Balances

I don’t know if this is part of Game Theory (I haven’t read it yet) or if it connects to it in any way but I’ve been thinking……

We can envision that in this universe of no loss of energy, as a hypothetical assumption based on the Laws of Thermodynamics, that a slight imbalance in one region would affect that of another in the opposite way.
If energy increases in one area, then it must decrease in another.

In the context of human interactions we can translate this into meaning that when one wins, or goes through a streak of good “luck” or is fortunate or succeeds, then another must be experiencing the opposite.
There can be no winner if there is no loser and my hypothetical good fortune can only have as a consequence another’s bad fortune.
I say this because I’ve perceived a certain periodic fluctuation in both fortune and physical/mental energies.

Under this premise how is peace feasible or how is prosperity and equality for all attainable within a universe of finite energy?
To make someone or something equal to someone or something else one must raise one, causing a diminishment of the other, as an almost necessary effect and to make one prosper one must make another poor.

A tectonic plate causing an earthquake in one area saves another from suffering the same fate, bad weather in one geographic area means another will get sunshine and in the same way peace for me or for us can only mean that somewhere else a war must be fought, just as my life is dependant on something dying.

i have a couple of questions:
the universe may not lose energy, but is it true that it cannot gain energy?
secondly:
can’t karma, in the sense of balance your describe, be onto myself instead of be projected onto others?

but finally, keeping the theme of karma alive…to every winner there is a loser. to every high a low. this is the way of opposites. to every opposite is its pair, inevitably. so, a balance your talking about would be a lack of opposites altogether maybe. no high no low. no win no lose.

but, then again, winning and losing may not necessarily be translated into amounts of energy.

i like your post. its confusing me. i feel farther away from an answer then when i started.

I would think that if the first is true then so is the second.

Karma for me is the sum result of our interactions with others.

If I steal from others it is logical that in time someone will retaliate by stealing from me, and if I help others likewise the likelihood of someone helping me grows - but this is not ensured.
It’s like an investment in the community with uncertain returns.
But this is consciously guided.

In effect, my behavior adjusts according to my perception of what is required of me to compete for the community’s acceptance, or good graces, or help.
We can witness this in instances like these (this forum) where anonymity protects us from direct communal consequences (even while it still maintains an effect within the context of this board resulting in good/bad reputations and communal exclusion/inclusion) and yet we retain a position of deference towards others and self-censorship, often to the point where this has been internalized and suppressed anything in us that would result in the other’s wrath.
Our subconscious, conditioned to self-preserve subconsciously/consciously follows the route of least resistance and acts in a way that will benefit it immediately.
Thusly the combined energies of the whole determine the energy flows of the one, who will do nothing to disturb the whole or draw the communal wrath upon it (expressed through opinions and evaluations and good or bad will) and who will be drawn into the current in the direction and speed of the communal flow of this particular region.

In some cases there is competition involved as helping me might involve someone else not being helped or me getting a job might mean someone else will lose his or be rejected from a job.
So in fact I am trying to outbid others, or a general average other, as I am trying to outbid perspective suitors when I am pursuing a love interest by exaggerating my attributes, often fabricating them or actually improving them so that I become more desirable, likable, wanted, acceptable.

What I am doing is adjusting my self in relation to others to gain a required result which, I feel, I need or I want.

But there is also a blind form of fortune we call luck which isn’t subject to conscious or subconscious evaluations.

At the roulette table my personal good fortune entails the loss of the house, which represents some communal fortune, and is random and not subject to my strategizing, no matter how much I would think it is.

Here the individual gains in relation to a group or a community of interests, represented by the casino.
At poker my win entails the other’s loss - an individual directly competing against another individual and so making the win/loss result more blunt than when a community of interests loses to an individual where the results are defused through shared fortune.

There is always a redistribution of energy, fortune, well-being and so on.
If I am doing well then I can be certain that somewhere, someone is not doing well, in equal but opposite proportions.

And so no thing.

If we can imagine a universe of evenly distributed energy, with no pockets or pooling which might account for matter, then we imagine nothingness.

Other than gain and loss, what can it be translated as?

We can at least agree that human consciousness translates the universe in terms of opposites which may or may not correspond to actual phenomena but if they do not then what do they refer to and why would consciousness translate them in ways that are erroneous?
Why consciousness at all, if the universe is harmonious and evenly distributed energy?

Furthermore the concept of motion, flux, change, time, insinuates a redistribution of energy which in turn presupposes pockets or regions of imbalance.
Flow happens when a void is filled, thusly creating a new void which needs filling and so on and so on.

All we know is that, in human terms, our good fortune our prosperity forces poverty somewhere else.
This makes the entire notion of compassion for the impoverished and our altruistic desire to raise them from poverty, an act of self-impoverishment for the sake of an ideal we haven’t completely thought through.

At the very least the imagining of a world where we are all equally blessed with material wealth points to an impoverishment of something else - the Earth for example – if it is possible at all. It also points to a conscious decision to constantly maintain a balance by correcting any instances of spontaneously occurring redistributions of fortune and to a world of non-distinct uniformity, a human mind would have trouble adjusting to.

Excess of energy build-up will result in a release - an expression of it.
Energy buildup in the tectonic plates for example, will result in an earthquake. Preventing an earthquake somewhere else, if we actually could do that, would mean that we are making it more likely that it will occur elsewhere, even here, as a result.

So the noble Satyr does not forsee that a balanced system, especially with regards to humanity, is an attainable state.

Is it possible that you would see this state as an unsustainable stasis?

but what about the universe infinitely expanding?

i understand why this is obvious, but i think that there are times where we think we are losing, but we aren’t…and times when we think we are gaining, but are not. i perspective of gain and loss might not always translate into actual energy gain and actual energy loss.
or maybe it does?

so, given your reflections satyr…is the world worth it or not?

I see it as a chimera.
You?

Alexistentialism

Then energy is being diluted eventually leading to one with pockets of void and energy levels so low as to be insignificant.

Is the universe infinitely expanding?

Of course gain and loss are comparisons and affected by human weakness and perspectives.

But what about gain and loss theoretically?

Yes, because it is all we have.
But to take it all seriously?

Magnificent use of words, you have my admiration.

Unrealistic? Certainly, within the context of the current human condition.

As a mechanical species, there is little hope for improvement. Even so, the noble Satyr might concur, in expectation, in appreciable capacity, such a thing is … conceivable? Perhaps not at our current level, but should we not seek to attain such?

The “noble Satyr” concurs and goes further.

Not only should we seek its attainment but I believe it is all we can ever do (life’s ultimate purpose).

I would say man is the pinnacle of life’s search for its own obsolescence.
In fact, to seek paradise or absolute perfection or harmony is to seek out one’s own obliteration.

I fail to see how you make the leap from a universe with a constant ammount of energy, to a universe with a constant ammount of luck. To me the two seem completely unrelated, thus your argument is not only invalid but does not even informally support your conclusion.

That almost looks like some sort of odd and abstract twist – of the non-existent concept of “fair” – then it being applied to physics? Hardly…
I can’t agree with you at this time.

I think it was obscure and illusioned at this time.

Only if the resource is in a limited mass. Consuming life only applies to earth-style ecosystems and consumption methods. Remember – plants do not weaken the sun.

This claim is false, and I’m surprised that you’d even said this.

Only a certain % of our resources are limited/physically consumable.
Things like “success” and “peace” are not resources, they are a condition or status.

^This looks like misapplied dualism to me.
I can disprove your absolute claim now:
There is no opposite of heat.
Being cold is a lack of heat, but it is NOT the opposite of heat.
Ask anyone who knows their physics, and they will agree.

Dualism applies to things like electrons, for example, because there are posative and negative electrons in a state of balance, but when there are two or more sides, they don’t have to be opposite – I think that they just have to be different then each other.

When measuring a positive or negative value, we don’t always need to be aware of the opposite value – but instead, being aware of the zero point would probably bring the most balanced subjective measurement/valueing of the concept.

It’s true that we measure our pleasures and pains when we make our choices in life, but one thing that is harder to get then pleasure – is peace and satisfaction; it’s so strange how these are free and [basically] infinite, but people have such a hard time obtaining them?

Medeocracy isn’t natural or needed in an absolute sense.
I don’t mind the fact that there are people who have it way better of them me in every way. That doesn’t bother me. All that basically matters is that we are still alive and capable of doing things in our own lives.
=)

Unless an expotential technology advancement keeped on multiplying itself on earth, antil we began to reverse engineer quantum mechanics and restructure the fabrics of reality.

We’ve already been able to engineer things like matter and energy in many ways. It’s possible to build matter or elements atomically, though it is difficult and slow at this time.

If AI or nanobiohighbred brains of the future were 1,000,000,000 times as powerful/intelligent as they are today – can our imaginations limit their potential?

In my opinion, our sun burning up earth 4 billion years from now is not doom, because of expotentail technology growth and how fast it will get within a mere 20 years from now.

I don’t believe in doom; I have little reason to believe in it, either.

It’s good to see you enjoying the company at ILP, Mastriani.

A “mechanical species”?
Yes, we are mechines, who do our jobs rather well – and we are mechines that can be reverse engineered and eventually upgraded.

Eventually technology will hit the point – and someone’s gotta pop the question: “Can we reinvent humanity?” – and the answer will be yes, but the fears will say no.

I personally would like the soberity and disinchantment of humans realizing who and what they really are… It brings with it the much-needed humility and appreciation; some with high expectations may never know this feeling.

Tell that to the cells in your body, and they wont agree. Harmony and true unity/cooperation is a form of order and structure, which life will flourish in, if it can.

But, I don’t believe in “perfection” – it’s too adimant and dead…

Luck is just another term denoting the same thing.

I am “lucky” when the most of the energies surrounding me concur with my needs.

Dan~

But plants are part of the universe with a finite level of energy they affect – even if minimally – and are affected by.

Terms like “peace” and “success” are connected and defined by resources and resources are another way of saying energies.

Then do not use the word “opposite” and use another: Absence.
Being/Non-Being.

I agree.
I should have used another term to express what I was saying.

Peace and satisfaction are free?
Now I’m surprised you would say such a thing.

Peace and satisfaction relate to fulfilment and control and balance.
These concepts are not easily available but require effort (energy) and so result in conflict and competition.

My satisfaction might confront your satisfaction and a balance is only possible when both of us decide to remain relatively unsatisfied for mutually beneficial reasons – compromise.

The question her isn’t if you mind. This is a matter of acceptance and coming to terms with reality, but if it is possible.

Are we all capable of doing things in our own lives or do the others “doing things for his/her life” often prevent us from doing so in ours?

So what you are saying is that you have faith in technology’s ability to make mankind transcend the universe itself; in essence that technology will make man God and so escape the universe’s destiny.

If it were only about a dying sun it would be wonderful.

Exactly. They are totally unrelated. “Luck” is a perception; it’s a man-made value or subjective rating one gives to an occurrence.

If our solar system suddenly collapsed, that would be ‘bad luck’ for us on earth but would that mean “good luck” would have to manifest elsewhere to balance this out? I don’t think so.

Then perhaps we are using the same word in different ways.

I’m using the word ‘luck’ to define the human perception of good/bad fortune as it relates to individual needs and desires within the context of the human condition as it is perceived by consciousness.

Luck is simply a word used to describe the unknown forces that contributed to an outcome from a human perspective.
Since many desires and needs are common in all humans then luck denotes the attainment and acquisition of the energies that contribute to these desires and needs that are uncontrollable by human consciousness and so the ‘good fortune’ of one entails the ‘bad fortune’ of another.

By themselves good and bad are meaningless concepts, as is life and death or up and down or back and front or moral and immoral.
Yet, one’s life means the death of another and so these concepts gain weight and relevance at they refer to forces which contribute or subtract from each individual’s life.

Good and bad become relevant within an enclosed system and they point to inter-relations.

The distribution of energy, for me, is a matter of forces that are not always perceptible or far too complicated to be understood and so we describe them with the term ‘luck’ or chance.
Consciousness is a method of controlling the distribution of these energies and of eliminating the concept of chance but it is still far too primitive or the universe fragmenting far too quickly, due to entropy, to make it understood.

When two conscious being compete for the same energies {resources) they attribute the potential defeat or victory which is not directly traceable back to known (understood) forces to the unknown (luck, chance).

But beyond this, I find it interesting that most have pounced on this concept and have ignored the rest of my questions.
I suspect they smell blood, or a weakness they want to exploit.

The question stands:
How is the well-being of all even possible when the well-being of one is directly and inversely proportional to the well-being of another?

Unless we do away with the entire concept of individuality and adopt the “healthy” notion that we are by mere parts in a whole and so the well-being of the whole outweighs the well-being of the one.
To put it in Star Trek terms: The good of the many outweighs the good of the one.

If so, why was it necessary for the universe to create the conditions for fragmentation of this “ideal” state?

And, if so, then what does this mean for human consciousness and individuality and “freedom” and what does it say about the proponents of holism when they wish to abandon self and disappear in the many?

We have heard about how “diseased” and “dysfunctional” the “abnormal” is and we have heard from those who never fail to find ulterior motives behind segregation and discrimination and distinction and in those that do not “fit in”.
Now it is time to contemplate the reverse.

What is “healthy”, “functional”, “normal” about adhering to common “truths” and prescribing to “common ideals and ways of thinking”?
Does popularity count?
Is the concept of “healthy” determined by how many fall under its premises?

but “good” and “bad” luck use up both use up energy just as much as eachother.

It is very bad luck for me if i step out of the bank and there happened to be a grenade that exploded in my face at that exact same time. Simultaneoulsy it is good luck if i found a £50 note on the floor. And yet in this example the “bad luck” uses up more energy than the good. There is no relation between good fortune and finite energy because bad fortune and less energy do no coincide.

I’m not saying ‘good’ or ‘bad’ luck “use up” more or less energy.

I’m saying if there is a finite amount of energy, resources, then the usage of them by one, prevents the usage of them by another.

When I eat food and integrate its energies, its molecules, into my physical being, I am denying them to another, I am forcefully (willfully) claiming rights to them and imposing my self-interests on them.

You finding that money means that another will not find it and also that another has lost it. The other’s loss makes your gain possible.
And that grenade exploding in your face means someone benefits from it doing so, or else it would not have been fabricated and placed there in the first place.
Your death means something else benefits – even if it is microbes of maggots or rats or whatever.
Your continued living means that something else must die to perpetuate it.
Your maintaining of the unity you call self entails the destruction or deconstruction and assimilation by you of something else.

When I appropriate energies and add them to my own, or use them to replenish the continued diminishment of my own due to the attrition caused by time, I am in essence excluding them from the pool of available energies, attempting to freeze them in my being and so denying them to another thing or entity.