The structure of global politics over the past several decades, could be discerned through three distinct phases. Initially, the world was characterized by ideological bipolarity, where two major ideological blocs dominated international relations: the liberal democratic world (led by the United States and its allies) and the communist world (led by the Soviet Union). This era, known as the Cold War (approximately 1947–1991), was marked by intense rivalry between these two superpowers, each promoting its own political, economic, and social systems.
After the Cold War ended, a shift occurred towards a multipolar world, in which multiple influential powers (such as the United States, the European Union, China, Russia, Japan, and others) emerged on the global stage. This phase, spanning the next two decades, was characterized by a diffusion of power and a relative balance among different regions and nations. There was no single dominating rivalry, allowing for a more complex and interconnected global order, driven by economic interdependence, technological advancements, and new regional alignments.
In recent years, however, there has been a move towards a new form of bipolarity, now framed as a democracy-authoritarianism binary. This phase sees the global landscape divided between nations that support democratic governance and those that favor authoritarian rule. Unlike the Cold War, where the conflict was based on economic and ideological systems (capitalism vs. communism), this current division centers around political values and governance models (democracy vs. authoritarianism), with countries aligning themselves along these lines.
Overall, the shift represents a significant change from ideological divisions rooted in economic theories to a focus on the nature of political power and governance structures. The re-emergence of bipolarity reflects deeper tensions about how societies should be organized and governed in an increasingly interconnected world.
The new bipolarity reflected through the alliance of the undemocratic (Russia-China-North Korea) letting the multilateralism and its agencies down. The new binary challenges the global questions and their settlement through the legitimate means and facilitates the rule of the force and coercion.
Harish,
The new bipolarity reflected through the alliance of the undemocratic (Russia-China-North Korea) letting the multilateralism and its agencies down. The new binary challenges the global questions and their settlement through the legitimate means and facilitates the rule of the force and coercion.
I think you're onto something here, concerning the "new bipolarity." My only issue with it is that just as during the cold war, the dictatorships are not truly aligned at all.
During the cold war, China was way behind, thanks to the so-called "cultural revolution" of Mao. But it was never aligned with the USSR. By the mid 1950s, China and the USSR were drifting apart ideologically, and never did create a communist monolith.
Just two different evil empires. And today, much the same is true. Autocracies have their own agendas. If they find common ground in the short term, sooner or later, their irreconcilable interests will clash.
I mean, imagine the absurdity of today's Russia aligned with the theocracy of Iran's Khamenei regime. It makes no sense. Just as Putin's alliance with Kadyrov makes no sense. Putin's adventurism starting in 2008 has emboldened all the crazy regimes out there to puff out their chests in shows of self-important defiance of civilized behavior. But Islamists aligned with Russia? How so? Other than, a common interest in becoming a nuisance to the civilized world. The best outcome would be for these to create conflicts among themselves.
The funny thing about this, Xi seems not to understand how this could happen, even though he deliberately pisses other countries off, including Russia, with his dashed lines map. That's the weird thing about these autocrats. They make enemies and then can't understand why. They make up absurd excuses instead.
The USSR imploded on its own. So will this new alliance of misfits. I'd think it is instructive to see the lack of actual cohesion in the countries that made up the USSR and entire communist bloc of Europe. I mean, did the Warsaw Pact survive in any shape or form? No. The countries mostly went to NATO as soon as possible or are still aspiring to.
(By the way, was the old bipolarity truly ideological? I might suggest that the ideological part was window dressing. The communist regimes are necessarily run by dictatorships. They have to be authoritarian. So the bait they use, the dictator and his tiny group of elite will take care of all your needs. We provide you housing, jobs, everything you need, but you are held to total loyalty. The only winners are the elite and all those who are content parasites.)
Albert, you make some nice points:
During the cold war, China was way behind, thanks to the so-called "cultural revolution" of Mao. But it was never aligned with the USSR. By the mid 1950s, China and the USSR were drifting apart ideologically, and never did create a communist monolith.
Just two different evil empires. And today, much the same is true. Autocracies have their own agendas. If they find common ground in the short term, sooner or later, their irreconcilable interests will clash.
Talking about the old camping, although the camps were not absolutely ideological but definitely offered the coarse ideological nets. This is another issue that both the camps had autocracies inside, and it was strange that the bed painters too were strange at times. The alliances of opportunities it was.
The same thing happens with the new alignments, they are the outcome of necessity of the time, The US led NATO and Europe on the one hand, largely offering an ideological shape too pitched against a lump of autocracies, who have successfully collaborated for several decades. The Chinses claims to Russian land is not new, as soon as Rusia turns Sri Lanka, it will overcome the hurdle and occupy it like Tibet.
It will squeeze Russia economically first by reinforcing it against the US led combine.
But badly this has resulted in the emerging contours of a new 'democrat-autocrat binary regime' which challenges the multilateral order that could salvage itself off the burden of western dominance and turn genuinely multipolar and legitimate.
Harish,
The US led NATO and Europe on the one hand, largely offering an ideological shape too pitched against a lump of autocracies, who have successfully collaborated for several decades.
"Successfully collaborated" only in the sense of spreading terror, making themselves a royal pain the ass for civilized countries, not any more than that. Using the theocracies as example, as explained in this opinion piece, I think the same applies to Russia and China:
https://www.scmp.com/opinion/letters/article/3282537/why-some-arab-states-refuse-side-either-israel-or-iran
Letters | Why some Arab states refuse to side with either Israel or Iran
Readers discuss the deteriorating crisis in the Middle East and the implications of a wider conflict
Published: 11:30am, 17 Oct 2024
If ongoing wars escalate in the Middle East to the point where Iran gets more directly involved, some might expect countries united by religion and geography to stand with Tehran. However, the geopolitical fabric of the region is much more complicated than one would expect. If all-out war breaks out, Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are unlikely to support Iran at any cost to themselves.
Due in part to ideological differences and conflicting regional ambitions, some Arab governments view Iran as an adversary. Riyadh and Tehran have only recently begun to mend ties. After the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Saudi Arabia has pursued even closer ties with the United States. However, Arab nations won’t explicitly support Israel either.
Let's tell it like it is. Iranians are not Arabs and are also not Sunni. This should have been stated explicitly here.
One reason lies in Arab public opinion, which is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. If Arab governments explicitly support Israel in its war against the Palestinians, this could reduce the legitimacy of their leaders in the eyes of the public.
Of course, that much is true. The other side being, the Iranian people themselves are not equally dedicated to the Palestinian cause, even if Khamenei uses this as a pretext for spreading terror through his Arab and Zaidi proxy terrorist groups.
Second, in the event of a wider war directly involving Iran, governments supporting Israel could be seen as aggressors. While the US has backed the security interests of Iran’s neighbours, there is no guarantee it always will.
Another reason is geographical proximity to Iran. Arab nations would not want an immediate neighbour to turn aggressive. A full-scale regional war would be a burden on their treasuries. Moreover, given Iranian ties to Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah – groups that pose real or perceived challenges to Arab governments – it is best not to explicitly take sides.
By not fully siding with Iran, some Arab nations have not yet fallen out of the good books of Israel and the West. Similarly, by not fully siding with Israel, some of them have not invited too much trouble from Iran either. Such a posture is a very diplomatic and tactical move to safeguard their national interests within a region in crisis.
Here's another, more concise phrasing:
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/houthis-hezbollah-and-hamas-who-they-are-and-what-they-want/ar-AA1shs8p?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Both Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran have exploited the sectarian divide to further their ambitions, writes the Council on Foreign Relations, an independent US think tank. They are often on opposite sides in conflicts. “How their rivalry is settled will likely shape the political balance between Sunnis and Shiites and the future of the region, especially in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and Yemen.”
And there's no reason to believe anything will be "settled" anytime soon. These differences have existed for centuries, mired in ancient religious fervor.
The Chinses claims to Russian land is not new, as soon as Rusia turns Sri Lanka, it will overcome the hurdle and occupy it like Tibet.
Exactly.
The US has always felt a responsibility to defend Israel, from 1948 onward. I think that much is a common denominator. I certainly hope and trust that in the future spats between Russia and China, which are bound to happen, the US can shrug both of them off. Truly of no concern to the democracies of the world.
Or at least, they should be of no concern. That's why I insist, no one should ever trust autocracies (or theocracies). They'll do their own thing at the drop of a hat. So, let that not become a problem.
Albert
you say :
"Successfully collaborated" only in the sense of spreading terror, making themselves a royal pain the ass for civilized countries, not any more than that. Using the theocracies as example, as explained in this opinion piece, I think the same applies to Russia and China...
the point is not that collaboration over what and was it successful or not, the point is that how they carried on,
National interest is always at the top priority of a state, the realists would plan for that and the diplomatic and strategic means to acquire those interests,
Taken the other side, the US and company also collaborated successfully against the ideological block alias the 'authoritarian regimes alliance' but filed to collaborate for the sake of democracy as most of the US allies in developing world were authoritarian dictators. But the realist and then neo-realists dictated the policy.
If ongoing wars escalate in the Middle East to the point where Iran gets more directly involved, some might expect countries united by religion and geography to stand with Tehran. However, the geopolitical fabric of the region is much more complicated than one would expect. If all-out war breaks out, Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are unlikely to support Iran at any cost to themselves.
I don't think the Muslims will come together against Israel or US, they can't, at least this is what war technology says, Iran may and is having backing of the authoritarian alliance (Russia-China) but that is not going to help. It couls be another prolonged West Asia turmoil like Ukraine but no decisive conclusion could be made here.
UNLESS the multilateral multipolar regime, berefts of western or more clearly US dominance is established, the chaos and disorder is going to rule...
The new 'Authoririanism alliance' scares more since they it doesn't stand for values and ethics at all, if taken even in degree...
Harish,
Taken the other side, the US and company also collaborated successfully against the ideological block alias the 'authoritarian regimes alliance' but filed to collaborate for the sake of democracy as most of the US allies in developing world were authoritarian dictators. But the realist and then neo-realists dictated the policy.
"In the developing world," where collaboration is mostly economic, over natural resources, I'd like to see specific examples of which countries you are referring to. Because to me, most seem to be autocracies to varying degrees.
The BBC had a segment today on the way Russians are spreading lies to African countries in the Sahel region. That the US is doing biological experiments on Africans, that sort of thing. Just like with China, I'm pretty confident that these countries will wake up eventually. Some already are waking up. Anyway, these African countries are all authoritarian, are they not? Before and after they became bamboozled by Chinese or Russian propaganda.
UNLESS the multilateral multipolar regime, berefts of western or more clearly US dominance is established, the chaos and disorder is going to rule...
I just don't see this as "US dominance." I think the sore losers, those with inferiority complexes, call it that. Self-determination, the basic tenets of the UNDHR, that's not "US dominance." I'd call it, civilized behavior, as opposed to savagery.
This pretense that civilized behavior equates to "US dominance" is an excuse used by fundamentally self-centered, evil autocrats, to drum up support for their nefarious causes. Let's get real here. When China's and Russia's neighbors would more willingly align with the West than with the evil empire next door, they aren't doing so because they are being subjugated by "US dominance." They aren't being brainwashed by the CIA either. They are simply following their own interests.
Honesty first.
The new 'Authoririanism alliance' scares more since they it doesn't stand for values and ethics at all, if taken even in degree...
Exactly. They can put on a great show of virtue, by becoming signatories to whatever UN resolutions promoting civilized behavior, but when they don't follow through with civilized behavior, we can see plainly that they are frauds.
Putin has emboldened the frauds.
And speaking of frauds, this is today's glaring example. This is from Huffington Post. Sometimes, actually often, I truly wonder how these guys can say such dumb things with a straight face. Do the Russian people not know any of this?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-s-uk-ambassador-says-1-aspect-of-ukraine-war-is-worrying-kremlin/ar-AA1sB5UN?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=075641cbf7414c3eaa89ca2c9c308963&ei=11
Speaking to the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Andrey Kelin [Russian Ambassador to UK] slammed Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s supposed “victory plan,” which he has been presenting to Western allies, suggesting it was a concern.
The ambassador claimed: “What is worrying us is there is no peace in the peace plan presented by Zelenskyy. He did not want peace negotiations.
“He continues to ask for more and more Nato, European Union assistance, defence packages, anything. But nothing about negotiations at all.”
He continues to ask for more and more? Are you joking here? Russians don't think this is absurd? Putin never wanted to negotiate. First, he invades, no questions asked. Then, he expects capitulation.
Of course Ukraine will get NATO membership. Russia has proved, beyond any doubt, that Ukraine needs NATO membership, or they cease to exist.
And he doesn't stop here.
Kuenssberg also asked the ambassador about growing speculation that Russia is leaning on authoritarian states to prop up the war.
She said: “Are you comfortable, as an experienced diplomat of many decades, with having to rely on support from pariah states like North Korea and Iran?”
He said: “For you perhaps, it is pariah states – for us, it is normal people.”
Anyone who says such a stupid thing is clearly not "normal people." The weirdest flakes on the planet are hardly "normal people." Russia is turning this into a world war. The Koreans are there as combatants, not as non-combatant peacekeepers.
So this is what we are talking about, Harish. It's lunacy vs civilized behavior, not much more or less than that.
Kuenssberg then suggested: “Isn’t the truth here that you and Vladimir Putin are both sitting in grand luxury refusing to budge while thousands of civilians – Russians and Ukrainians – are suffering as a result of this conflict, which your government could bring to an end and yet you persist with it?”
He said the UK and its allies could end the war if they stopped aiding Ukraine, adding: “Stop the armament supplies, do it!”
Right. Ukraine must sacrifice itself to Russia, for the greater good, according to Kelin. Actually, I've finally seen this mentioned elsewhere, it will come down to NATO membership for Ukraine if they cede territory to Russia (for now). I think that's a decent peace plan. It will allow as many NATO troops into Ukraine as necessary. And then, wait for Russia to implode of its own dumb strategy. Then, based on results of a properly conducted national plebiscite, take the rest of the territory back.
Kelin also used the interview to claim the UK is waging a proxy war against Russia by supporting Ukraine, even though Putin ordered the invasion of the neighbouring European country back in 2022.
“You think we’re at war with your country?” Kuenssberg pushed.
He replied: “I think you are aggressive, that you are waging a proxy war against Russia.”
Russia uses this proxy war crap to explain why it isn't successful at something it thought would take only two days. It's a way of saving face. Over half a million casualties for its idiocy.
My plan of more than two years would have stopped this Russian abomination. Introduce NATO peacekeepers, blue hats and all, not combatant troops like North Korea is doing (because Russia cannot even defend its own territory), and suck the oxygen out of Putin's war of aggression.
Here's my overarching idea of what this authoritarian vs civility debate comes down to.
You get the autocratic regimes, led by communist Maoist China and the USSR, they fall apart. If you listen to them, this was some sort of humiliation, that "the US won." I don't see it that way at all.
There's no way "the US won." The US and its allies simply watched as the bad regimes imploded. Imploded of their own bad policies, I should add, hardly imploded for any overt action by the US and allies.
This should be even greater humiliation. To defend from being more humiliated, the regimes claim, "the US won," back then.
So now, to regain their standing(?), both of these countries repeat their previous mistakes. Now they don't have any special "spheres" determined by the outcomes of WWII, so instead, they try to remanufacture those "spheres" by force.
Problem is, their neighbors don't want to hear of them. At most, in the case of Asian countries especially, also shamefully Hungary and Turkey, such neighbors want to keep both sides placated, as much as possible. They want to be able to exploit both sides, but without becoming subjugated by the autocrats. An opportunistic balancing act.
Just pay attention which regimes are firmly on the side of the bad guys. It's quite inescapable where the maladjusted ones are. Just be honest.
ALbert,
"In the developing world," where collaboration is mostly economic, over natural resources, I'd like to see specific examples of which countries you are referring to. Because to me, most seem to be autocracies to varying degrees.
There is a long history of US support towards autocracies:
During the Cold War (1947-1991), the United States frequently allied with dictators and autocratic regimes as part of its broader strategy to contain the spread of communism and counter Soviet influence. This pragmatic approach, driven by geopolitical considerations, led the U.S. to support leaders who did not necessarily share its democratic values, provided they were anti-communist. The rationale was often grounded in the belief that stability, even if achieved through authoritarian means, was preferable to the expansion of communist ideology.
The Cold War was primarily a conflict of ideologies, pitting Western capitalist democracies, led by the United States, against Eastern communist states, led by the Soviet Union. In this context, the U.S. sought to contain communism through various strategies, including military alliances, economic aid, covert operations, and political support for regimes that could help maintain a global balance of power favorable to the West. This led to alliances with autocratic rulers who could provide stability or strategic advantages in key regions.
Chile and Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990): The U.S. played a significant role in supporting the military coup in Chile that overthrew the democratically elected socialist president, Salvador Allende, in 1973. The U.S. feared Allende’s Marxist policies would align Chile with the Soviet Union. General Augusto Pinochet, who took power, ruled Chile with an iron fist, suppressing political opposition, curtailing civil liberties, and engaging in human rights abuses. Despite this, the U.S. provided support for his regime due to its anti-communist stance and economic reforms that aligned with neoliberal principles.
Nicaragua and the Somoza Dynasty (1936-1979): The Somoza family ruled Nicaragua as a military dictatorship for several decades, with close support from the United States. The Somozas were seen as reliable anti-communist allies during World War II and the early Cold War. Despite their corruption and repression, the U.S. provided military and economic aid to sustain the regime, until the Sandinista revolution overthrew it in 1979.
Guatemala and the 1954 Coup: The CIA orchestrated a coup to overthrow the democratically elected government of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala, fearing that his land reform policies had communist sympathies. Following the coup, the U.S. supported a series of military dictatorships that were responsible for severe human rights violations, including massacres during the Guatemalan Civil War.
Iran and the Shah (1953-1979): The U.S., along with the British, orchestrated a coup in 1953 to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized Iran's oil industry. The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was reinstated with U.S. support and ruled as an authoritarian monarch. He used his secret police, SAVAK, to suppress dissent. The U.S. continued to support the Shah because of his anti-communist stance and Iran's strategic significance as an oil-rich ally in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia: The U.S. maintained a strong alliance with the autocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia throughout the Cold War. The relationship was primarily driven by the kingdom's vast oil reserves and its strategic location. Despite the lack of democratic governance and numerous human rights concerns, the U.S. provided security assurances and arms sales to the Saudi regime in exchange for its support in countering Soviet influence in the region.
Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (1965-1997): Following the Congo Crisis and the assassination of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba (with alleged U.S. involvement), Mobutu Sese Seko took power in a military coup and established a kleptocratic dictatorship in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo). Mobutu was a staunch anti-communist, and the U.S. provided substantial military and financial aid despite his regime's corruption and human rights abuses.
Apartheid South Africa: The U.S. maintained relatively close ties with the apartheid government of South Africa, primarily because of its anti-communist stance. Although the U.S. did eventually impose some sanctions on South Africa in response to domestic and international pressure, the relationship during much of the Cold War was marked by strategic cooperation in areas such as intelligence-sharing and military planning.
South Korea under Syngman Rhee (1948-1960) and Park Chung-hee (1961-1979): South Korea's first president, Syngman Rhee, ruled as a quasi-dictator, cracking down on dissent and manipulating elections. Following Rhee, Park Chung-hee took power in a military coup and ruled as an authoritarian leader, implementing economic policies that spurred rapid development but restricted political freedoms. U.S. support for these regimes was based on the imperative of containing communism on the Korean Peninsula.
The Philippines and Ferdinand Marcos (1965-1986): Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972 and ruled as a dictator until his ousting in 1986. During his regime, the U.S. maintained strong support, providing military aid and backing his government because of the Philippines' strategic location in the Pacific and its utility as a base for U.S. military operations in Asia.
3. Motivations Behind U.S. Alliances with Authoritarian Regimes
Several factors motivated U.S. support for dictators during the Cold War:
Containment of Communism: The primary goal of U.S. foreign policy was to contain the spread of communism. This often meant supporting regimes that were willing to adopt anti-communist policies, regardless of their domestic governance.
Strategic Locations and Resources: Many authoritarian regimes controlled territories of strategic geopolitical importance or had valuable resources like oil. Ensuring friendly relations with such countries was seen as crucial to U.S. security and economic interests.
Economic Interests and Ideological Alignment: In some cases, autocratic leaders embraced economic policies that were in line with U.S. capitalist ideologies, such as free-market reforms, which further cemented the relationship.
The U.S. alliance with dictators during the Cold War has been heavily criticized for the following reasons:
Human Rights Abuses: Many of the regimes supported by the U.S. engaged in widespread human rights violations, including torture, arbitrary arrests, and suppression of political freedoms. This often undermined the U.S.’s credibility as a promoter of democracy and human rights.
Long-term Instability: In some cases, U.S. support for authoritarian regimes contributed to long-term instability. For example, the overthrow of Iran's Mossadegh in 1953 and the subsequent support for the Shah set the stage for the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
Blowback: The consequences of U.S. actions sometimes led to anti-American sentiment and backlash. This "blowback" phenomenon was evident in regions where the U.S. was perceived as supporting oppressive rulers, leading to increased hostility toward American policies.
The recent withdrawals from Afghanistan, role in Syria and Middle East also questions US role in world politics. Now since India is turning out to be a powerful economy QWest is for another conspiracy hatching including Canada to discredit a growing economic.
The conversation so far seems to lean toward a journalistic perspective. My focus, however, is on exploring the scientific dynamics between “democracy and authoritarianism.” The physical laws of nature serve as a common thread that unites all of humanity. Science could act as a catalyst among a nation's scholars, steering their culture toward a more rational and enlightened path.
A quote from the above post titled, “The new ‘Democracy-Authoritarianism binary’ ….”:
“Unlike the Cold War, where the conflict was based on economic and ideological systems (capitalism vs. communism), this current division centers around political values and governance models (democracy vs. authoritarianism), with countries aligning themselves along these lines.”
A quote from one of Albert’s replies:
“So this is what we are talking about, Harish. It's lunacy vs civilized behavior, not much more or less than that.”
It’s all about civility! A narrative from my book Global Civility: Physical Constructal Law:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D5Z2SQBN
The mechanics of evolution depends on the duality of nature. Without this duality, there can be no evolution: democracy vs. authoritarianism, liberty vs. tyranny, positive vs. negative, lunacy vs civilized, yin vs. yang, and so on.
According to the physical Constructal Law (the latest discovered law in thermodynamics):
“For a finite flow system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.”
The currents of a civil society flow toward harmony through a form of democratic process, often achieved by consensus, shaping the evolution of culture, language, and moral codes. In contrast, the currents of governance flows toward the power to rule by means of an oligarchy known as the “Iron Law of Oligarchy.” This process has been going on throughout recorded history.
During the Enlightenment, the concept of a "republic" emerged from the philosophy of Charles de Montesquieu. A republic is governed by the rule of law, as outlined in its constitution. Many governments claim to be republics, to mention a few, such as the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), North Korea’s Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), People’s Republic of China, and the United States, as defined in its constitution. However, the key difference between these republics lies in the nature of their constitutions and how they interpret the rule of law. Even republics are subject to the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” via the physical Constructal Law.
It is crucial to grasp the omnipotence of the physical laws of nature in the mechanics of evolution, including social and economic dynamics. Civility serves as the foundation for any form of governance to act as a civil partner within a civil society. This is a fundamental truth in the evolutionary cycle, where the duality of nature seems to oscillate between utopia and dystopia. As society becomes more civil, its government and industries will naturally follow. It is all about global civility—not globalism; there's a big difference!
Plato argued that the ruling body should be made up of the wisest and most virtuous members of society.
John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
If you've read my book, you likely experienced a mind-altering shift while exploring the physical Constructal Law across various domains—animate, inanimate, philosophical, social, economic, and even the downfall of Marx’s philosophy, and so on. This exploration resonates uniquely with each reader. Subconsciously, you’ve been transformed, and you will instinctively begin to view the social domain through the lens of nature’s omnipotent forces. This newfound perspective should positively influence your life going forward, impacting those around you and contributing to the broader path toward global civility.
War and peace, love and hate, are integral to the mechanics of social evolution—they exist within the duality of nature and cannot be entirely eradicated. However, understanding the Constructal Law can positively influence civility, making war and hate less destructive and less bloody.
Civility is the cornerstone of freedom, moving in direct opposition to authoritarianism. Students worldwide should be required to take an introductory course in philosophy—the "love of wisdom." After all, everyone holds their own philosophy, and there is always room for more wisdom, especially in the civil application of the physical laws of nature.
On a side note, I am concerned about the direction of civility in the U.S. As a society becomes less civil, its leaders inevitably follow.
Harish, these are generalities that could benefit from more specific considerations, as every case has its unique circumstances.
Containment of Communism: The primary goal of U.S. foreign policy was to contain the spread of communism. This often meant supporting regimes that were willing to adopt anti-communist policies, regardless of their domestic governance.
During the cold war, yes, this did happen with developing countries, to stop the so-called domino effect. Another factor was the threat to nationalize the assets of US companies operating in those countries, which threat came from the leftie contenders invariably. This specifically applies to two examples you give, Mossadegh and Pinochet. I'm not terribly hard over on this, because if the US-supported regime was less than stellar, the opposing parties were frequently even worse. But I agree, and many people in the US thought so even at the time, support for unpalatable regimes was unsavory.
It would have been best to just stay away entirely and to let the lefty regimes grab whatever US and other western assets they wanted, stop doing business with them, and then let them implode on their own. It's a matter perhaps of not having the "courage of your convictions." It might have taken a good 45 years, but we saw how the lefty extremists went under, without needing any direct action from the US. Romania, Christmas 1989, I'll never forget.
Economic Interests and Ideological Alignment: In some cases, autocratic leaders embraced economic policies that were in line with U.S. capitalist ideologies, such as free-market reforms, which further cemented the relationship.
And vice versa, regimes supported by the USSR. Right? It's hardly a mystery, the extent to which the Soviets tried to influence political parties in western Europe, after WWII and until the collapse of that empire.
Leaving aside the vague generalities:
Long-term Instability: In some cases, U.S. support for authoritarian regimes contributed to long-term instability. For example, the overthrow of Iran's Mossadegh in 1953 and the subsequent support for the Shah set the stage for the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
The lesson being, the ayatollahs saw the opportunity to take control. All I'm saying, let's not make assumptions. Many times, when Iranian people are interviewed on the BBC, the women (especially) remember with much nostalgia the days when they weren't persecuted the way they have been since this revolution. It's not clear to me at all, what would have happened back in 1953, had Mossadegh succeeded. Could have been as it was in 1979.
The recent withdrawals from Afghanistan, role in Syria and Middle East also questions US role in world politics.
Again, listing a bunch of names, vaguely, as if they are all the same, is not very convincing. The Afghanistan's campaign's original purpose, to eradicate the Al Qaeda training camps, was legitimate enough. They were spreading terror in the civilized world for decades. The subsequent "nation building" effort was bound to fail. JWB should have done his due diligence research on the matter. The instability was caused by internal sectarian violence, which the GWB white house should have predicted easily enough. Ditto in Iraq. The two worst possible examples of countries where someone else's "regime change" could possibly have succeeded.
In Syria, come now. The Russians should have taken the lead, to control Assad's excesses. But yes, I'll agree, hands off, and then let the more reasonable Syrians whine about how "the world has forgotten us." There is a tiny contingent of US troops in Syria. Look it up, many are not at all eager to see them leave.
Now since India is turning out to be a powerful economy QWest is for another conspiracy hatching including Canada to discredit a growing economic.
If India is becoming a big deal, best obey the international conventions, eh? You don't send assassins to other countries to do your dirty work in those other countries, and then expect to be free of backlash. You cannot talk about US meddling in other countries and expect to get away without similar backlash yourselves.
The Russians and the North Koreans play those games. India should refrain. Or are we now going to hear about "how Canada tries to keep India down"?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/world/canada/arrests-hardeep-singh-nijjar-india.html#:~:text=Three%20Indian%20men%20were%20charged%20in%20the%20brazen,the%20government%20of%20India%E2%80%9D%20for%20orchestrating%20the%20shooting.
And for what it's worth, I can't imagine a country less likely to make up stories like this, than Canada. Do you really want to make up a fairytale that Canada is jealous of India's economy? Come now.
Michael,
Thing is, I know you try to weave your "constructal law" (which is philosophy and not a physical law), and "civility" in every debate. The problem is, this becomes an exercise in clever turns of phrase. Some might be more willing to embrace the points than others.
Constructal law claims "go with the flow." But the flow direction will vary, when energy is added into the system. And "civility" is a function of culture. What's considered civil in one society can well be barbarism to someone else.
So, I much prefer to look at the articles of the UNDHR, which seem rather self-evident, and which many countries at least pretend to accept, and then use those to define civilized behavior of civilized regimes. Others don't need to follow those articles, but at least that's a definition that has some measure of rigor.
Furthermore, listen to the people of the country. If those people demand to be governed by medieval superstitions, you let them do so. Constructal law or otherwise, our definition of civil or not, they should be free to live that way, as long as they don't pretend to export their weirdness across borders.
If the people of other countries prefer a philosophy different from our own, we don't have to do business with them, but we should let them be. Secular humanism.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moldovas-eu-referendum-goes-wire-after-sandu-decries-vote-meddling-2024-10-21/
Moldova's Sandu secures knife-edge EU vote win after 'unfair fight'
By Tom Balmforth and Alexander Tanas
October 21, 20242:33 PM EDTUpdated 6 hours ago
CHISINAU, Oct 21 (Reuters) - President Maia Sandu said on Monday Moldovans had won a "first battle in a difficult fight" for their future, a day after a slim majority of 50.46% backed EU accession in a referendum that was clouded by allegations of Russia-backed meddling.
The knife-edge finish was a shock for supporters of Sandu, who had hoped the vote would deliver a firm message of intent to bring the ex-Soviet agricultural economy into the European Union by 2030 and leave Moscow's orbit for good. ...
In a presidential election held alongside the referendum, Sandu won 42.45%, short of the 50% needed to win outright and paving the way for a Nov. 3 runoff against former prosecutor-general Alexandr Stoianoglo, who won 25.98%.
Earlier, Sandu, 52, had told Moldovans there was "clear evidence" that criminal groups backed by "foreign forces hostile to our national interests" had aimed to buy off 300,000 votes.
"Criminal groups... have attacked our country with tens of millions of euros, lies and propaganda, using the most disgraceful means to keep our citizens and our nation trapped in uncertainty and instability," she said.
Much like the case in Ukraine, Georgia, maybe Armenia, and many other ex-Soviet or iron curtain countries, listen to the people, they remember the Soviet era. Not with fondness. And Putin is bringing back those days.
Apparently, they have gathered clear evidence of Russian attempts to bribe people to vote their way, with monetary compensation. I hope that evidence is made public, at some point. Although the result of the Sandu vs Stoianogio race is pretty clear evidence, Moldavans largely want to join the EU, not Russia.
Funny thing being, the likes of Putin, Medvedev, Peskov, they seem to think that it's not their own words and deeds that cause this.
(Which brings to mind, I've always thought it was ridiculous how the Biden administration keeps fretting "don't humiliate Russia." As if sending the bare minimum of weapons to Ukraine would make Putin so grateful that he would stop his madness. Putin won't stop, damn it. By 2022, that should have been common knowledge. Moldova and Georgia are certainly next on the list.)
Dear Michael T Takac,
Understanding the democracy-autocracy binary or global bipolarity through the lens of the Constructal Law offers an intriguing analogy for political systems. Constructal Law, proposed by Adrian Bejan in 1996, describes how natural systems evolve to facilitate the most efficient flow of resources, energy, or information. According to this theory, everything in nature, from river basins to social structures, evolves in a way that optimizes the flow of elements (such as energy or materials) within them. When applied to political systems, this law can provide insights into why certain forms of governance emerge, thrive, or collapse.
You observe:
The currents of a civil society flow toward harmony through a form of democratic process, often achieved by consensus, shaping the evolution of culture, language, and moral codes. In contrast, the currents of governance flows toward the power to rule by means of an oligarchy known as the “Iron Law of Oligarchy.” This process has been going on throughout recorded history.
Well, the flow of nature that carries the binaries of nature, though, governance and freedom together only validate, then the existence of bipolarity which is but natural and there is nothing wrong with the autocrats, since they originate from the same Constructal laws. Still, the question of morality and ethics that brings the values of goodness remain unsettled because as per your argument the negatives like autocracy or governance that limits human freedom are the outcome of CL.
Albert,
Much like the case in Ukraine, Georgia, maybe Armenia, and many other ex-Soviet or iron curtain countries, listen to the people, they remember the Soviet era. Not with fondness. And Putin is bringing back those days.
Acceding to EU may become a trend with smaller European states in view of the weakened multilateral order and UN agencies.
Don't you think this process will further reinforce the rise of old alliance system around NATO against the growth of Russia Chiana alliance, which scares the global south and smaller states more, since they have been targeted like Ukraine and may be targeted in the future.
Dear Harish K Thakur
“Still, the question of morality and ethics that brings the values of goodness remain unsettled because as per your argument the negatives like autocracy or governance that limits human freedom are the outcome of CL [Constructal Law].”
In the Morality chapter of my book, I explore the mechanics of CL in the evolution of morality. The following short conference article served as the foundation for my book's composition. Please review Section 6 of the article:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356475384_THE_SCIENCE_OF_RIGHTS
In the Morality chapter of my book, I delve deeper into the works of various philosophers, including Arthur Schopenhauer’s, The World as Will and Representation. I also introduce a new term I’ve coined: "Deterministic Freedom."
Here are the last two paragraphs from the Morality chapter:
“In conclusion, the physical constructal law represents the inherent “Will” of nature governing flow systems to “evolve freely,” enabling them to progress towards new configurations. Across vast timescales, these configurations evolve into living systems driven by the pursuit of positive feedback and improvement, culminating in the emergence of consciousness and a sense of “universal morality” within group formations. This intricate process persists in the evolution of human social systems, fostering civility and promoting ethical conduct, propelling humanity’s Deterministic Freedom to new levels within the matrix.
Where is Deterministic Freedom taking us? Perhaps towards freedom from destructive wars, and ultimately, freedom over the matrix. In other words, our struggles should be less with humanity and more with nature.”
In my book, I use the term "matrix" to describe a domain that transcends spacetime, drawing from the research of Nima Arkani-Hamed and others who explore realms beyond quantum and spacetime.
https://www.cornell.edu/video/nima-arkani-hamed-spacetime-is-doomed
What is universal morality? I don't think you'll find universal agreement, even if some aspects of moral codes might be similar. There are other aspects of moral codes that are completely opposite, right? To give a really banal but realistic example, is pedophilia moral or immoral? Too clearly, people will disagree.
And, "freedom from destructive wars" is a little bit like "freedom from climate change." Everyone thinks they are all in favor, until they are given the options to achieve such goals.
Wars happen when you have conflicting interests that mere talk won't resolve. Putin's war happens because in his COVID lockdown brooding, he has decided that Ukraine cannot be allowed to exist as a sovereign country. It's rather trite to say that war must be banned, unless you also say that the Putins of the world should always get their way. Or unless you find some magical way to prevent a Putin from ever having the power to make such decisions as he has made.
Constructal law -> go with the flow, capitulate to Putin.
And this is just parenthetic:
Positive feedback is destabilizing. An example of positive feedback might be, the cruise control in your car notices that the car's speed has increased, with no application of throttle, as the car is rolling down a hill.
If the cruise control is mis-programmed with positive feedback, the increasing speed of the car will cause the cruise control to add more throttle. Speed change positive, throttle change also positive.
Instead, negative feedback is stabilizing. Speed change positive, throttle change negative, attempting to keep the car's speed constant. And vice versa when going up a hill, or with strong headwinds.
In less technical terms, positive feedback would be exemplified by politicians prone to saying stupid things., Thay make some ridiculous, unworkable promise, they get all the applause and admiration. Which only serves to make that politician make even more ridiculous and unworkable promises.
"Feedback" is a term from systems analysis. The "feedback signal" is a signal at the output side which is partially fed back into the input side. Positive feedback is when the sign of that output signal is kept the same, when added to the input signal. Negative feedback is when the sign of the output signal is reversed, when added to the input signal.
Harish,
Don't you think this process will further reinforce the rise of old alliance system around NATO against the growth of Russia Chiana alliance, which scares the global south and smaller states more, since they have been targeted like Ukraine and may be targeted in the future.
Yes, although I'm not sure which old alliances you are referring to. It sounds like a trick question.
For countries which cherish their sovereignty as a country, I'd say that existing or new alliances which support that goal will grow stronger.
Then you have the corner cases, like Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, in which some percentage of the population do not cherish the sovereign country status. As long as borders are well defined, and they are now, the most "constructal" way to resolve that, let the malcontents move to Russia.
People like Putin are far from honorable, though. They won't take such simple steps. Xi is doing similar things. Less than honorable people exist.
Examples of more honorable behavior.
In 1947, the Sicilian Mafia boss Salvatore Giuliano, and his merry band of separatists, wanted Sicily to become the 49th state of the US:
https://www.ft.com/content/19da4854-1f57-4ff0-8e07-08b0a5b3345c?shareType=nongift
In 1947, four years after the Americans arrived, Giuliano wrote a letter to the then US President Truman (rumoured to have been hand-delivered by Michael Stern, the American journalist who interviewed him for True magazine) asking him to consider annexing Sicily to the US. The request was rejected: Alaska became the US’s 49th state.
Well, naturally, President Truman ignored the request. He did not invade Sicily.
Or, when the Cuban exiles failed to re-take Cuba from Castro at the Bay of Pigs, Cuban refugees unwilling to submit to the Castro regime were given easy resident status in the US, if they set foot on a US beach. The US did not go to war and invade Cuba.
Albert,
1. Yes, although I'm not sure which old alliances you are referring to. It sounds like a trick question.
2. For countries which cherish their sovereignty as a country, I'd say that existing or new alliances which support that goal will grow stronger.
My reference was to old cold war blocks and the alliances in trail. Yes, this is a possibility with the growth of China and Russia as the probable opponent block lining behind the states like North Korea, Iran, Pakistan. Even the role of Turkey is under scanner.
There is another probability that while the NATO and few states would toe Russo-Chinses alliance, most of the other/middle powers like India, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil, Safrica would follow their own middle path. They may act as intermediaries between the two blocks. The growth of NAM and G 20 also keep the better prospects alive.
The point number 2 we all know that there is no country that doesn't love freedom and sovereignty to act. But there is challenge to these sovereignties from the blocks, more from the autocratic club. The more the US and allies work for a just multilateral order more the possibility of a successful future order.
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-middle-path-for-india-in-the-new-world-disorder/article65479476.ece
Dear Michael,
You observe:
“In conclusion, the physical constructal law represents the inherent “Will” of nature governing flow systems to “evolve freely,” enabling them to progress towards new configurations. Across vast timescales, these configurations evolve into living systems driven by the pursuit of positive feedback and improvement, culminating in the emergence of consciousness and a sense of “universal morality” within group formations. This intricate process persists in the evolution of human social systems, fostering civility and promoting ethical conduct, propelling humanity’s Deterministic Freedom to new levels within the matrix.
Well so far as the explanation provided by the model of constructal law is concerned, there is no dispute. Its flow system and universal pattern uniformity is fine.
However, certain points make its functioning difficult:
It is difficult to find uniform patterns universally in human nature, behaviors and cultures. While universal morality may smoothen the conflicting zones of thought it doesn't provide solid solutions like constructal laws do in physics.
E.g. if an autocratic system is natural, since it has similar origins like that of democratic, as the CL theory goes, there is less scope for the accommodation of freedom and democratic rights in an autocratic world. If yes, in what way CL explains that situation since its ambiguity over supporting both the systems or the give binary in question, make it difficult, in fact impossible.
Dear Harish K Thakur and Albert Manfredi
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Stanford University) addressed the concept of a “universal morality”:
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/morality-definition/
“What ‘morality’ is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take ‘morality’ to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. This descriptive use of ‘morality’ is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists ([Jonathan] Haidt, [Marc] Hauser, [Frans] de Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. ‘Morality’ has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.”
The Constructal Law (CL):
“For a finite flow system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.”
The concept of universal morality relative to the flow of entities in the directional currents of harmony. That is, for the positive interacting flow between entities to persist in time (to live), they must evolve freely such that they provide greater access to the currents of harmony resulting in the configuration of genetics and/or a subjective code of conduct sustaining the coherence of a group. Group norms relative to a universal morality, whether genetic and/or social, seem to represent the CL nature found in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and so on. Interspecies’ morality may be the perceived bidirectional positive feedback between humans and their pets. Hence, the evolution of group formation, genetic and/or social, via CL.
Dear Albert Manfredi
I often use the terms "Positive" and "Negative," to represent "Good" and "Bad" respectively.
In systems analysis, particularly regarding oscillation, positive feedback is necessary to reach a resonant frequency. Nature contains numerous cycles, each occurring at different and varying frequencies.
The car's speed control example in your reply demonstrates positive feedback with a damping function to prevent excessive oscillation in the speed control system, allowing it to detect and adjust to the frequency of the road's highs and lows as the vehicle moves forward.
Without oscillations in nature there will be no evolution.
Dear Michael,
In "Constructal Law of Institutions within Social Organizations"
L.O. Freire and D. Alves de Andrade observe about morality:
"Moralism is the impetus of imitating the group etiquette and imposing it on others. Individuals with brains integrating strong moralism have superior survivability in harsh environments. The reason is that knowledge accumulates over time, allowing individuals profit of procedures whose reason they may not know. However, if established procedures become inadequate, this group may either perish of change its behavior".
Moralism has the threads of dominance, jealousy and vanity which contradict the flow of uniformity. How does a political system where governance occurs in consonance with flow or constructal pattern differentiate between negative and positive or good or bad governance.
The quest remains.
Dear Michael,
You observe:
"In systems analysis, particularly regarding oscillation, positive feedback is necessary to reach a resonant frequency. Nature contains numerous cycles, each occurring at different and varying frequencies"
If a car runs at an adverse speed not good for safety, although breaks are there inside, that doesn't help unless a driver applies it.
Similarly, if a driver is autocrat and ruins peoples' right how he can be checked by system or CL when he/she is not willing to turn democrat or balance the system in accordance with the negative feedback it receives.
The question remains, how individual will could be synchronized with state will.
Dear Harish K Thakur
“Moralism is the impetus of imitating the group etiquette and imposing it on others. Individuals with brains integrating strong moralism have superior survivability in harsh environments.
...
How does a political system where governance occurs in consonance with flow or constructal pattern differentiate between negative and positive or good or bad governance.
The quest remains.”
The "superior" naturally forms hierarchies over the less-superior, a structure that reflects the principles of the physical Constructal Law (CL). Hierarchies are evident throughout the universe, in both animate and inanimate systems, as signatures of CL. Morality evolves alongside language and culture, both of which follow patterns similar to the branching structures of the Language Tree, another expression of CL. Whether governance is seen as good or bad depends on the observer's perspective, but all forms of governance inherently form hierarchies, which again reflect the underlying signature of CL.
“The quest remains.” Very true, the quest is evolution (CL).
As for your second reply:
“The question remains, how individual will could be synchronized with state will.”
The mapping of Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of unalienable rights (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) to CL:
“For a finite flow system to persist in time (to live) [Life], it must evolve freely [Liberty] such that it provides greater access [pursuit] to its currents [Happiness, positive feedback for life, as in survival for example].”
The German lyric poet Johann Christian Friedrich Hölderlin (1770-1843) once said, “What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.”
An institutional entity striving for civility, within its foundation should support Constructalism—the axiom of unalienable rights, an ethical application of CL—a transforming paradigm for the human social condition.
Hypothetically, if Hölderlin had read this reply, he may have published the following: What has always made the state a joy on earth has been precisely that man has liberty in the moral pursuit of his own heaven (happiness).
The will of the state should be synchronized with the will of a civil society relative to its language, culture, and moral code.
Take for example the language, culture, and moral code of Italy out surviving all its different forms of government in recorded history.
Today, Italy operates as a republic, just like other nations such as China, Russia, North Korea, and the U.S. If all these republics were to adopt the principles outlined in the Bill of Rights from the U.S. Constitution—designed to protect the unalienable rights of its citizens—this would align with the concept of Constructalism, which mirrors the natural laws of flow in nature via CL. Such an alignment would represent a significant step toward achieving global civility, a central theme in my book Global Civility.
The issue is that the world, including the U.S., is largely unaware of CL as it applies to social systems. Even U.S. institutions of government fail to recognize that the Bill of Rights embodies the moral application of CL—a fundamental law of nature. In fact, many progressives in U.S. government view Jefferson’s philosophy of unalienable rights as outdated. Former progressive President Woodrow Wilson even expressed this sentiment, in his book Constitutional Government in the United States, illustrating a shift away from these foundational principles by the following quote:
“No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.”
In the U.S. today, the will of the state is being imposed on the will of the people, exemplifying the Iron Law of Oligarchy through the CL in the evolution of government. This cycle continually repeats, as the CL of the state and the CL of society interact. Historically, however, the CL of society has outlasted that of the state, revealing a broader pattern in the endurance of social systems over the life of a government.
Once academia recognizes the omnipotent forces of CL in social systems, the evolutionary dynamic between the state and society could shift toward a new paradigm.
Michael,
If you're talking systems analysis, feedback signals, then "positive" does not mean "good," it means mathematically +. And "negative" does not mean "bad, it means mathematically -.
The car's speed control example in your reply demonstrates positive feedback with a damping function to prevent excessive oscillation in the speed control system, allowing it to detect and adjust to the frequency of the road's highs and lows as the vehicle moves forward.
There is no positive feedback, there is no intended oscillation. Circuits such as those used in cruise control always seek to reach the intended state, without oscillation. If the circuit overshoots or undershoots, the negative feedback brings it back where it needs to be. Positive feedback is not used.
Oscillator circuits are a separate breed. Those do relay on time-limited positive feedback, to create the oscillation. If the time is not correctly limited, the circuit will just into saturation, or zero, and stay there indefinitely.
Michael,
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/morality-definition/
“What ‘morality’ is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take ‘morality’ to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings.
That's the point. In demonstrable practice, morality in different societies is not universal.
One entirely obvious reason why is the fabricated religious truths that different groups of humans live by. They might easily argue that those religious truths allow them "to live in harmony." And yet, outside that religion, other people might find some of the practices to be inhuman.
Every single religion is created by humans. Every one of those "truths" is created by humans. The consequent moral code is therefore entirely dependent on the principles of each religion, separately, not likely to be always compatible.
I mean, if you insist, there are many undeniable examples of this that we could elaborate with.
"Constructal" does not change this state of affairs. Whatever "flow" you think should happen, it may very well not happen as you expect. Reason being, the moral code will redirect that "flow."
Harish,
There is another probability that while the NATO and few states would toe Russo-Chinses alliance, most of the other/middle powers like India, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil, Safrica would follow their own middle path. They may act as intermediaries between the two blocks. The growth of NAM and G 20 also keep the better prospects alive.
I really think it boils down to the way countries which are not constrained to only be in a specific "bloc" end up doing what is best for themselves. And to do that, they have to trade in an atmosphere of cooperation with other countries.
India and China reached economic success only for that reason. Vietnam and Malaysia, and Singapore, are doing exactly the same thing. That's not by obediently staying in a bloc that they have been constrained into
And to me, this is the world order post 1991.
Russia misbehaves egregiously, it gets isolated. The BRICS summit is showing no deviation from this, that I can tell. On the contrary, BRICS is showing that the more successful countries in this BRICS group are not about to alienate the West and to pledge allegiance to Russia/Putin. Why would they?
During the cold war, they had to. When the cold war ended, those previously constrained countries wanted to join the rest of the world.
Look at Vietnam. Perfect example. They are hardly limited to the old communist monolith. No one had to formally invite them to the "western bloc." They just got there because they want to trade.
Done. New world order. Putin tries to prove himself, by creating a new jealous little bloc, but he's failing.
Dear Albert Manfredi
After reading your responses, I see we're on the same page regarding feedback. However, when it comes to the evolution of a subjective moral code through the Constructal Law, you're not quite there yet. You might find my book insightful on this topic.
Dear Michael and Albert,
There are some fundamental questions associated ere wit CL properties:
A- The will of the state should be synchronized with the will of a civil society relative to its language, culture, and moral code.
B- The "superior" naturally forms hierarchies over the less-superior, a structure that reflects the principles of the physical Constructal Law (CL). Hierarchies are evident throughout the universe, in both animate and inanimate systems, as signatures of CL.
In case of statement A the will of individual is not always the will of society - free will and liberty has normally clashed with social norms.,
The whole story of classical liberalism and welfare politics and socialism is the outcome of this dual. The other side question of Adma Mith's invisible hand is looking for the role of nature in balancing the individual Values, like CL but hasn't met the answer yet.
The role of state or superior physical force is always mandatory to regulate the nature's flow or the unnatural things happen, the power of the autocrat against the will of man and so on...
The statement that superior naturally make hierarchies is prone to the entry of negative, the autocrat, the lion, the dictator, against the free will of the socity.
The use of physical could be superior in case of animal but not in the case humans.
The CL doesn't provide an answer here.
Dear Albert,
Russia misbehaves egregiously, it gets isolated. The BRICS summit is showing no deviation from this, that I can tell. On the contrary, BRICS is showing that the more successful countries in this BRICS group are not about to alienate the West and to pledge allegiance to Russia/Putin. Why would they?
The problem with authoritarian regimes is that they are not law abiding and rule-based order following.
They violate these norms to the detriment of other states, smaller especially as in case of Crimea and Ukraine, Taiwan, Philippines, magnolia.
The UNCLOS and ICJ judgement that China refuses to accept has shown the vulnerability of the UN and its agencies.
Onn the other hand, they won't allow new entrants into UNSC to survive their dominance, which has led to the rise of parallel organizations globally.
BRICS and SCO the two large organizations are again under the control of China and Russia and might challenge EU and US role in the time to come...
Dear Harish K Thakur
“The statement that superior naturally make hierarchies is prone to the entry of negative, the autocrat, the lion, the dictator, against the free will of the socity.
The use of physical could be superior in case of animal but not in the case humans.
The CL doesn't provide an answer here.”
The physical Constructal Law (CL)—the law of evolution—is the “answer.” Everything evolves within a changing universe driven by the flow of entropy production.
We have “free will,” which is not the same as freedom, for we are bound by the matrix of nature's physical laws. I coined the term “Deterministic Freedom” (DF) to describe how both animate and inanimate seeks freedom within a universe of resistance. Generally, dynamic pathways of freedom and resistance coexist, where flows tend to follow the path of least resistance in the evolution of configuration.
DF emerges from the CL in the evolution of a subjective moral code. When focusing on humanity, we encounter two types of resistance: one from within humanity itself, and the other from nature. In a society where social resistance is minimal, focus naturally shifts to the resistance posed by nature. To overcome nature’s resistance, we must understand and decipher its physical laws through the language of mathematics. By applying these laws, humanity has unlocked new freedoms—to soar above the clouds, walk on the moon, illuminate the night, and more. None of these achievements are possible without a civil society, underscoring that freedom is fundamentally tied to civility.
Imagine the possibilities of DF humanity could unlock by evolving towards global civility.
I could not agree more with you, Harish, on the matter of autocratic regimes not being law abiding. Which is why they end up sounding like hypocrites.
BRICS and SCO the two large organizations are again under the control of China and Russia and might challenge EU and US role in the time to come...
Right, but who will stick with them? The point is, alliances that stick together long term only do so because they see mutual benefits, They do not stick together because they are in deep admiration for some bully autocrat who likes to throw his weight around.
Russia and China seem to believe they can form these groups and that everyone will gladly submit to their weirdness. But, as we see with many countries, that doesn't happen. Look how the former iron curtain countries want nothing to do with Russia. Look how the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, are wary of China.
These autocratic regimes isolate themselves. We've been hearing about BRICS for what, 20 years? India and Brazil aren';t doing well by being beholden to foreign autocrats. Even if India is exploiting the availability of cheap oil from Russia.
Michael,
However, when it comes to the evolution of a subjective moral code through the Constructal Law, you're not quite there yet. You might find my book insightful on this topic.
Maybe so. However, from everything I've read from you, on this topic, best I can tell, you are assuming the universality of the moral code of the US founding fathers. This is a Christian-derived ethic, first of all, and from a government meant to represent the will of its citizens.
Nothing universal about it. For this reason: Morality is the product of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are sometimes strikingly incompatible. The world has provided proof of this for a long time.
What you claim is naturally and universally moral, part of our universal "unalienable rights," others claim is sinful and depraved. What you claim is "going with the flow," and therefore good and righteous, others claim that "flow" is destructive and must therefore be diverted.
You hold the words of the US founding fathers as "sacred," let's say it this way, others do not. They have their own sacred texts. They often say different things from our founding fathers
In a previous reply I quoted Benjamin Franklin:
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
According to CL, governance flows towards the currents in the power to rule.
It appears that civility in the U.S. is declining to the point where the FBI and law enforcement are going to have additional assistance from the Department of Defense.
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/524001p.PDF?ver=UpTwJ66AyyBgvy7wFyTGbA%3d%3d
Hence, the evolution of authoritarianism.
Exactly, Michael:
In a previous reply I quoted Benjamin Franklin:
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
According to CL, governance flows towards the currents in the power to rule.
You are basing your thoughts on the US founding fathers' philosophy of life.
Now, others will claim that only following the sacred rules of xyz text can lead to a virtuous life, and that the only master you must listen to is the one described in the holy texts.
Nations become corrupt when, instead of following the sacred teachings, they begin to worship false idols. People become complacent, worshipping wealth, fame, conspicuous consumption, debauchery.
And they will go further. Only xyz text provides The True Path to a virtuous life, necessary for the reward of eternal life.
If your CL philosophy does not accommodate these points, then what it teaches is false. It leads to corruption, sin, the eventual decay of society.
There is no "universal" way you can respond to such claims. People who believe as I described number in the billions, They are utterly convinced that any other path leads to destruction. Quoting US founding fathers is hardly going to change their minds.
In fact, this leads to some pretty tough contradictions. We might decide that pedophilia is evil, they will tell you that it's quite acceptable, within their specific boundaries. Just one example of compatibility of philosophies. We might claim that CL suggests homosexuality between consenting adults must be tolerated, they will tell you that the xyz text mandates capital punishment for such practices.
Where is this universal morality?
Dear Michael, Albert,
You quote:
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters"...
Are you sure about this statement that it carries weight, at least I don't approve with it.
Is it so that only virtuous people deserve and are capable of utilizing the facility of freedom. Who are virtuous people, are they law abiding or morality or ethics abiding? There is also a possibility of both these abiding habits being antithetical to each other.
Corrupt people deserve autocrats. Means corrupt people need autocrat masters. It's true that corruption need strong laws but it's not true that autocrats make strong laws. CL leaves everything on nature, it itself doesn't have any clue to a particular situation since its source of energy is nature and physics.
Again, it is difficult to digest on two points:
1. Are dictators the product of corrupt people or do corrupt people reflect autocrats?
2. The people of the states like China, Korea north and Russia are corrupt because they are having autocrats.
These autocrats have almost strangulated the lives of their people and are sitting on time bombs.
How would you define that?
Dear Albert,
" autocratic regimes are mostly not law abiding. Which is why they end up sounding like hypocrites."
True:
The autocratic regimes are not law-abiding reflects a central challenge ito the world oreder today as they are pitching new alliances in order to dominance the regions and global power equations.
Autocratic regimes are typically characterized by a concentration of power in a single leader or a small group, limited political pluralism, and constrained civil liberties. Acc. to Ginsberg, Unlike democratic systems, where the rule of law is upheld through checks and balances, autocratic regimes often suppress judicial independence and use legal frameworks as tools for reinforcing their authority. Legal scholar Tom Ginsburg notes that in autocracies, "the law is used as an instrument to secure regime power, not to constrain it" . In essence, the legal structures in autocracies are designed to legitimize the actions of the ruling elite, often enabling extralegal measures like censorship, unlawful detention, and state violence.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290457694_Hungary's_illiberal_turn_Disabling_the_constitution
One common feature of autocratic governance is the erosion of judicial independence, allowing the regime to manipulate legal systems to its advantage. The judiciary in autocratic states frequently lacks the power to hold the ruling elites accountable. For example, in Russia under Vladimir Putin, the judiciary has largely been co-opted by the state, leading to politically motivated rulings and the use of the judicial system to persecute dissidents, as seen in high-profile cases against opposition leaders like Alexei Navalny (Mishina, 2016). Courts are often unwilling or unable to challenge the regime’s actions, creating a legal environment that supports arbitrary rule rather than legal norms.
Autocratic regimes tend to undermine political rights and freedom of expression, treating these rights as subservient to regime stability. Scholars like Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way have argued that competitive authoritarian regimes—states with some democratic trappings but effectively authoritarian control—manipulate electoral laws, repress opposition, and maintain control over information as ways to stifle political competition and criticism (Levitsky & Way, 2010). A striking example is Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, where journalists, academics, and political opponents are frequently jailed under anti-terrorism laws that have been criticized for their broad, vague terms.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10670564.2016.1206281#abstract
The repression of free expression in autocracies is also supported by expansive surveillance systems and digital censorship laws, as seen in China’s “Great Firewall.” The Chinese government maintains strict control over internet access and has instituted legal measures that punish dissent, both online and offline, under the guise of preserving “national security” (Creemers, 2017).
China refuses to accept UNCLOS laws about the IAC's judgement about the EEZ issue against Philippines in the South China Sea.
Autocratic regimes often violate international norms, viewing laws as impediments to their strategic goals. For instance, Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea represented a clear violation of international law, contravening the United Nations Charter’s principle of respecting national sovereignty (UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262, 2014). Similarly, China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea, despite a 2016 ruling from The Hague invalidating them, demonstrate a disregard for international law when it conflicts with national objectives (Permanent Court of Arbitration, 2016).
Autocracies may also support proxies or covert operations that breach international laws without direct attribution. For example, Iran has been linked to the support of militant groups in the Middle East, often violating international agreements and provoking regional instability while avoiding direct accountability (Byman, 2005). These extralegal activities underscore the notion that autocracies view international law as flexible when it conflicts with their interests.
While autocratic regimes may profess adherence to the rule of law, their actions often reflect the opposite. Legal systems within such states are structured to maintain control, using laws to suppress dissent, manipulate judicial outcomes, and contravene international norms. This pattern suggests that autocracies are indeed more inclined to violate or manipulate the law than democratic regimes, both domestically and internationally, to sustain their authority.
Dear Harish K Thakur and Albert Manfredi
Albert, “Where is this universal morality?”
Harish, “These autocrats have almost strangulated the lives of their people and are sitting on time bombs. How would you define that?”
The concept of “universal morality” is not my own. That concept is taken from Stanford University:
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/morality-definition/
A subjective moral code emerges from the mechanics of a "universal morality," which itself stems from the physical Constructal Law (CL) governing the evolution in group formation. A functional moral code is one that fosters the formation and preservation of a group. Whether this moral code is deemed good or bad, however, is relative.
The formation of governance, in part, is a function of a subjective moral code. Again, relative to CL, governance flows towards the currents in the power to rule, hence, the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” resulting in, China, North Korea, Russia, the U.S., and so on.
Deterministic Freedom (DF) has a significant caveat. In general, the flow of both animate and inanimate seeks the path of least resistance, in search of freedom. Relative to humanity, according to Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), a Nobel laureate in economics from Austria and Britain, “Money is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by man.” From DF it is hard to deny the powerful effects of money on the perception of freedom, and even harder to deny its potential effects on morality and power. The pursuit of freedom relative to financial gain can lead to greed, corruption, and a lack of concern for the good of society. Money can also be used as a tool for exerting power and control over others, whether through economic coercion, political influence, or other means. The irony is that the unethical pursuit of freedom and power can ultimately diminish freedom for society, pushing it into a dystopian phase [“a time bomb”] within the ongoing cycle between utopia and dystopia in social evolution.
CL and DF represent fragments of the omnipotent forces of nature that encompass humanity. Just as the ethical, or correct, application of the physical laws of aerodynamics has enabled us to soar above the clouds, the ethical, or correct, application of CL and DF can elevate humanity to new heights in the standard of living, paving the way toward Global Civility.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D5Z2SQBN
Dear Michael
you said:
A subjective moral code emerges from the mechanics of a "universal morality," which itself stems from the physical Constructal Law (CL) governing the evolution in group formation.
A value could be objective, and thus beyond mere human opinion, yet not universal. It may be that moral values have evolved for their survival value, being instilled by evolution, and are thus objective, not being derived from human opinion or knowledge. In this case they would not be universal because they presumably wouldn’t have existed before they evolved, and they may change, perhaps drastically, in the future. On such a view the laws are not universally applicable, but they meet the criteria for objectivity.
https://whyjesusblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/objective-vs-universal-moral-values-and-duties/#:~:text=Notice%20that%20a%20value%20could,from%20human%20opinion%20or%20knowledge.
Local moral values may have universal linkage but there are drastic differences between the two. Had it been so there would have been semitic similarities between the two, which infact are not. the tribal ethics and laws are only local and don't match with global physics, rather they have local myths and physics associated. Look at the maral codes over punishments, marriages, procreation, crime and connecting with external world. they are no where near.
Dear Harish K Thakur
Stanford’s approach to “universal morality” encompasses both objective and subjective dimensions—objective, in terms of survival (genetic), and subjective, as it relates to social constructs. Ultimately, it’s all about philosophy in how terms and definitions are applied.
We’re essentially saying the same thing: whether objective or subjective, it all stems from the physical Constructal Law (CL). What is life, if not evolution itself—an expression of CL? This law represents a universal relationship, one so powerful and elegant, ancient and vast, simple yet profound, guiding the flow of evolution across all domains. Its simplicity is precisely what makes CL both conceptually frightening and challenging to accept. When it comes down to it, “everything is evolution”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgEBTPee9ZM
Michael and Harish,
The concept of “universal morality” is not my own. That concept is taken from Stanford University:
Too often, philosophy becomes the study of the most clever turn of phrase. As in this case.
Now, looks to me like the Stanford U piece you linked to discusses the subject of universal morality, without actually endorsing it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/morality-definition/
Actually, that link discusses the subject. It does not claim that it is fact.
The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a) some other group, such as a religion, or
b) accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings.
True enough, because this is the reality we face, in the world. Sure, there are a number of similarities among moral codes, but there are also stark differences.
It is possible for a society to regard morality as being concerned primarily with minimizing the harms, e.g., pain and disability, that all human beings can suffer. Such a society might claim that their morality, in which minimizing the harms that all human beings can suffer is the primary concern, is based on some universal features of human nature or of all rational beings. Although all societies include more than this in their moralities, this feature of morality, unlike purity and sanctity, or accepting authority and emphasizing loyalty, is included in everything that is regarded as a morality in all societies.
I'd say, even that "minimizing harms" definition doesn't work reliably. Why? Because in an effort to "minimize harms," moral codes create harms. I feel like I'm belaboring the obvious. This part explains what I'm getting at:
When “morality” is used in these descriptive senses, moralities can differ from each other quite extensively in their content and in the foundation that members of the society claim their morality to have. A society might have a moral code that regards practices as necessary for purity or sanctity as more important than practices related to whether other persons are harmed. A society may take as morally most important that certain rituals are performed or that certain sexual practices, e.g., homosexuality, are prohibited, than that harms, e.g., pain and disability, are avoided or prevented. Some societies may claim that their morality, which is more concerned with purity and sanctity, is based on the commands of God.
Exactly. And when used this way, many aspects of such moral codes are incompatible with other moral codes.
So, used "descriptively," the term morality is not necessarily universal, according to this Stanford U piece.
Now let's look at morality in the normative sense.
Indeed, it is possible that “morality” in the normative sense has never been put forward by any particular society, by any group at all, or even by any individual that holds that moral rules should never be violated for non-moral reasons. “Morality” is thus an ambiguous word; the two essential formal features cited above, which are present in everything that is referred to by the original descriptive sense may not be present when “morality” is used in its normative sense. The only feature that the descriptive and normative senses of “morality” have in common is that they refer to guides to behavior that involve, at least in part, avoiding and preventing harm to some others.
Those who claim that there is a universal code of conduct that all rational persons, under plausible specified conditions, would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents need not hold that every society has a code of conduct that has features sufficient to even be classified as a morality. They can admit that the guides to behavior of some societies lack so many of the essential features of “morality” in the normative sense that it is incorrect to say that these societies even have a morality in a descriptive sense. They can also admit that many, perhaps all, societies have defective moralities, i.e., that although their guides to behavior have enough of the features of normative morality to be classified as descriptive moralities, they would not be endorsed in their entirety by all rational persons.
Those who hold that that there is a universal code of conduct that all rational persons, under plausible specified conditions, would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents do not claim that any actual society has or has ever had such a guide to conduct. However, “Natural law” theories of morality claim that any rational person in any society, even one that has a defective morality, can know the general kinds of actions that morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows. In the theological version of natural law theories, such as that put forwards by Aquinas, this is because God implanted this knowledge in the reason of all persons. In the secular version of natural law theories, such as that put forward by Hobbes, natural reason is sufficient to allow all rational persons to know what morality prohibits, requires, etc. Natural law theorists also claim that morality applies to all of rational persons, not only those now living, but also those who lived in the past. These are not empirical claims about morality; they are claims about what is essential to morality, or about what is meant by “morality” when it is used normatively.
This sounds an awful lot like, my basic Christian ethic is so obvious that it must be universal. In fact, it's not universal. For instance, "natural reason is sufficient to allow all rational persons to know what morality prohibits"? Really? Nonsense.
You have societies in which honor killings are condoned, not prosecuted. The people practicing such "rights" insist they are very rational. And of course, that list of examples can go on ad infinitum. So it's frustrating to see these philosophical arguments go on and on verbosely, without challenge.
My definition of what I take to be the universal normative sense of “morality,” requires a normative sense of “rationality,” such that no moral agent would ever advise anyone for whom he is concerned, including himself, to act irrationally. The concept of rationality described earlier satisfies this condition because no moral agent would ever advise anyone for whom he cares, including himself, to act in any way that harms himself with no compensating benefit to anyone.
So, define "rationality." Religious beliefs, like it or not, are the basis of all moral codes. Even those of the US founding fathers. That's why talk of "rationality" only makes the whole subject more ambiguous.
All clever turns of phrase, all personal opinions, no way to verify whether any of these are valid. So my bottom line is, use the lab experiment called "the real world," don't rely on just catchy verbiage, you'll see that in societies of the real world, "moral behavior" is not always universal. Some aspects may be, other aspects certainly are not.
Harish,
Local moral values may have universal linkage but there are drastic differences between the two. Had it been so there would have been semitic similarities between the two, which infact are not. the tribal ethics and laws are only local and don't match with global physics, rather they have local myths and physics associated. Look at the maral codes over punishments, marriages, procreation, crime and connecting with external world. they are no where near.
Thanks, Harish. My point too.
Michael,
Stanford’s approach to “universal morality” encompasses both objective and subjective dimensions—objective, in terms of survival (genetic), and subjective, as it relates to social constructs. Ultimately, it’s all about philosophy in how terms and definitions are applied.
Stanford's approach was to separate "descriptive" and "normative" definitions of morality. The possibility of universality, according to that piece, only applies to the normative definition.
And, importantly to me, even that fails. It fails because it makes some bold, unsubstantiated claim about "rationality."
The US secular laws are based on Christian ethics. Other moral codes are similarly based, or even explicitly follow, religious dogma.
To me, this makes any argument which pivots heavily on the term "rational" rather weak. And as a consequence, the idea that "universal morality" exists sounds iffy too. Some aspects yes, some aspects definitely no.
(Parenthetically, I get the distinct impression that you have an answer already, CL, and now you want to find justification from the opinions of other philosophers. Tough thing to do. But in philosophy, fair game)
Dear Albert Manfredi
“(Parenthetically, I get the distinct impression that you have an answer already, CL, and now you want to find justification from the opinions of other philosophers. Tough thing to do. But in philosophy, fair game)”
Humans are a product of the physical laws of nature and are trapped within this matrix. The flow of humanity through this matrix has resulted in the evolution of philosophy and the sciences, and the two are interdependent. Philosophy guides science, and scientific discovery reforms philosophy. And there is no reason why this cycle should ever end until the end of reason.
Relative to the physical Constructal Law (CL), for the flow of philosophical reformation to persist in time (to live) [life], it must evolve freely [liberty], such that it provides greater access [the pursuit of] to the pedagogic currents of nature via discovery [happiness].
Describing the experience of happiness generated by a breakthrough discovery is difficult to put into words. The evolution of enlightenment, characterized by positive emotional experiences, drives change in areas such as philosophy, culture, markets, technology, and the sciences, resulting in configurations guided by CL throughout spacetime and within the brain.
Dear Michael,
Jmullaly observes:
1. "The constructal law, if it holds true, applies beyond ‘engineering, scientific, and social systems.’ Indeed, it must apply universally, or be rejected as a law of nature".
and
2. "Constructal theory effectively displaces chaos, complexity and unpredictability as explanations for the evolution and diversity of Nature. It does so based on a physical law of nature that is predictable and measurable".
"If it holds true" is the question raised by J.Mullaly himself, means to some extent may not hold true...Taken the logic that universal morality flows like the branches of tree in everything the challenges of thousands of branches and twigs, roots, leaves, arms and stem are different. A uniform single disease can eliminate the whole tree but the cause of the fall of leave, twig, branches could be different, in fact uncertain as if due to storm, birds, apes, humans, dehydration, rain and so on. But the CL has to remain silent about these thousand possibilities.
About the question 2 i have already taken the stance through this example.
Infact the chaos, anarchy, complexity all are the possibilities that defy answer, might be some addition from your scholarship could cover up the gap in future.
Dear Harish K Thakur
The physical Constructal Law (CL), discovered in 1996, has been widely peer-reviewed and studied. Numerous articles and books have explored the subject, with recent research calculating the thermodynamic fractal dimension, D, in dendritic formations—an intrinsic signature of CL.
https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract8010035
We can measure and mathematically describe Brownian motion, yet it remains unpredictable. Similarly, while we have mathematical frameworks for fractals and chaos, they, too, defy prediction. At the quantum level, we encounter the uncertainty principle, and when we attempt to measure beyond the Planck length, physicists suggest that spacetime itself cannot be fundamental.
https://www.cornell.edu/video/nima-arkani-hamed-spacetime-is-doomed
https://doi.org/10.3390/e25010129
If spacetime is not fundamental, then what is? And how might this relate to consciousness within the context of dendritic neuron formations, the signature of CL?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.01125
Whatever exists beyond spacetime, the physical laws of nature may be a projection from that deeper reality. Welcome to the cutting edge of research, where humanity searches for the exit to Plato’s cave.
Michael,
The physical Constructal Law (CL), discovered in 1996, has been widely peer-reviewed and studied.
Hardly "discovered," as if comparing this with, say, Newton's law of gravitation. It's just a philosophical construct, a name given to someone's model of reality. Giving things names like that is a marketing ploy.
It's a like claiming that "the cloud" was discovered on some exact date. No, it was just a marketing term given to the way the Internet is used to do many things, including of course storing data, also running computers remotely, posting material we want to share, and on and on. By calling it "the cloud," it allows the exact way the services are implemented to remain ambiguous.
To get back to "universal morality," its existence, according to Stanford, was heavily dependent on "rationality." The morals needed for rational people to live happy lives.
Which explains nothing, in reality. Some will tell you, there is nothing more rational than wanting to ensure everlasting life. Yet, that's a religious concept. They'll tell you, they are being entirely rational to follow the precepts of whatever religion.
So for instance, honor killings? That's a universally moral act?
This isn't physics.
Dear Albert Manfredi
“Hardly ‘discovered,’ [CL]as if comparing this with, say, Newton's law of gravitation. It's just a philosophical construct, a name given to someone's model of reality. Giving things names like that is a marketing ploy.”
The physical Constructal Law (CL) is a new paradigm in the science of evolution. As Thomas Kuhn noted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, paradigm shifts redefine our understanding of science and the world. With all due respect, a quote from Thomas Kuhn:
“[T]he emergence of a paradigm affects the structure of the group that practices the field. When, in the development of a natural science, an individual or group first produces a synthesis able to attract most of the next generation’s practitioners, the older schools gradually disappear. … And Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that ‘a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’”
Albert,
You quote - "To get back to "universal morality," its existence, according to Stanford, was heavily dependent on "rationality."
When we enter into a rational plane there is lesser scope for universal morality, rather they are rational decisions that speak about a harmony between individual interests and social good. In the realm of rational decision-making, the influence of universal morality tends to diminish as decisions become driven more by logic and individual interests than by a singular moral code. When individuals or societies engage in rational thought, their actions are guided by a calculated balance between personal goals and the broader social good, rather than by universal moral imperatives.
Rationality emphasizes outcomes that are beneficial, efficient, and contextually appropriate, considering the practical realities and consequences of decisions. This approach often requires negotiating or harmonizing individual and collective interests—seeking solutions that serve both personal objectives and the wellbeing of the community. This harmony is not necessarily about adhering to absolute moral principles but rather about aligning interests to produce functional and mutually beneficial outcomes. For example, in policy-making, a rational approach might prioritize solutions that effectively address public needs, even if they compromise on certain moral absolutes to balance fairness, efficiency, and feasibility.
Therefore, while universal morality suggests a fixed set of rules or values that apply uniformly, rational decision-making recognizes the fluidity of moral principles in favor of adaptability, context, and pragmatism. Here, "good" is redefined not by universal standards but by decisions that foster a workable equilibrium between what individuals need and what society requires.
Michael,
You observe:
Whatever exists beyond spacetime, the physical laws of nature may be a projection from that deeper reality. Welcome to the cutting edge of research, where humanity searches for the exit to Plato’s cave.
First, positing that physical laws are projections from a "deeper reality" introduces an abstract metaphysical layer beyond empirical verification. Science relies on observations within spacetime; suggesting that laws originate outside of spacetime ventures into speculative territory that lacks observational support. This approach risks conflating metaphysics with science, potentially confusing metaphorical language (like "projection") with physical realities that science can test. It aligns more closely with philosophical interpretations—such as Plato’s theory of forms—than with scientific methodology, which requires testable and falsifiable hypotheses.
Second, drawing parallels to Plato's allegory of the cave implies that current understanding of physical laws is merely shadowed by a hidden reality, suggesting an illusory nature of empirical knowledge. While Plato’s cave is a powerful metaphor, it is rooted in ancient philosophy where epistemic truths were often seen as transcendent and abstract. Modern science, however, assumes that empirical discoveries reveal reality, not shadows of it. The suggestion that we search for an "exit" implies that there is a single, ultimate reality beyond our observable universe, a concept that may be neither possible to define scientifically nor necessary for understanding the physical world.
An artist is bound to reflect his creative element and so will do the rascal. But the act of rascal can't be defended morally, hence, to argue that rascalness is the outcome of CL and nature is wrong, And if we accept it there are multiple wrongs and multiple goods, no uniformity as CL assumes.
Moreover, invoking a "deeper reality" as the source of physical laws introduces a potentially infinite regress—each "deeper reality" could itself be a projection of an even deeper layer. This philosophical assumption risks making scientific progress harder to measure or confirm, as each new "discovery" could be seen as yet another shadow rather than a final understanding.
Ultimately, while the statement invites us to explore the foundational questions of existence, its appeal to a hidden, transcendent realm is more reflective of philosophical tradition than of empirical science. It may inspire curiosity, but it also distracts from the pragmatic goals of science: to uncover, explain, and predict the workings of the observable universe through testable theories and physical laws rooted in the fabric of spacetime itself.
Dear Harish K Thakur
Theoretical physicists like Nima Arkani-Hamed (see link in a previous reply), who propose ideas such as “spacetime is doomed,” are navigating a metaphysical layer where physics and philosophy intersect. All theories begin as philosophical constructs, expressed through the language of mathematics, before they undergo scientific verification. In those brief moments of observation and testability through the scientific method, they step into the role of scientists—only to return to philosophy as they develop the next generation of theories.
Relative to the physical Constructal Law (CL), for the flow of philosophical reformation to persist in time (to live) [life], it must evolve freely [liberty], such that it provides greater access [the pursuit of] to the pedagogic currents of nature via discovery [happiness].
“But the act of rascal can't be defended morally, hence, to argue that rascalness is the outcome of CL and nature is wrong, And if we accept it there are multiple wrongs and multiple goods, no uniformity as CL assumes.”
The “rascals” here are the flows of physicists and their theories, gaining greater access to nature's pedagogic currents through discovery, observation, and testing. CL governs evolution, which inherently involves both survival and extinction. Some theories endure and evolve over time, while others do not. Similarly, the flows of a subjective moral code may survive or vanish, depending on its alignment with the currents of harmony via the forces of civility.
Harish,
Therefore, while universal morality suggests a fixed set of rules or values that apply uniformly, rational decision-making recognizes the fluidity of moral principles in favor of adaptability, context, and pragmatism. Here, "good" is redefined not by universal standards but by decisions that foster a workable equilibrium between what individuals need and what society requires.
Yes, but, more than just "adaptability, context, and pragmatism." In these questions, I always consider religious fundamentalism. What is rational and even pragmatic to one group may not seem either of those to another group.
So I do not think you can argue that, well, deep down inside, everyone ultimately agrees what is moral. There are large areas of overlap, but yet dig enough, out pops the weirdness. Like saying, "Yes, morality may seem universal, until it isn't."
Thing is, just ask them. It's amazing the "rational arguments" you'll get.
Michael,
Relative to the physical Constructal Law (CL), for the flow of philosophical reformation to persist in time (to live) [life], it must evolve freely [liberty], such that it provides greater access [the pursuit of] to the pedagogic currents of nature via discovery [happiness].
Yes, I've seen this from you before. However, this is a US founding fathers invention, not one that is remotely universal.
Even in a secular sense, clearly what is "happiness" to a psychopath cannot be allowed to be practiced freely, in polite society. If you then consider religious fervor, you'll find that "doing God's will" is of paramount importance. So you have to learn from the holy texts and see what that entails.
And it should not be very difficult to discover, in real-world religious teachings, some sects of each religion more dramatically than others, this natural flow will lead to anything but happiness, to many people. Even floggings and executions.
I think that quoting verbatim the US founding fathers, in this discussion, should raise a red flag. What they believed and implemented is not universal. Maybe we believe it should be, but that's just us.
Michael and Harish,
When, in the development of a natural science, an individual or group first produces a synthesis able to attract most of the next generation’s practitioners, the older schools gradually disappear.
In my view, nothing quite so vague.
Someone dreams up a new hypothesis. Great. So far, it's nothing more than a personal opinion, maybe not even fleshed out properly.
The next step is rigorous experimentation, quantitative, to verify whether this new hypothesis holds any promise.
Nothing to do with old or new generation, or anything so emotional. If the quantitative rigor correlates with the real-world experiments, the law is deemed valid. Until, that is, someone comes along and changes one or more parameters drastically, to show maybe the law does not always apply. At which point, the law is extended.
It's hardly a matter of just personal beliefs that change with the age group.
For example,
Newton claimed and proved that F= ma = m dv/dt.
Along comes special relativity.
Now the extended law says F = d(mv)/dt
Why? Because at really high speeds, m is not a constant. Mass varies, as a function of v. Newton didn't know this. Einstein initially guessed it and his idea was then verified to be accurate.
Newton's rigor is not wasted. His laws are still valid, with this new extra stipulation of speed. At lower speeds, F = d(mv)dt becomes F = m dv/dt (if m does not vary over time, it is a constant which is not differentiated. The relativistic equation collapses down to the form Newton used.
If everything is strictly rigorous, it can stand the test of time. I doubt that science can or should be described as being nothing but a slave to fashion trends. Wait for the older generation to retire, everything changes drastically.
ALbert,
Yes, but, more than just "adaptability, context, and pragmatism." In these questions, I always consider religious fundamentalism. What is rational and even pragmatic to one group may not seem either of those to another group.
This is what I have been arguing here that there are fundamental differences between the fundamentalists too, what to speak of universal flow of harmony and uniformity.
Law making itself is fundamentally different in different societies, its almost blind with fundamentalist regimes
and above all with autocrats and oligarchs.
Dear Michael,
The “rascals” here are the flows of physicists and their theories, gaining greater access to nature's pedagogic currents through discovery, observation, and testing. CL governs evolution, which inherently involves both survival and extinction...
Conservation Laws in physics dictate how quantities like energy, momentum, and charge remain constant in closed systems, a principle that aligns with evolutionary mechanisms in the sense that only the traits, or species, best suited to a given environment persist over time, while others fade. Evolution, shaped by survival and extinction, follows a natural "governing law" of selective pressure that mirrors the persistence of conservation principles in the physical world. In this analogy, physicists, as "rascals," are uncovering these selective forces by observing the mechanics of survival, extinction, and adaptation—not only in the realm of life but in the underlying structure of reality itself.
My question again survives:
If CL and physics have simple answer about survival and extinction as flows, natural and smooth, the diversities of negatives and positives are equally the same in line with the CL flow,
Then how do we differentiate between good system and bad system of governance, and while CL conforms to and justifies the bad system or autocrats, democratic thing and human rights perspective doesn't support it at all.
Dear Harish K Thakur
“My question again survives:
If CL and physics has simple answer about survival and extinction as flows, natural and smooth, the diversities of negatives and positives are equally the same in line with the CL flow,
The how do we differentiate between good system and bad system of governance, and while CL conforms to and justifies the bad system or autocrats, democratic thing and human right perspective doesn't support it at all.”
Without evolution (CL) we humans will not be here to differentiate the concepts between good and bad, hot and cold, positive and negative, rich and poor, night and day, war and peace, love and hate, high and low, liberty and tyranny, life and death, freedom and resistance, yin and yang, and so on; hence the duality of nature. Duality in nature is the prerequisite for CL.
Imagine we discovered a perfect utopian blueprint for governance. Only through a correct, ethical, and civil application could that blueprint succeed; without it, the system would fail. Thus, social evolution moves in a cycle, oscillating between the duality of utopia and dystopia, good and bad, “survival and extinction … in line with the CL flow.”
Ultimately, civility is essential for any form of governance to maintain a constructive partnership with its citizens. When it comes to fostering civility, K-12 education is an excellent starting point, as today’s children are the leaders of tomorrow.
My answer again survives, it is all about civility, Global Civility: Physical Constructal Law:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D5Z2SQBN
Dear Albert Manfredi
“Yes, I've seen this from [CL] you before. However, this is a US founding fathers invention, not one that is remotely universal.”
Again, the “universal” physical Constructal Law (CL) by Professor Adrian Bejan of Duke University in 1996 for both animate and inanimate:
“For a finite flow system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.”
Applying the principle of symmetry—one of the nine fundamental properties of the physical laws of nature—I made the following claim regarding how Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of unalienable rights aligns with CL by the following mapping:
“For a finite flow system to persist in time (to live) [Life], it must evolve freely [Liberty] such that it provides greater access [pursuit] to its currents [Happiness, positive feedback for life, as in survival for example].”
For humanity, one’s “Happiness” is subjective whether one is a “psychopath”or not.
Unbeknownst to Jefferson, his philosophy aligns more closely with the principles of CL than the “survival of the fittest” paradigm advocated by Herbert Spencer relative to Charles Darwin’s work over 80 years later.
This alignment is unrelated to Jefferson’s religious beliefs or his role as a founding father of the U.S. Other philosophers—like Aristotle, Cicero, Arthur Schopenhauer, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke—also reflect aspects of CL, yet Jefferson’s ideas come closest to embodying it.
Michael,
Sorry, this is still profoundly unconvincing. Let's dig into it more.
“For a finite flow system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.”
What do those words even mean? And, who says this is the case? Has anyone verified, through experiments, that this must be so?
I can come up with any number of examples of "finite flow systems" that require no "evolution" at all. They are stable, run reliably, all they need is some appropriate energy infusion. So as far as I can tell, that clever-sounding sentence can be disproven easily.
Or, if this "finite flow system" refers to a living organism, then pray tell, what does "provides access to its currents" even mean?
And, to force-fit different words into the same sentence, and expect it to be true still, even more unconvincing. No? You're using one clever yet unsubstantiated sentence to make the case, oh wow, the US founding fathers have uttered An Absolute Truth, an irrefutable law of physics, so they must be onto something. But it's forced. There is no such law in real physics.
For humanity, one’s “Happiness” is subjective whether one is a “psychopath”or not.
Point being, it's false to think that "unalienable rights" apply equally to everyone. Let's not distract. Should a psychopath derive happiness from hurting others, then no, he won't be allowed to enjoy his unalienable rights. That's easy enough to show, society will not let this happen.
So, the clever phrase "unalienable rights" becomes more of a political slogan, not an irrefutable law of physics. In reality, there's no such thing as "unalienable rights." Some societies will tell you that even your life itself is not a "right." Plenty of cases where they will take it away, at the drop of a hat.
For certain, in the animal kingdom, there is no special "right to life." You may only enjoy that life until you become some other animal's lunch. The other animal is happily enjoying his lunch. Conflicting unalienable rights.
This alignment is unrelated to Jefferson’s religious beliefs or his role as a founding father of the U.S.
The founding fathers had to build a new model of governance. They uttered plenty of somewhat easy to understand, but therefore simplistic concepts, to build this new system. That's all. And we're still busy writing laws, to force those nice but simplistic concepts work in practice!!
Dear Albert Manfredi
Thank you for the finite flow of your thoughts, persisting in time (to live) and evolving freely to provide greater access to the currents of your philosophy—true to the principles of the physical Constructal Law (CL).
Everything is evolution, guided by CL, within a constantly changing universe including your philosophy. For example, after you have read my book, you will experienced a mind-altering shift while exploring CL across various domains—animate, inanimate, philosophical, the sciences, social, economic, governance, and so on. This exploration resonates uniquely with each reader. Subconsciously, you’ve been transformed, and you will instinctively begin to view the social domain through the lens of nature’s omnipotent forces. This newfound perspective should positively influence your life going forward, impacting those around you and contributing to the broader path toward global civility.
I'm enjoying this conversation between you and Harish in a Hegelian dialectic style, as it contributes to the evolution of my philosophy relative to CL. Our discussion on CL aligns well with the theme of this post concerning the evolving "Democracy-Authoritarianism binary," where governance tends to flow towards authoritarianism under CL principles. Our exchange may provide new material that might even inspire a second edition of my book.
On the topic of new material, you made the following claim in your reply, and I quote:
“I can come up with any number of examples of "finite flow systems" that require no "evolution" at all. They are stable, run reliably, all they need is some appropriate energy infusion.”
I challenge you to name one.
On the topic of new material, you made the following claim in your reply, and I quote:
“I can come up with any number of examples of "finite flow systems" that require no "evolution" at all. They are stable, run reliably, all they need is some appropriate energy infusion.”
I challenge you to name one.
Okay, think of a home heating system, a simple one, using a furnace, boiler containing water as the heat conducting fluid, piping to connect the top fitting of the boiler tank to all radiators, in parallel, cooler water collected from the bottom fitting of each radiator, cool water sent to the bottom fitting of the tank. And using only thermal siphoning for water circulation, not even an electric pump required.
The water flow is finite, determined by the pipe diameter, heat from the furnace, number of radiators, height of the structure.
This is a finite flow system. It works, it is stable, it does not need to evolve.
And, you have not responded to the point that psychopaths are not able to exercise their unalienable rights. Once they are caught, that is. Unalienable rights implies something that everyone has and that cannot be taken away. Like gravity on a massive celestial object. And yet, they can be taken away, and they must be taken away, in some cases.
You also haven't explained this: what does "provides access to its currents" even mean? It turns out, the home heating system can "provide" the radiators "with access to its currents," water flow, without having to evolve.
As to what this might mean for living organisms, I won't even try to guess.
Dear Michael,
Without evolution (CL) we humans will not be here to differentiate the concepts between good and bad, hot and cold, positive and negative, rich and poor, night and day, war and peace, love and hate, high and low, liberty and tyranny, life and death, freedom and resistance, yin and yang, and so on; hence the duality of nature. Duality in nature is the prerequisite for CL.
Right , but now since we have evolved, and we certain fundamental questions, how do we deal with them...
A "good" governance system adapts to facilitate efficient flows of information, resources, and services across all levels of society. Systems that provide transparent, rapid communication and resource distribution allow society to adapt more effectively to challenges. By contrast, "bad" governance restricts these flows through corruption, rigid hierarchy, or bureaucratic barriers, leading to stagnation and reduced adaptability.
Its just like hosepipe flow, where the aberration, we can operate and solve the issue, but then how can we favour aberration just on the name of CL,
the question remains, I think so.
ALbert,
“I can come up with any number of examples of "finite flow systems" that require no "evolution" at all. They are stable, run reliably, all they need is some appropriate energy infusion.”
Yes this is difficult to conceive.
Even the universe itself is not finite, its always in flow...
there are few:
pipeline system- Once installed, water pipes in buildings direct water flow in a set path without needing to adapt or evolve. The system’s design is fixed to handle specific volumes and pressures, and it remains unchanged unless maintenance is required.
electericity- In closed circuits, such as those in light switches or household appliances, current flows in a predetermined route to achieve a specific function. This system remains static and does not adapt to changes or improve efficiency over time.
But these examples are from inanimate world..
Dear Albert Manfredi
“This is a finite flow system [home heating]. It works, it is stable, it does not need to evolve.”
The physical Constructal Law (CL) is fundamentally about evolution. Consider, for instance, the emergence of a home heating system. Humanity evolved to a level where the finite flow of technology to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents in developing systems such as a home heating system.
For a finite flow home heating system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents of failure. “Stability” is only a moment in time within a changing universe.
For a home heating system to evolve freely, it must adapt to the repeating cycles of heating and cooling, responding to the positive feedback from temperature fluctuations detected by the thermostat in the room. Such repetitions become the inevitable system’s failure.
In line with CL, all systems, including the universe, have a beginning and an end within the ongoing production of entropy, in the limit, also known as the theoretical heat death of the universe.
“And, you have not responded to the point that psychopaths are not able to exercise their unalienable rights.”
When a person gets incarcerated, they still have their unalienable rights. That is, one [Life] who is incarcerated has the freedom [Liberty] in the pursuit of survival [positive feedback to live another day a form of Happiness]. To take away one’s unalienable rights is by denying them nourishment leading to starvation or by execution.
“You also haven't explained this: what does "provides access to its currents" even mean?”
CL = For a finite flow system to persist in time (to live) [Life], it must evolve freely [Liberty] such that it provides greater access [the pursuit of] to its currents [positive feedback for life, Happiness for humans].
All systems flows towards the currents of extinction. Before extinction there are a number of currents that influences a system. Here are some examples:
All biological life flows towards the currents of survival. (“survival of the fittest” – Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer).
A human flows towards the currents of happiness. (“the pursuit of Happiness” - Thomas Jefferson).
A civil society flows towards the currents of harmony. (Ethics – Democritus, Aristotle).
Markets flow towards the currents of wealth generation. (The “invisible hand” – Adam Smith).
Corporations flow towards its missional currents. (The life of a corporation has the liberty in the pursuit of its mission; otherwise, it’s out of business).
Governance flows towards the currents in the power to rule. (The Iron Law of Oligarchy).
Dear Harish K Thakur
You've distinguished between "good" and "bad" government systems, identifying corruption, as in uncivil behavior, as one of the issues in a bad system. However, you overlooked the essential role of civil behavior in the good system. Civility is a prerequisite for any effective government; without it, even the best system is bound to fail.
Today’s governing systems face ethical issues, further decline in civility will make matters worse. The physical laws of the universe serve as the common thread across the tapestry of all cultures, religions, and ideologies. Understanding the physical Constructal Law in social systems could accelerate the path toward global civility, beginning in the science classroom. Teaching today’s children about the science of civility will help shape tomorrow’s leaders.
Michael,
For a finite flow home heating system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents of failure. “Stability” is only a moment in time within a changing universe.
Except that system does not evolve. Which makes any suggestion that it "must evolve" sound way off base.
Now, humans can certainly use the design process to evolve new home heating system designs, but that has nothing to do with the ones already deployed. They continue to function.
For a home heating system to evolve freely, it must adapt to the repeating cycles of heating and cooling, responding to the positive feedback from temperature fluctuations detected by the thermostat in the room. Such repetitions become the inevitable system’s failure.
That's just describing stable operation of a system. It is not describing the evolution of a system. So, it seems to me like we're twisting the meaning of words, in order to reverse-engineer this CL idea into whatever topic we can dream up. But it's forced, gratuitous, unnecessary.
When a person gets incarcerated, they still have their unalienable rights. That is, one [Life] who is incarcerated has the freedom [Liberty] in the pursuit of survival [positive feedback to live another day a form of Happiness]. To take away one’s unalienable rights is by denying them nourishment leading to starvation or by execution.
Sorry, but once again, we are merely twisting the meaning of words to the point of absurdity.
A person is incarcerated specifically to take away their freedom, to prevent them from pursuing the "happiness" that resulted in punishable crimes. Depending on the crime and US state he might live in, the person may also be deprived of life.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Life is taken away in capital punishment. But the other two are taken away with any form of incarceration. Now sure, you might again twist words to claim, the convict will find alternative sources of happiness, such as just his mealtimes, or his time out in the prison courtyard. But again, that would be forced and gratuitous.
Summary: unalienable rights don't really exist. Gravitational attraction seems to be "unalienable," but life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are actually privileges bestowed upon law abiding citizens of one country, the US.
All biological life flows towards the currents of survival. (“survival of the fittest” – Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer).
A human flows towards the currents of happiness. (“the pursuit of Happiness” - Thomas Jefferson).
A civil society flows towards the currents of harmony. (Ethics – Democritus, Aristotle).
Misuse of the word "currents," then. I mean, how does this not sound Ike we're just redefining the meaning of words, in order to force-fit the applicability of some pre-conceived catchy slogan? This doesn't sound dishonest to you?
Dear Albert Manfredi
“Misuse of the word "currents," then. I mean, how does this not sound Ike we're just redefining the meaning of words, in order to force-fit the applicability of some pre-conceived catchy slogan? This doesn't sound dishonest to you?”
The word “currents” is not being misused but applied in a new way within a paradigm shift. Vocabulary evolves to encompass new discoveries, adapting to reflect and convey emerging insights with greater precision and depth. Language becomes a tool that both shapes and is shaped by evolving understanding, allowing new ideas to be more clearly communicated, shared, and expanded upon. This linguistic evolution often leads to coining new terms, redefining existing words, or borrowing from other fields to capture the nuances of novel concepts.
The catchy slogan of the physical Constructal Law (CL) has undergone peer review over the past 28 years. If you have any claims that challenge CL, I recommend publishing your findings, as this would certainly inspire a second edition of my book. That said, I understand if you feel that my mapping of Thomas Jefferson’s axiomatic logic of innate rights onto CL may seem misplaced. However, my intention is sincere, not dishonest, in attempting to introduce CL into the social domain as it relates to the science of evolution in civility.
Thomas Jefferson’s axiomatic logic of innate rights (the biological primitives for all life pertaining to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of survival, where survival is a prerequisite for human Happiness). The right to life can be seen as a recognition that all organisms have a fundamental right to exist, having freedom within their domain, in the pursuit of their biological imperatives. Relative to flow, this axiom follows, where ∧ represents conjunction and ∨ represents disjunction:
Flow = Life ∧ Liberty ∧ Energy,
NoFlow = Death ∨ Tyranny ∨ NoEnergy.
The term “pursuit” is dependent on energy.
From the Dark Ages onward, the evolution of science and technology has vastly outpaced advancements in civility. While we no longer burn witches at the stake, acts of hacking off heads persist, complemented by high-tech warfare currently engaged as I write this reply. Given this disparity, perhaps it’s time to redefine certain concepts, or the meaning of words, in light of scientific discoveries, particularly those candidates adaptable to civility, as traditional approaches have struggled to keep up. The duality of war and peace remains a constant in nature—one of the fundamental drivers of evolution unlikely to vanish. However, there may be room to make warfare, governance, and social behavior more civil and less devastating by introducing the science of civil evolution over the study of CL in a science class. After all, when it comes to civility, we are all in this together.
Michael,
The catchy slogan of the physical Constructal Law (CL) has undergone peer review over the past 28 years. If you have any claims that challenge CL, I recommend publishing your findings, as this would certainly inspire a second edition of my book.
Rain might possibly fall and land at a high elevation. Possibly, that rain will merely create a puddle, pond, or lake, at the high elevation. Until energy from the sun causes that water to evaporate again and repeat that cycle.
The way a river flow is created can be explained easily enough, if there is a path in the terrain from a position of higher potential energy to a position of lower potential energy. Newton figured that out. If a path exists, its direction is determined by the direction to lower energy states. Chances are that the path is not going to be straight. Obstacles, rocks, vegetation, whatever, will cause the path to change directions, perhaps even split and then perhaps merge again, all the way down, to the lower energy state.
If something adds energy, that will change the path again. A rock can move in the way of the flow, the sun can cause the water to evaporate, a bulldozer can drop a ton of dirt in the path, and so on.
The way lightning bolts form is pretty much identical to this. Here too, the path will depend on where the air is first to ionize. And adding energy to the system can change how this manifests or even whether a lightning will occur at all.
I'm not a botanist or biologist, but there might be some actual similarity in the way branches form in trees, or not. Just because branches are not perfectly straight, or just because they might appear somewhat like a lightning bolt, does not necessarily mean that they are following the same physical principles to get that way.
I guess I'm not bowled over by any attempts to only look at one part of what's going on here, i.e. from higher to lower energy state, in absence of any energy infusion, or to try to formulate some sort of nebulous "law" that covers what are in fact very different systems.
Thomas Jefferson’s axiomatic logic of innate rights (the biological primitives for all life pertaining to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of survival, where survival is a prerequisite for human Happiness).
In reality, "unalienable rights" are the opposite of constructal law. In the sense that you're not flowing anything from a high to a lower energy state. You need a constant infusion of energy to achieve those unalienable rights.
And it's not "innate rights." It might be, for living organisms, a built-in algorithm that gives them the imperative to survive, look for food, procreate. But it is not a guarantee, nothing they can claim they must have. Quite the opposite, in fact. For most in the animal kingdom, they will become someone else's "right to life," sooner rather than later. All the way up the food chain.
We've been over this already. If CL tries to force this nebulous sameness, how a river flows and how living organisms strive to stay alive, I say nonsense. Entirely different mechanisms.
Constructal law, applied to living organisms, results in dust.
Michael,
On this new topic:
From the Dark Ages onward, the evolution of science and technology has vastly outpaced advancements in civility. While we no longer burn witches at the stake, acts of hacking off heads persist, complemented by high-tech warfare currently engaged as I write this reply.
Here too, I much prefer focus. Focus on the actual components at work here, as opposed to defocused, broad brush generalities.
One of the mechanisms you mention above is religion, which may also be described as superstition. Faced with the unknown, humans fabricate all manner of stories, fairytales, to explain what is unexplainable to them, at the time.
That's one source of crazy actions. Actions caused by fabricated rules and regulations for how we can behave and punishments for not behaving as prescribed.
Another source of crazy actions is just the fact that people can be antisocial, psychopaths, or just have no scruples, as individuals. Or, as individuals who are put in a position of great power.
That latter example might be totally devoid of any religious/superstitious elements.
Groups of people band together, into tribes, nations, countries, and they may find it imperative to defend their tribe from the evil outside. That's how military forces are created.
And then in turn, if their leaders are either superstitious, feeling a need to force other tribes/nations/countries to follow their fabricated set of rules, or if their leaders are self-centered, power-hungry autocrats, they may be found to misuse their military strength to subjugate others, with no rational justification.
Given this disparity, perhaps it’s time to redefine certain concepts, or the meaning of words, in light of scientific discoveries, particularly those candidates adaptable to civility, as traditional approaches have struggled to keep up.
I don't find it helpful to lump everything into a "civility problem." There are different mechanisms at play. I think each case has to be taken on its own merits, or lack of merits.
Dear Michael,
you observe:
Today’s governing systems face ethical issues, further decline in civility will make matters worse. The physical laws of the universe serve as the common thread across the tapestry of all cultures, religions, and ideologies. Understanding the physical Constructal Law in social systems could accelerate the path toward global civility, beginning in the science classroom. Teaching today’s children about the science of civility will help shape tomorrow’s leaders.
There are few points to be understood here:
The lack of civility in public discourse and governance suggests that this trend could worsen existing ethical challenges within our governing systems. Though the "physical laws of the universe" transcends cultural and ideological boundaries, offering a universal lens through which all societies can find common ground, they don't define the formulae or the clue how to achieve it. Its like the belief that God transcends everything but has to be proved. If CL as natural law is integrated into social systems, how could it help promote more harmonious and efficient interactions, potentially leading to a more civil society simply because it fails to define how the negatives and positives flow from its energy system.
you further give the formulae:
Flow = Life ∧ Liberty ∧ Energy,
NoFlow = Death ∨ Tyranny ∨ No Energy.
The term “pursuit” is dependent on energy.
The formula suggest that the "Flow"—the unobstructed movement of energy—is equated to "Life ∧ Liberty ∧ Energy." This suggests that the flow of energy is foundational to life, freedom, and vitality. Without flow, we lose access to these essential qualities, resulting in "NoFlow = Death ∨ Tyranny ∨ NoEnergy." The absence of flow leads to stagnation, either in the form of literal death, oppression, or a lack of energy (potentially both literal and metaphorical).
Now the question arises if tyranny is equal to death or no energy, how do tyrannical systems are more efficient in decision making, aggression, making law abiding citizens, which refers to a typical energy flow that helps it attain this.
.
Dear Albert,
Unalienable rights don't really exist. Gravitational attraction seems to be "unalienable," but life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are actually privileges bestowed upon law abiding citizens of one country, the US.
There is in fact a stark distinction between natural laws, like gravitational attraction, and societal constructs, such as the "unalienable rights" named in the U.S. Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The mixing up of the two may prove misleading to the extent we have failed to philosophize sciences or scientize philosophy.
Gravitational attraction is indeed a universal law, It was there even when it was discovered in ancient India or chronicled in the West by Newton. It operates independently of human opinion, social structure, or individual behavior, which makes it truly unalienable.
By contrast, the concept of unalienable rights is a human construct; it exists because we have collectively decided it should. These rights are ideally meant to be inherent to every person, but in practice, they are often conditional, tied to the laws and cultural values of specific societies.
In the United States, for example, these rights are sometimes viewed as privileges—contingent upon one’s citizenship, behavior, or adherence to the law. In the socialist world they have origins in the society, the social customs that keep the whole above individual against the individualistic interpretations. Here we have to decide which we way to go, towards indivisible hand or free will theory or towards controlled rule, the social good and justice idea.
Dear Harish K Thakur
“Though the "physical laws of the universe" transcends cultural and ideological boundaries, offering a universal lens through which all societies can find common ground, they don't define the formulae or the clue how to achieve it.”
Understanding the mechanics of evolution through the physical Constructal Law (CL) can help humanity recognize that there is no path forward but to establish common ground through civility among cultures in the evolution toward global harmony. Over generations, diverse cultures will gradually merge, forming a more unified global culture.
“The formula suggest that the "Flow"—the unobstructed movement of energy—is equated to "Life ∧ Liberty ∧ Energy." … "NoFlow = Death ∨ Tyranny ∨ NoEnergy." The absence of flow leads to stagnation, …”
The axiomatic logic of "Flow" and "NoFlow" represent endpoints on a spectrum, with an individual’s comfort zone often found in a balanced midpoint. The ongoing struggle to maintain this balance within nature’s dualities fuels evolution, the details are covered in the Natural Law chapter of my book.
“Now the question arises if tyranny is equal to death or no energy, how do tyrannical systems are more efficient in decision making, aggression, making law abiding citizens, which refers to a typical energy flow that helps it attain this.”
True, tyrannical systems can achieve a certain efficiency. However, a tyrannical system can only approach a utopian state if it genuinely embraces Constructalism—an ethical application of the physical Constructal Law (CL) aligned with the axiom of unalienable rights, presenting a transformative paradigm for the human social condition.
For instance, if Kim Jong Un of North Korea, by his decree, were to adopt Constructalism, it could potentially surpass South Korea in the famous nighttime satellite images, glowing with the light of progress and the pursuit of happiness for its citizens.
By the universal adoption of Constructalism, “The new ‘Democracy-Authoritarianism binary’ or bipolarity” is not dangerous at all.
I’m encouraged by your interest in this subject. The questions you and Albert are asking are addressed in my book. If you read it and then have questions, those are the ones I would be most interested in.
Dear Albert Manfredi
“I don't find it helpful to lump everything into a "civility problem." There are different mechanisms at play. I think each case has to be taken on its own merits, or lack of merits.”
A civil and scientific approach to resolving social challenges involves examining the flows and currents that drive the evolution of different mechanisms. By studying and applying the principles of the physical Constructal Law (CL), we gain a deeper understanding of how social systems develop and adapt over time. This insight allows us to recognize patterns in human behavior, societal structures, and cultural dynamics, enabling us to address conflicts and issues with greater empathy and wisdom. CL, as a guiding principle, emphasizes the natural tendency toward configurations that improve access to flow—whether in energy, resources, or ideas—thus offering a framework to promote cooperative, ethical progress and encourage sustainable solutions.
Harish,
In the United States, for example, these rights are sometimes viewed as privileges—contingent upon one’s citizenship, behavior, or adherence to the law.
Yes indeed. Although, just to point out parenthetically, conservative Americans tend to get all flustered when we say things like this. What is explicitly stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is not merely a privilege, they will insist with much drama and emotion. It's a right that only a constitutional amendment can take away.
But in fact, nuances make all the difference. Those violating laws of the land will in fact get those rights taken away.
Really, people who like to indulge in rhetorical flourish love to make comparisons like this. They'll say, "driving a car is a privilege, gun ownership is a right." When in fact, using personal transportation, horse or carriage at the time, wasn't even seen as important enough to be debated. Of course everyone can ride a horse. No need to make that a right or privilege. It's more like breathing air or drinking water.
And too, those items which become mentioned as rights can ultimately seem much the same as privileges.
In the socialist world they have origins in the society, the social customs that keep the whole above individual against the individualistic interpretations. Here we have to decide which we way to go, towards indivisible hand or free will theory or towards controlled rule, the social good and justice idea.
I see it a little differently.
Both systems have rules, laws, that the people must abide by. The real difference is that in a parliamentary democracy, it is the legislative branch, the representatives of the people, elected by their constituents, who write the laws. Thus, the laws exist by the consent of the governed.
In autocratic systems, the laws exist for the benefit of the autocrat and his tight little regime of elites. They are written by this elite group, to perpetuate their rule. They can be changed at the drop of a hat, if it benefits the regime. So, as two examples, both Putin and Xi have managed to change the laws, such that they can extend their terms in office in perpetuity. And of course, the obedient and cowed True Believers in the population will claim this is great.
In milder forms of socialism, not much different from more market-driven democracies, except that the norm is assumed to be, "People are incompetent to take care of themselves. They have to be spoon-fed." Hence, the parasitic element of society is favored most, the productive element is punished and throttled back.
Michael,
First, I think of this "constructal law" as a vague restating of actual laws of physics, in a nebulous way such as to make it applicable to just about anything. Just "adjust the meaning" of regular English words, to suit whatever argument you want to make. There are hints of thermodynamics and mechanics in the verbiage. I would typically prefer to stick with the actual physical laws, if someone wants to make some sort of "argument by analogy."
And by the way, arguments by analogy are always going to sound weak. The analogies can be strained, usually are strained, so maybe many in the audience are put off at the start. But okay for now.
A civil and scientific approach to resolving social challenges involves examining the flows and currents that drive the evolution of different mechanisms.
An argument by analogy. Problem being, chances are really good that you'll miss many of the mechanisms at play.
By studying and applying the principles of the physical Constructal Law (CL), we gain a deeper understanding of how social systems develop and adapt over time.
As you can see from my first paragraph, this does not sound robust, in the least. I gave an example of CL's analogy between how a river might be created, to how an organism might evolve. Not a good analogy. If a river is formed because water from high elevations is seeking a lower energy state, which is what it is doing, then the analogy to living organisms is, "they are all headed to death and decay."
Same with social structures. You are doing the opposite of looking for that lower energy state. In developing a stable society, you have to build, create, fight against the natural trends to chaos. More like swimming upstream. People are not all going to be obedient little robots that all in unison happily end up in a state of nirvana. It's more like a constant struggle, in fact.
This insight allows us to recognize patterns in human behavior, societal structures, and cultural dynamics, enabling us to address conflicts and issues with greater empathy and wisdom. CL, as a guiding principle, emphasizes the natural tendency toward configurations that improve access to flow—whether in energy, resources, or ideas—thus offering a framework to promote cooperative, ethical progress and encourage sustainable solutions.
And yet, teaching this CL to the Putins, Xis, and Khameneis of the world will not change reality. The problem is that people, including autocrats but also in the regular population, do not all have the same goals. Improve or optimize the so-called "flow" for one person, you are likely to be disturbing a nice, smooth flow for someone else.
Water might seek a lower energy state, people are not that way. Well, aside from the ultimate, inevitable death and decay, of course. That yes. CL applies to this much for sure.
More Aberrations Dear Michael,
The axiomatic logic of "Flow" and "No Flow" represent endpoints on a spectrum, with an individual’s comfort zone often found in a balanced midpoint. The ongoing struggle to maintain this balance within nature’s dualities fuels evolution, the details are covered in the Natural Law chapter of my book.
According to CL, systems which are natural, biological, or social, they all tend to evolve in ways that allow easier access to flows, such as movement, energy, or resources, and thus enhance their survival and adaptability.
When we apply this to good governance, CL would emphasize the creation of structures and policies that enable the free flow of resources, ideas, and opportunities throughout society. A good government would evolve in response to its citizens’ needs, continuously improving its systems to remove barriers, promote access, and distribute resources efficiently. This approach aligns with the principle of maximizing flow while maintaining stability, similar to a well-functioning natural system.
Now the question emerges what a good government is. Is it monarchical, autocratic, democracy or something else. All have merits and demerits.
It doesn't help tell that democracy is better than autocracy.
For Soviets till the day USSR threatened US they were the proud Soviets. SO is true of many Chinses now. All regimes allow good and bad flows, no flows too. The disease of corruption is more among democracies and they done have any clue for its no flow.
Dear Albert,
Yes indeed. Although, just to point out parenthetically, conservative Americans tend to get all flustered when we say things like this. What is explicitly stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is not merely a privilege, they will insist with much drama and emotion. It's a right that only a constitutional amendment can take away.
Many conservative Americans view the rights enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as fundamental and inviolable. In their view, these rights are not privileges granted by the government, but rather intrinsic rights that belong to individuals and are protected from government infringement.
This belief leads to a passionate defense of the Constitution as the ultimate safeguard of individual freedoms. Conservatives often argue that these rights can only be altered through the rigorous process of a constitutional amendment—which requires broad public and legislative support—and not by mere laws or executive actions. This reflects a broader commitment to originalism, or the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted as close as possible to the intent of its framers.
Such a stance can create tension when discussions arise about modern issues that may not have been anticipated by the framers, such as digital privacy or gun regulation. Conservatives argue that these issues should be addressed with great caution, preserving the foundational rights as much as possible.
"All people are born equal" is probably the biggest lie of all the times. No two persons are alike, not even the twins. So how could the CL define this ineaquality?
Dear Albert Manfredi
“First, I think of this "constructal law" as a vague restating of actual laws of physics, in a nebulous way such as to make it applicable to just about anything.”
The physical Constructal Law (CL) brings clarity to the nebulous topic of evolution. While Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection revolutionized biology by offering a scientific framework for understanding the evolution of species over time, CL further illuminates this process by highlighting the underlying physical principles that drive all evolutionary flows. By applying CL, we gain a broader perspective on evolution that transcends biology, encompassing social, technological, and natural systems that evolve to improve access and flow, adding coherence to the concept of evolution across domains in the formation of configuration.
For example, branching patterns in trees, rivers, blood vessels, and neurons in the brain are just some examples of CL configurations that have evolved. In general, what may appear random in evolution is guided by the physical laws of nature toward designs that facilitate flow. By emphasizing the importance of flow and movement in the evolution of these systems, CL offers a new framework for understanding the development of complex natural systems, from biological organisms to social organizations.
Different fields of study have developed their own set of equations to predict the flow of specific types of systems. For example, the laws of aerodynamics provide a set of predictive airflow equations for controlled flight, and Ohm’s law deals with the prediction of current flow within an electric field. Similarly, fluid flow has its own set of equations, such as the Navier-Stokes equations, that govern the flow of liquids and gases. All these flows follow CL.
It is important to note that CL is not a set of equations like the ones mentioned above, but a general principle that can be used to understand and aid in the predictive behavior of natural systems. It provides a unifying framework that can be applied to a wide range of systems across various domains, and it can be used in conjunction with other predictive tools to aid in algorithm development and simulations to gain a deeper understanding of the systems being studied.
Contemplating this simple relationship of CL can be frighteningly uncomfortable for some. It implies a certain determinism and inevitability to the processes of evolution and change from simple configurations found in the inanimate to complex animate configurations resulting in the creation of humanity. This simple relationship provides a powerful framework for understanding the interactions throughout living and non-living systems and the ways in which energy and resources are distributed and transformed in the generation of configuration.
“And yet, teaching this CL to the Putins, Xis, and Khameneis of the world will not change reality.”
It’s true that older generations will place little emphasis on the relevance of CL. However, introducing CL to the children of today, or those young in mind, offers a transformative path forward, enabling a shift in perspective that aligns with the ongoing evolution of our universe.
Dear Harish K Thakur
“This approach [CL]aligns with the principle of maximizing flow while maintaining stability, similar to a well-functioning natural system.”
Relative to the flow within the physical Constructal Law (CL), it is important to note that the phrase “evolve freely such that it provides greater access” does not imply the maximizing optimal condition, but rather aims to change the existing condition towards its currents.
“Now the question emerges what a good government is. Is it monarchical, autocratic, democracy or something else. All have merits and demerits.”
All forms of governance are good, some more efficient than others, if they incorporate Constructalism. However, there is a critical caveat I term “Deterministic Freedom” (DF). DF is embedded in the DNA of all life, and for humans, understanding and addressing this phenomenon early in childhood is essential. The structure of government best suited to accommodate DF is a republic. While a republic can endure for some time, DF will eventually exert pressure on it as government tends to flow toward the currents in the power to rule. A deeper understanding of DF could help extend the lifespan of a republic.
All republics operate under the rule of law as defined by their constitutions, rather than under the power of an individual, or by the majority as in a democracy. Courts hold the responsibility to interpret and enforce the law.
In the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights serves not as a grant of rights but as a set of ten restrictions on government, designed to safeguard citizens' unalienable rights—outlined in the Declaration of Independence—from infringements by others and abuses of government power.
"All people are born equal" is probably the biggest lie of all the times. No two persons are alike, not even the twins. So how could the CL define this ineaquality?”
A quote from the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The phrase “created equal” in the U.S. Declaration of Independence reflects the equal process of human creation through fertilization. Beyond that initial creation, no two humans are truly equal. The phrase “endowed by their Creator” can be interpreted according to one's beliefs—whether seen as a divine endowment from God or as an inherent property arising from the physical laws of nature, such as CL.
Biden-Harris admin treatment of Ukraine, Israel wars 'differs substantially,' experts say. ‘Biden-Harris team has been trying to appease Iran by trying to micromanage Israel’s war fighting campaign,’ says ex-intel official, By Benjamin Weinthal Fox News, Published November 4, 2024. Read on: https://www.foxnews.com/world/biden-harris-admin-treatment-ukraine-israel-wars-differs-substantially-experts-say
Harish,
"All people are born equal" is probably the biggest lie of all the times. No two persons are alike, not even the twins.
Yes, but see, I have little problem with this. Just like "unalienable rights," there are merely aspirational slogans. They are not to be taken too literally.
All men are created equal, at best, can be interpreted today as "all people are given equal opportunities." It has to do more with disputing any notion oif "birth rights," which existed in Europe in those days.
How they use those opportunities is only up to them. It certainly does not mean that everyone can be as good as Lionel Messi at playing soccer. Nor does it mandate that everyone must want to compete that way, or even give a hoot about soccer.
Also the reason I have no trouble dismissing religious fundamentalism. Do I think we must sacrifice two cows and one pig, to guarantee good weather? No. And that easily extends to other such beliefs.
Michael,
The physical Constructal Law (CL) brings clarity to the nebulous topic of evolution. While Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection revolutionized biology by offering a scientific framework for understanding the evolution of species over time, CL further illuminates this process by highlighting the underlying physical principles that drive all evolutionary flows.
CL does not need to verify its veracity, as Darwin and continuing theory of evolution have to do. CL merely creates a narrative from observation of physical, esthetic similarities. And then it uses that physical similarity to claim that the two unrelated processes are governed by the same "law of nature." But come now. Call it an interesting curiosity. Let's not make a religion of it.
Almost like, someone might say hey wow, the surface of an egg looks like marble. And then creates some imaginative explanation that "ties together" marble and eggs. When in fact, there is nothing that ties the two together.
By applying CL, we gain a broader perspective on evolution that transcends biology, encompassing social, technological, and natural systems that evolve to improve access and flow, adding coherence to the concept of evolution across domains in the formation of configuration.
We gain a broader perspective? Or we are just made aware a physical similarity? Maybe we're get hung up on the esthetics of two entirely different processes? Rivers and blood vessels, honestly, they are quite entirely different things. Produced by different mechanisms.
In general, what may appear random in evolution is guided by the physical laws of nature toward designs that facilitate flow.
(Well, to be correct, nothing should "appear random in evolution." It may be random mutations initially, then followed by natural selection. And I'm hardly suggesting that science has all the answers.)
CL makes up this business about flows, and whether it's applicable or not, it reverse-fits this imaginative narrative into an explanation. Like eggshells and marble. There is nothing necessarily profound in whatever similarities, however. Really and truly, it's superficial observations of similar-looking things,
By emphasizing the importance of flow and movement in the evolution of these systems, CL offers a new framework for understanding the development of complex natural systems, from biological organisms to social organizations.
Different fields of study have developed their own set of equations to predict the flow of specific types of systems. For example, the laws of aerodynamics provide a set of predictive airflow equations for controlled flight, and Ohm’s law deals with the prediction of current flow within an electric field. Similarly, fluid flow has its own set of equations, such as the Navier-Stokes equations, that govern the flow of liquids and gases. All these flows follow CL.
CL merely points out what appears to be interesting similarities, even when the apparent similarities do not hold up under scrutiny. Right? The way a river forms, the way blood vessels form. Entirely different mechanisms. Yes, perhaps an esthetically, superficially similar final outcome, yet completely different underlying mechanisms.
We may also create some narrative to show how sand and mashed potatoes might look similar? But why would that narrative be important? Would it be a real "unifying theory," or just the object of vivid imagination?
Dear Albert Manfredi
“Would it be a real "unifying theory," or just the object of vivid imagination?”
Any “unifying theory,” is just an object of some vivid imagination in the evolution thereof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129
Albert,
My problem also continues while understanding this"
"All people are born equal" is probably the biggest lie of all the times. No two persons are alike, not even the twins.
Yes, but see, I have little problem with this. Just like "unalienable rights," there are merely aspirational slogans. They are not to be taken too literally.
The phrase “All people are born equal” is often cited as a foundational ideal in many philosophical, legal, and political systems, implying that each person possesses equal inherent value and rights at birth. However, interpreting this statement literally reveals significant complexities. While the ideal speaks to human dignity and the aspiration for equality in rights, opportunities, and social treatment, it does not mean that all individuals are born with the same circumstances, abilities, or prospects. Here’s an exploration of why this phrase can be seen as an oversimplification and, in some respects, a “blatant lie.”
There are biological, social, economic, cultural, normative, territorial differences and so on. Even thew procreators are unequal, and sometimes procreation is also under disagreement taking place at unequal plane and time...😂
Michael,
All forms of governance are good, some more efficient than others, if they incorporate Constructalism. However, there is a critical caveat I term “Deterministic Freedom” (DF). DF is embedded in the DNA of all life, and for humans, understanding and addressing this phenomenon early in childhood is essential. The structure of government best suited to accommodate DF is a republic. While a republic can endure for some time, DF will eventually exert pressure on it as government tends to flow toward the currents in the power to rule. A deeper understanding of DF could help extend the lifespan of a republic.
The doctrine of DF appears to be too personal to be understood, unless one goes through the logic you have presented. The term Deterministic Freedom (DF) does it mean "DNA of all life," suggesting a deep-seated drive or imperative for autonomy and agency within a structured environment. Is it a desire for freedom within limits – a natural inclination toward self-determination that operates within the boundaries of biological and social systems. Unless the term is defined in terms of its social and physical relevance wihth precise reference it would be difficult to understand and also rely on it.
Harish,
The phrase “All people are born equal” is often cited as a foundational ideal in many philosophical, legal, and political systems, implying that each person possesses equal inherent value and rights at birth.
Agreed. Also, as I mentioned further down in a previous reply, this idea should be seen as contrasting with the "unequal by birth right" ethic that prevailed in Europe, at that time. (Or India's caste system, right?)
However, interpreting this statement literally reveals significant complexities. While the ideal speaks to human dignity and the aspiration for equality in rights, opportunities, and social treatment, it does not mean that all individuals are born with the same circumstances, abilities, or prospects.
The whole notion shouldn't be taken too literally.
I'm pretty sure that in all strata of society, people are very well aware of the different athletic potential of themselves and others. I pick that example because it does not depend on education. So, no excuses about "some are not exposed to this." Pretty much everyone knows, some people make great athletes and others don't, no matter how much they might want to or how much they practice.
Why should any other aspects of aptitude be different? Whatever interests, endeavors, people are bound to have varying ability to succeed. However, in principle, in the US, it's not going to be the government or society to shove you down a particular slot for the rest of your life. You have to do this on your own.
Michael,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0
Different subject. This is about consciousness, cognition.
Yes, our senses create a facsimile of our environment, within the operational boundaries of each one of our sensors. I agree that actual reality is different from each one of the facsimiles we create. That's easy enough to accept.
Our eyes see a narrow sliver of the EM spectrum. Our ears respond to a narrow sliver of acoustic frequencies. We can take IR pictures of a scene and we know it appears very different from what our eyes see, and we perceive. So it's not hard to accept that our facsimile of the environment is hardly "reality."
It's also not hard to accept that the way each of us perceives reality, the facsimile we create in our brains, could be different. Some of this is trivially obvious. Some people, for example, are blind, or even just colorblind in different ways. Obviously, what they perceive will be different from what others perceive. But also, we can't see molecules or atoms, without special instrumentation. We can't hear infrasonic or ultrasonic sounds. So clearly, there's a whole lot of this reality that we are oblivious to.
Most people are aware of these limitations in our sensors. I don't think it should come as a huge surprise that our facsimile of reality is not "reality."
I think that neuroscience is close to being able to tap into our brains, to permit someone else to perceive what a person perceives. Sort of, a baseband link between brains. Much like the IT guy can tap into your PC, to troubleshoot it remotely. We should be able to see whether what I claim to be "red" also appears red to the other guy. Still doesn't get us any closer to a picture of the whole reality of what's around us, of course.
What would natural selection tend to favor, in the specs of our sensors and the associated brain decoding algorithms? Why, whatever best allows the organism to survive.
Not sure what this has to do with CL, though.
Trump wins 277 to 224 the electoral college vote, plus 51% vs 47,5% the popular vote. All the analysis I heard tonight was saying, it was the economy and border security.
Sorry, but on the border security issue for sure, The Biden administration asked for this loss.
I also heard a pretty astute Russian commentator, when asked whether this was good for Russia, responded Trump is unpredictable. In fact, in his last term, he did try to wean the EU of Russian gas. Even before Putin's attempted invasion.
I'm anxious to see what he does about Ukraine assistance and NATO in general.
Dear Albert Manfredi
“Different subject. This is about consciousness, cognition. … Not sure what this has to do with CL, though.”
In my reply I referenced two links. The first was Donald Hoffman’s YouTube presentation of his research, the second is one of his articles on the subject of consciousness.
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129
The consciousness of a living entity can be viewed as a system that constantly evolves in the pursuit for easier flow and communication of information across the universe of living cells during the evolution of neurons and their networks. The brain is a complex network of interconnected neurons, and the flow of information within this network is crucial for the proper functioning of consciousness.
Figure 2 in Hoffman’s article represents a conscious agent. “The channel P transmits messages from the world W, leading to conscious experiences X. The channel D transmits messages from X, leading to actions G. The channel A transmits messages from G that are received resulting in newperceived states of W. The counter N is an integer that keeps track of the number of messages that are passed on each channel.” A conscious agent, C, is represented by a six-tuple equation 6:
C = ((X, X), (G, G), P, D, A, N). (6)
Relative to the physical Constructal Law (CL), the axiom of innate rights, and a conscious agent, we have the following mapping:
For a flow system to persist in time (to live) [Life (P,X)], it must evolve freely [Liberty (D, G)] such that it provides greater access [the pursuit of (G,A)] to its currents [of (W)].
This model has symmetry with CL, which is a principle that governs the way in which flow systems in nature evolve. That is, consciousness itself can be seen as a system that evolves in the dendritic configuration needed for an easier flow of information across the universe of neurons. In this view, the conscious mind is seen as a system that has evolved to improve process information, leading to the perception of the universe and life itself.
Michael,
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/1/129
The consciousness of a living entity can be viewed as a system that constantly evolves in the pursuit for easier flow and communication of information across the universe of living cells during the evolution of neurons and their networks. The brain is a complex network of interconnected neurons, and the flow of information within this network is crucial for the proper functioning of consciousness.
I don't see it this way. Consciousness, to me, is comprised of algorithms in the brain which decode signals from our sensor systems. That system has evolved in living organisms, but its continued evolution, assuming it's ongoing, is going to be quite slow.
What might change more rapidly is the learning aspect of the consciousness algorithms. The software, if you will, which processes the sensor inputs. Sure, learning will change the results of the processing steps. Synapses implement algorithms, in the brain. These will adjust, with learning. Not to improve "flows," but to improve accuracy of the software processing functions.
Learning, in short, not "flows" for their own sake, to try to give credibility to some pre-established narrative.
Figure 2 in Hoffman’s article represents a conscious agent. “The channel P transmits messages from the world W, leading to conscious experiences X. The channel D transmits messages from X, leading to actions G. The channel A transmits messages from G that are received resulting in newperceived states of W. The counter N is an integer that keeps track of the number of messages that are passed on each channel.” A conscious agent, C, is represented by a six-tuple equation 6:
C = ((X, X), (G, G), P, D, A, N). (6)
Don't know about you, but to me, this attempt at fabricating a rigorous equation, only from vivid imagination, is not so compelling.
In fact, we have many sensor systems. Each one feeds a different part of the brain, for custom processing. And then, the combined facsimile of reality forms, in the cortex. I think that would be the prefrontal cortex. And depending what that shows, we may or we may not act on it. That equation does not open up any new insights, best I can tell. It lumps too many separate signals into just one parameter.
Relative to the physical Constructal Law (CL), the axiom of innate rights, and a conscious agent, we have the following mapping:
For a flow system to persist in time (to live) [Life (P,X)], it must evolve freely [Liberty (D, G)] such that it provides greater access [the pursuit of (G,A)] to its currents [of (W)].
We have no innate rights, except as might be stated in emotionally charged political slogans. And more importantly, force-fitting a fabricated but unverified "equation" does not convince me of any added veracity of the conclusion.
Dear Albert Manfredi
“And more importantly, force-fitting a fabricated but unverified "equation" does not convince me of any added veracity of the conclusion.”
Hoffman’s work on the hard problem of consciousness still has a long journey ahead. However, it’s interesting to see him incorporating Constructal Law logic in his approach.
Hey, more on the subject matter intended for this thread, it really bothers me that the likes of Viktor Orban think that Trump is a kindred spirit.
As much as the naysayers like to hype up Trump's intentions to become an autocrat,
1. That is pretty difficult to do in the US, without ratifying amendments to the Constitution. And that process is difficult. There are many players invoved, many moving parts.
2. I think that the average voter in the US is hyper-sensitized to attempts by any politician to overstep their mandate. The rhetoric about "tyrants" is quite alive and well, in the US, and especially so among the rednecks in the Republican party.
I know that Kamal Harris was banking on being able to scare people into worrying how Trump would be a threat to democracy. She should instead have spent more time convincing Americans that she would not be just a repeat of the Biden administration. Not say things like, "I don't know what I'd do differently," which was a really dumb thing to say.
Now the "Trump derangement syndrome" is becoming evident again in certain news outlets, same as last time. Like The Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, and a gaggle of online sources. I saw one mention today, "Trump won thanks only to the white male vote.
I doubt that's true, but if it is, okay.
Donald Trump, during his victory speech on November 6, took a swipe at Russia and China. Trump mentioned Russia and China while narrating a story about tech billionaire Elon Musk. Watch for more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKHU-vMOJDo
Trump definitely is going to impact the bipolarization process that ousts US from traditional dominant position.
“Trump definitely is going to impact the bipolarization process that ousts US from traditional dominant position.”
Trump should consider reinstating the Commission on Unalienable Rights, which was disbanded by Joe Biden in 2021, to help guide leaders in Washington back to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, foster greater civility, and set a positive example on the global stage.
https://2017-2021.state.gov/draft-report-of-the-commission-on-unalienable-rights/index.html
Harish,
Trump definitely is going to impact the bipolarization process that ousts US from traditional dominant position.
Could be. It would be a bit like last time around. Although if he does manage to end the stupid wars, maybe people would take notice. The various self-serving autocrats are not ending these wars and instability, they are creating them.
I also heard a US voter interviewed on National Public Radio yesterday. It really makes me sigh.
The guy said something to the effect, "NATO was created to ensure US dominance."
Just the kind of stupidity that the autocrats can use as ammunition. Even if they know better.
As my work colleague said some years ago, "There is no excuse for such ignorance, during the Internet era."
To War or not to War? That's the question to ask NATO, the nagging question, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Le Monde (this morning), By Philippe Ricard, Faustine Vincent, Elise Vincent, Chloé Hoorman, Philippe Jacqué, and Jacques Follorou. War in Ukraine: Western embarrassment at North Korean involvement. On Friday, NATO confirmed the deployment of soldiers sent by Pyongyang alongside Russian forces near Kursk. On Friday, November 8, the North Atlantic Council, NATO's political decision-making body, "strongly condemned" the now-proven involvement of North Korean soldiers on Russia's side in the Russian region of Kursk, which has been partly occupied by Ukraine since this summer. "The thousands of combat troops deployed by the DPRK constitutes a dangerous expansion of its ongoing support for Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine," denounced the alliance. As an exception, the statement was also signed by its partners in Asia and Oceania, South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and Australia, as well as by Ukraine..." Read on: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/11/10/war-in-ukraine-western-embarrassment-at-north-korean-involvement_6732271_4.html
Comment: If this time again, NATO countries are content to condemn "strongly " or to threaten both Russia and North Korea with "vitrification", well in this case, it will be the demonstration by example that People who place their destiny in other people's hands must assume their alienation. Sooner or later they lose not only their sovereignty but also all their illusions. One may only pity Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals
Albert
Could be. It would be a bit like last time around. Although if he does manage to end the stupid wars, maybe people would take notice. The various self-serving autocrats are not ending these wars and instability, they are creating them.
Return of Donald Trump to the White House raises concerns for both Russia and China, albeit for different reasons. Although Trump is known for sometimes expressing admiration for strong leaders like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, his unpredictable foreign policy moves, focus on "America First," and willingness to upset established diplomatic protocols could pose significant challenges for both countries.
Trump's centralization of power, strong decision-making quality poses him heavier than Xi and Putin now. The US voters have voted to counter Russo-Chinese authoritarian regime supported by Iran and North Korea. US has to strengthen its Minilaterals like Quad, AUKUS ANZUs etc.
While the quest to have a new multipolar order with less Dollar dominance is desirable, its substitute has to be stable and just, not just like the duo of Putin and Xi wants. It would be like jumping from frying pan into fire.
The guy said something to the effect, "NATO was created to ensure US dominance."
The sad thing with NATO is that all members want security but all dont want to contribute proportionately towards NATO funds, which US has to bear. Unless this financial crunch is met by all its expansion is less possible than the more possibility of its reduction in size.
“To War or not to War? That's the question to ask” humanity!
When has humanity not been at war? When will we refuse to kill our neighbors? Perhaps the global internet offers a path to transcend the Democracy-Authoritarian binary or ideological polarization perpetuated by the global elite, paving the way toward global civility. Until then, the cycle of killing will persist.
Michael,
When has humanity not been at war?
Not just humans. I'm not a naturalist or any such thing, but I've read that ants and wolves are always fighting one another too. I read that wolves die at the "hands" of other wolves more than any other cause of death.
But people will insist that "nature is beautiful."
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Research Topics