Tuesday, 8 April 2008

'Smart' laws? Built along the lines of co-operation instead of conflict as the driving force in individuals relationships?

Chaos attracting basins constantly test norms, regulations, laws.

Co-operation and not conflict as the primary drive in an individual, govern relationships with other individuals? And this to be taken into account in devising 'smart' laws to deal with human interactions?

Quantum mechanical states and the act of observation that decoheres the superposition of states into a single state, transfered into the context of human interactions and be used to direct the actions of the individual in dealing with problems faced in the course of his/her life, seeking solutions?

The observer influencing the kind of the single state that is instantiated by the individual under observation?

The laws are based on the assumption that human individuals are in conflict and not in co-operation. That comes from the acceptance of competition as it is portrayed in the darwinian theory.

How would law-making be different if co-operation instead of conflict is recognised as the primary drive in the acts individuals engage into? Certainly that will follow what is assumed actually drives the lives of individuals. If we assume that either co-operation or conflict is the main drive within an individual.

We should take both cases and see what might happen. Each case separate, either conflict or co-operation. How it would be if an individual assumes conflict, to deal with a situation and how it would be when it assumes co-operation to provide solution for the same problem.

What differ are the variables and parametres each approach would consider prevalent in any given situation. If it assumes conflict, it would consider different variables and parametres than when it assumes co-operation.

There we go to the quantum mechanical states and decoherence. As any situation in the world exists in a superposition of states, both states of either conflict or co-operation, co-exist simultaneously and what will be instantiated by the individual observed, depend on the act of observation.

And there comes the observer. According to his/her prevalent stance, co-operation or conflict, decoheres the superposition of states in the observed individual, in the same state as the observer. The observed individual assumes a similar stance as the observer and abides to the same parametres and variables connected with either conflict or co-operation.

If it is conflict the observer's prevalent stance then the decoherence effected, leads likewise to a state characterized by conflict in the observed. A clash is imminent, in whatever way the psychosynthesis of the observed individual use to deal with. Fight or flight.

If it is co-operation, the prevalent stance of the individual observer, decoherence will likewise lead the observed individual to the single state defined by co-operation.

Law-making and collapse of quantum mechanical superposition of states? Laws engineered alongside the doctrines of quantum theory? Concentrate on the parametres and variables prevalent in co-operation than in conflict? Social engineering towards co-operation and not conflict?

I gather that co-operation is more amenable than conflict in a society.

No comments:

Post a Comment