spectrum.

We think of God as an all-knowing absolute, but the universal state of the
absolute has no division and therefore is both everything and nothing, while
anything not absolute is relative to everything else so defined. The
distinctions of knowledge are relativistic feedback loops of information and
judgment. It is a process, not an object. The essence of interpersonal
morality, to treat others as you would have them treat you, is moral
relativism. A spiritual absolute would be the raw essence of consciousness
from which complex organisms rise, not an all-knowing moral ideal from which
humanity fell. When society does prescribe moral absolutes, it is often
contradictory, since the linear presumption is that if a little is good,
than a lot must be much better and if anything is at all bad, than it must
be all bad. There is no conceptual regard for reciprocity, reaction,
balance, laws of unintended consequences, silver linings, etc. Ambiguity is
derided and people are expected to line up with the good and against the
bad. The result is endless chaos as masses of people are herded around
complex situations by simple minded assertions of good and bad. The irony is
that relativism provides a much more comprehensive moral code, since one's
actions are weighed against the rest of the universe, as opposed to whatever
definition of God you happen to abide by. Karma means that for every action,
there is an equal and opposite reaction. What goes around, comes around.

Monotheism began as an idealization of social hierarchy and the wisdom of
elders, but it overlooks the more fundamental process by which society
regenerates this order, as each generation dies off and is replaced by the
next. The top down order is periodically replaced by bottom up processes.
Those higher up the evolutionary and social ladder are emergent layers of
evolution that depend on those below them, far more than those below depend
on those above. In fact, in nature, emergent levels tend to be predatory for
the purpose of controlling the growth of those they depend on, just as
emergent layers of society control those from which they rise. If they
succeed in destroying the health of those below them, then these higher
levels are no longer necessary.

It was polytheists who developed democracy, as tribes and cults interacted
and had to compromise, while monotheism gave us the divine right of kings.
It is necessary to have a common set of goals and standards for any group to
coexist, but it is more effective to have one built on a sensible foundation
of common goals, than one chasing after abstract ideals. That is because the
perfect is often the enemy of the good.

Polytheism weaves a tapestry out of individual threads, while monotheism
braids a rope out of individual strands. Each have a purpose.

Even though our religions remain monotheistic, our political institutions
are largely democratic because they need the ability to regenerate from the
bottom up, as old ways and leaders get stagnant and rigid. Now our social
hierarchies are not so much a matter of political power, but economic
weight, as wealth accumulates to those most adept at controlling the flow of
it. It is becoming increasingly obvious this situation is both unstable and
destructive to both society and the environment. The question is how to
institute a system which combines healthy bottom up growth, with effective
top down leadership and the ability to adjust both to changing
circumstances. The old system of adolescent greed and fear, constrained by
government regulation and protection, becomes less effective as the level of
economic and social complexity increases.

A potential solution might lay in a reconsideration of money, that
institution of collective trust on which our mass society is based.

Money functions as both a store of value and a medium of exchange. These
work at cross purposes, because as a store of value it is a form of private
property, while as a medium of exchange it is a form of public utility,
similar to a road system. Most people focus on their own wealth in
comparison to others and thus think of it as private property. The reality
is that the system belongs to whomever guarantees its value. We do possess
the money we hold, in the same way we possess the section of road we are
driving on. You own your car, house, business, etc, but not the roads
connecting them. Money is a similar medium. It was one thing when money
signified some commodity you had stored or traded and its value was entirely
based on that underlaying commodity, but now the money supply far exceeds
the underlaying value of the real economy and so its value is maintained by
the ability of the government to support it through taxation. This means it
has become an illusionary bubble of value into which ever more resources are
needed to support and so is only functional as a medium of exchange. While
this is potentially catastrophic, it presents an opportunity to change the
basic economic equation.

Believing money is private property encourages people to hoard it. The
problem is that capital is subject to the laws of supply and demand, with
the lender as supply and the borrower as demand. Since the supply of capital
must be balanced by demand for it, there must be sufficient borrowers for
this notational wealth, or its value will collapse. The problem is that
political power is on the side of those with money, rather than those
borrowing it and this lack of balance regularly creates situations which
swell the supply of money, while depleting the abilities of those borrowing
it. This results in periodic credit collapse, as masses of borrowers
default. We are at an extreme state of this particular situation, since the
government has borrowed massive amounts of its own money back, loan
standards were left in the dust and enormous bubbles of excess circulation
were blown up by the financial services industry to hold this surplus
notational wealth. Now that the bubble is collapsing and its value
evaporating, the powers that be are engaged in more destructive behavior by
issuing ever more debt and currency to keep the bubble from imploding. Since
the only way to prevent this additional money from being seriously
inflationary is to monetize ever more value out of society and the
environment in order to support and pay interest on it, to the increasing
detriment of world health. The situation is analogous to high blood
pressure. As bad debt clogs the arteries, increasing pressure doesn't clear
the clots, but damages healthy tissue and causes it to harden and burst in
weak points. When that happens, a person dies, but an economy flooded with
loose credit is distorted. In a Ponzi scheme, the money from later investors
is used to pay off earlier investors. When an asset bubble builds up, due to
easy credit, rather than improved earnings, the same thing happens, as later
investors pay earlier investors, then lose their investment when the well of
credulous investors dries up.

Paul Volcker is credited with curing inflation in the early 1980's, by
raising interest rates and reducing the flow of fresh credit into the
economy. While inflation may be caused by loose monetary policy, the effect
of higher rates is to reward those with money to lend, while punishing those
wishing to borrow it. So how did he cure an oversupply of money already in
the system, when his method of choice also significantly reduced demand for
it? The difference between the Federal Reserve selling debt it is holding
and the Treasury issuing fresh debt, is that while the Fed retires the money
it collects, the Treasury uses the money it gets to fund public spending.
Public spending doesn't compete with the private sector and generally funds
projects that enable increased private investment. So not only does this
deficit spending directly provide demand for credit, but has a multiplier
effect in the private sector, by increasing both its size and profitability.
Suffice to say, the rapidly increasing deficits of the early 1980's had a
significant effect on bringing the supply of credit in line with demand for
it. The reason a surplus of money increases the expense of borrowing it is
because the tendency is to spend it, rather than lend it, so there is
actually a shortage of money to borrow and the cost goes up. At the time,
economists were concerned that increased government deficits would further
raise interest rates for the private sector, but the opposite happened and
rates came down. The supply of money is potentially infinite. The issue is
keeping it in line with demand, so that its value is stable and people are
willing to lend it at nominal interest rates. Or spend it chasing asset
values upward, which is often just another form of inflation.

Government debt is in fact one of the primary sources of demand for capital.
Just think for a moment where all the money that all the governments of the
world borrow would be invested otherwise? The stock market? Real estate?
Derivatives? Emerging markets? Now that the economy is distressed and many
are buying government debt as a safe investment, rather than houses or
pets.com, this public debt has become the biggest bubble of all. Will it
pop, like the dot com and housing bubbles? Can the government pay it back?
Well, that depends on how its tax receipts do. Need I say more?

Consider how it would change public perception of monetary wealth, if we
were to come to the realization that the monetary system really is now
entirely a form of public commons? The practice of hoarding excessive
amounts would lack logical justification, so savings would be taxed
progressively. This is not to discourage individual effort, but a necessary
recognition of the effect of excess savings on a functioning monetary
system. Too much of a good thing isn't always good. If people understood
monetary value constituted public property, than they would be far more
reluctant to drain value out of their social networks and environment to put
in a bank in the first place. We all like having roads, but there is little
inclination to pave more than we need. In this situation, the same would
apply to monetizing our lives. Other avenues of trust and reciprocation
would have the space to develop, which would strengthen communities and
their relationship to the environment.

Political power started as private initiative and eventually grew into
monarchy. Monarchists railed against mob rule, but we eventually learned how
to make it a public trust by allocating power where it was most responsive.
Why not do the same with the banking industry? As the currency is a public
utility, so profits from its administration could be public income. A public
banking system would not be one huge behemoth, but consist of institutions
incorporated at every level of governance, so that individuals could bank
with the ones which funded the services they are most likely to use.
Different communities would seek to provide the best services with these
funds, otherwise they would lose business and citizens to other communities.
As it is, banking doesn't need the inventiveness for which private
enterprise is most suited, but the stability that is the strength of the
public sector. Those running this financial system seem to think they have
the right to drain off as much as they can, with other business leaders
feeling the need to follow. What if the police, military, courts, etc. felt
they had the same rights to exploit their responsibilities? When that
happens, it's not a pretty picture.

The lack of extreme amounts of monetized wealth might also reduce the
potential for bloated regimes to develop. There will always be economic and
political convection cycles of rising influence and power, which eventually
cool off and settle back down after a few generations and in many ways that
is healthy and normal, but what we have now is an economic hurricane that is
sucking wealth out of the entire world as monetary abstraction has
metastasized into this enormous bubble of illusionary value. Given the state
of the world, it is a crisis we can't afford to waste.

The only unit which fully defines humanity and life is the earth. Possibly
humanity is the embryonic central nervous system of a planetary organism.
Otherwise we are just top predator of a collapsing ecosystem.

Matt Boggs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090706/14843e6c/attachment-0001.html>