The macro and the micro; boundaries of possibilities

 

     There is a well-known meandering about "see this piece of dust, what if it were a world for very small people living inside it ... and what if we are that piece of dust to some place so vast we cannot comprehend it." The Ant-Man movies kind of echo this type of suggested microworlds though not the macroworlds (not yet, at least). (For that matter, Dr. Seuss' "whoville" is in the same category.) 

     Is such a microworld really possible? Not from the science that we accept at present. We have experimental evidence in support of a hierarchy of matter and energy. From a wooden table to a quark, from matter via relativity to energy and back.

     But the nature of science is to create multiple questions every time we decide upon a tentative answer (all are susceptible to replacement, or enhancement, upon new discoveries). As Arthur C. Clarke said in his "third law" -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". This can be inverted to indicate that "what appears to be magic, may be explained at some future time by use of technology advanced beyond the current status".

     The word "magic" bothers some people -- so it is fine, as far as I am concerned, to call it "future science" but that would be cumbersome, so I will continue to call it magic.

     If one considers the things around us, how many would have been considered magic 500 years ago? Sure, one thinks of computers and smartphones but even a sewing machine would have aroused amazement (hopefully not burning at the stake). Washing machines, microwaves, refrigerators, electric bulbs, asphalt, and so on and so on.

     Arthur C. Clarke also has a less famous "first law" which indicates "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very probably wrong".

     Turning around and facing the future, the only thing that I can be certain of is that it will be different. Hopefully better for more people -- but definitely different. Assuming that the Jenga stack of technological society survives and continues, imagination is literally our only limit.

     I am most fascinated at the "hows". How does the mind really work? Just how do microbacterial colonies within our digestive system adjust our bodies, our moods, even how long we live? In structured medical studies, the "placebo" (perhaps sugar water or tablets) group often still improves -- how? Science recognizes a relationship between matter and energy. Is there a relationship between mind and how matter and energy are perceived (and, perhaps, manipulated)?

     During periods of introspection (I don't allow myself to linger long as I have to live in the world that most recognize), I will think of that table and break it down to molecules and bonds and then down to atoms and particles and I get lost in amazement that my hand is able to hold a baseball. How does all this interact to make it possible? How is one set of organized atoms and particles able to interact with another set of organized atoms and particles? Most of it is "empty" space. How does one grouping act as a solid -- and interact with other solids?

     I'm not a physicist and have only somewhat more knowledge about it than most educated laypeople. I am sure that, on a mathematical basis with formulas and theorems, there are approaches to answers to these questions -- possibly involving valences and the way bonding energies interact. But, for my "money", all of this is still in the region of magic. It is something that happens every day and few think twice about it but it still ends up in that area of magic (or "future science").

    To quote Buzz Lightyear -- "to infinity and beyond".

Money as Energy: Increasing the pool of money

    In the previous post, I talked about how money is basically an abstraction of the combination of resources, labor, and energy. We are fortunate that we do, presently, have more than adequate amounts of each. Distribution of such, however, is very uneven and, thus, causes areas of poverty, famine, and other physical and social lacks.

    I ended the previous post with the idea that -- although our current problems are more concerned with distribution rather than actual shortages -- the New Age idea of an unlimited pool of money is not currently a reality. Is there anything to be done about that? Is there actually a way that everyone can have more (even with distribution problems)?

    To address that question, it comes back to the three components of money -- resources, labor, and energy. It also requires a fourth "catalyst" which is technology. By using technology, energy can be converted into additional resources and increased labor availability. This argues that energy is the prime limiting factor within economics.

    We can look around at the world and see how the availability of energy (applied via technology) has increased the "wealth" of the world. Farmers, via the use of equipment (using energy and technology to create and energy to keep active), can produce much greater amounts of food than what one person working the ground with manual labor can do. Harvesting of material resources -- trees, ores, fish -- are possible on a much larger scale than a single person could do making use only of manual labor (allowing a hand-built boat and fishing equipment).

    The above paragraph indicates how energy (with technology assistance) can increase the amount of labor. It does NOT increase the amount of resources. But the amount of food for people has been increased -- isn't that an increase in resources? No, it isn't -- because the ecological pyramid has not changed. The amount of base-level food has not increased. The plankton, plants, and other solar-using food plants have not increased. The labor has been used to change the varieties of food harvested and the distribution of the food (from other animals to people). In fact, due to pollution and other side-effects of application of energy to increase labor, the total amount of food resources may go down (decrease in sea life in general, decrease in fish population, decrease in non-human animal population).

    Can energy increase resources available to us? Yes, in two ways. The first is a continuation, and expansion, of what we presently do -- redistribution. We find other, more energy intensive, methods of accessing resources. However, this often has negative environmental effects and is also just speeding up the use of resources. So, although it increases resources available on a short-term basis, it does NOT increase the amount of resource. A second aspect of this (still redistribution) is to bring resources from other places -- the asteroid belt, for example, is a potential area from which to redistribute resources.

    The second method of increasing resources requires much higher levels of energy. Besides the potential of alchemy (changing one element into another -- possible with huge amounts of energy), there are many endothermic reactions possible with increased energy available. Endothermic means "requiring the absorption of heat". Thus, it is possible to convert raw elements into more complex molecules and, finally, into "organic" materials needed for human eating, or use for furniture, or such. This is actually a metamorphosis of resources and not an increase -- but it's "close enough" for our uses.

    So, with energy, the pool of "money" becomes bigger. Distribution remains a major problem. A larger problem is making sure that the energy is renewable -- we do not want to empty the bank as that would cause widespread catastrophe for the existing economy. The other problems aren't directly concerned with energy-as-money but are related to social, and environmental, responsibility for using it in a life-affirming way.