Wow, you are a critical person. That's a good thing.
On the topic, if true, it doesn't sound new to me, it sounds like typical politics to me. Even having a senate as a political institution is no guarantee that citizens are "represented", as if they have a real voice. Opting for "participatory democracy", which is the alternative, usually leads to other kinds of vices. Nor does it work well in the long run (look at my country, for example). Besides, people will accuse you of populism and communism if you try it.
Personally, after reading Arrow's paper about how the democratic voting system is mathematically flawed to consequently express people's preferences when you have more than two choices/candidates, I too lost my expectations about the power of democracy (LOL), but as a society we need political institutions to operate, don't we? (unless you argue from anarchism). Democracy is also preferable to dictatorship.
This also reminds me of the question of free will from the point of view of physics and philosophy. Our universe is deterministic, so why do we bother arguing about free will? Aren't our decisions already intrinsically determined? Well, we also need to pretend that free will exists for practical purposes. If you rob someone, you can't blame the laws of physics. You have to pay for it somehow. Maybe in jail where you can graduate to a criminal degree (irony intended) or maybe by working for the victim's family, as dictated by some sort of "primitive" legislation of some aboriginal peoples I heard about, which in my opinion is superior to Napoleonic Roman law in that regard.
Maybe I should have written all this in a post.
Concerning democracy I think it only wins if people are educated enough and interested in politics, otherwise one cannot expect them to make wise selections/decisions, and in these cases I wouldn't talk of swarm intelligence but "swarm stupidity". :)
As dictatorship also can't be a solution (even in case of intelligent dictators like in China) I have another idea:
Concerning HIVE it's not a democracy anyway, but an oligarchy with oligarchs supporting each other. Not expertise decides but money. I don't say other places on earth or in the internet would be better in average, but that doesn't change my point of view to only spend energy in a social network which I like and whose political structures hopefully work much better than the ones of an average place on this planet.
The problem was the beginning with early mining and later bid bots.
Look for example at Splinterlands where power is distributed much more evenly than in HIVE ...
I hope we will see better blockchain based social networks than HIVE in futre, maybe on the Cardano blockchain ... but only time will tell.
I doubt that a quantum physicist would stringently agree with this statement ... imagine alone the discussion about 'deterministic probabilities'.
Concerning a "free will", apart from your interesting thoughts, what would that actually/exactly be at all? Would be a "will" created by biochemical interaction of molecules less 'free' (less me?) than a will resulting of an immaterial 'soul' a 'spirit' or whatever else?
Some say "Some of our decisions can be forseen by examining/analysing your brain before you yourself know about them." I answer "Well but these unconscious processes before I consciously met any decision are also part of me, I am these biochemical processes leading to my decisions. :)
What an interesting discussion here!
I actually think too that our free will is an illusion and a social concept so that communities can work better together (like religion is also such a concept). It comes down to the question "What is you?" If only the part of you that has this remnant free will due to the Brown´s molecular movement (or some subatomic stochastic processes) is the one to "choose" then it might be a free will technically, but not in common sense.
Another explanation is the matrix theory which I find quite interesting. Is it so unlikely that in a far future whole planets or moons could be turned into gigantic computers who run such simulations? Is it not plausible that our ancestors would do such research in lack of physical objects? It could be routine research in a subject called "virtual archeology". Maybe in parallel to our simulation another one is running where e.g. Hitler has won the WW2 or where the exploding powder or the lightbulb were never invented?
I've also heard of the idea of the universe as a huge computer simulation. For me, as a professor of computer science, it's easy to entertain it, but for now I place it more in the realm of speculation. Others are more critical and label it as pseudoscience.
Of course speculation, but it is difficult (if not possible) to disprove :)
Pseudoscience is possible to be proven wrong, is it?
Yes, also when it is unfalsifiable, as when there are no circumstances in which it could be proved wrong.
I actually disagree ...
In general science 'believes' in things because there is evidence that they are true/exist (because of experiments, observations, calculations etc.).
Science doesn't believe in things only because they are not refutable/nobody had enough time to refute them (I wrote something about this topic in my old posts about the "God gene").
It's nearly impossible to refute everything which anybody claims everywhere (it's far more easy to claim anything then to prove/refute it). :)
That doesn't mean I wouldn't like interesting speculations. I actually also like to speculate and imagine bizarre things myself.
I think your idea is interesting but at the same time speculation (and not refutable). :)
Lol, double post and not deletable because anybody voted on it automatically ...