I may be misinterpreting, but I don’t see the conflict between dimensionality and optimization as the core issue in your description. While it does exist, I believe the primary challenge lies in the uneven distribution of dimensionality across society.
From my reading of your article, it seems that the real tension arises from a subset of individuals and institutions operating within an expanded, continually evolving dimensionality, while society as a whole remains structured on foundations of an older, more limited dimensional framework. This creates a conflict, as the majority still operates within and upholds this outdated dimensionality, resulting in a disconnect between these groups.
However, I think dimensionality versus optimization is probably the interesting problem, but I'm not sure if it is the main obstacle now.
Great comments, and you have interpreted it perfectly.
I'd say what your highlighting is the "adaptation" phase of the dialectic: X frameworks optimize for X dimensionality. Reality expands into Y dimensionality. Now frameworks must adapt: either by optimizing for Y or being replaced by those that can. Otherwise the risk is dimensional collapse.
And as you point out, when the expanded dimensionality is not being optimized by existing frameworks, then it's not legible in ways that the entire society can leverage. Which leads to the asymmetric distribution. Which is perhaps inevitable if it's the only process by which existing frameworks are forced to adapt?
So what do you think this entails? Perhaps "progress" needs to understood in similarly dialectical terms? Or frameworks need to be rethought in terms of being "scale invariant"?
I'm afraid we won’t have the time or conditions for dialectic progress unless we accelerate human access to superhuman intelligence. At some point, distributed or massive access becomes essential to create the conditions needed for developing a ‘scale-invariant’ framework. If intelligence is the currency, or the language, we should all be able to speak it—it’s our language. While massive access probably won’t fully resolve the asymmetry, it could make it more sustainable and soften potential future conflicts.
Great thinking! Very inspiring.
I may be misinterpreting, but I don’t see the conflict between dimensionality and optimization as the core issue in your description. While it does exist, I believe the primary challenge lies in the uneven distribution of dimensionality across society.
From my reading of your article, it seems that the real tension arises from a subset of individuals and institutions operating within an expanded, continually evolving dimensionality, while society as a whole remains structured on foundations of an older, more limited dimensional framework. This creates a conflict, as the majority still operates within and upholds this outdated dimensionality, resulting in a disconnect between these groups.
However, I think dimensionality versus optimization is probably the interesting problem, but I'm not sure if it is the main obstacle now.
Great comments, and you have interpreted it perfectly.
I'd say what your highlighting is the "adaptation" phase of the dialectic: X frameworks optimize for X dimensionality. Reality expands into Y dimensionality. Now frameworks must adapt: either by optimizing for Y or being replaced by those that can. Otherwise the risk is dimensional collapse.
And as you point out, when the expanded dimensionality is not being optimized by existing frameworks, then it's not legible in ways that the entire society can leverage. Which leads to the asymmetric distribution. Which is perhaps inevitable if it's the only process by which existing frameworks are forced to adapt?
So what do you think this entails? Perhaps "progress" needs to understood in similarly dialectical terms? Or frameworks need to be rethought in terms of being "scale invariant"?
I'm afraid we won’t have the time or conditions for dialectic progress unless we accelerate human access to superhuman intelligence. At some point, distributed or massive access becomes essential to create the conditions needed for developing a ‘scale-invariant’ framework. If intelligence is the currency, or the language, we should all be able to speak it—it’s our language. While massive access probably won’t fully resolve the asymmetry, it could make it more sustainable and soften potential future conflicts.