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:
- No political parties, no polititcians, only projects that can be voted for or against (on an immutable blockchain).
- To fight "swarm stupidity", vote weigths would depend on the individual (proven) knowledge concerning the different topics. I would have for example a higher vote weight when voting in topics where I have some expertise than in case voting on things about whom I don't know anything. I also would have a higher vote weight when it would be about local things near my place.
- Blockchain & Smart contracts would make that possible.
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.
Our universe is deterministic ...
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). :)