Radiance of Consciousness

By Victor V. Motti*

If we begin by assuming Ontological Unity—the idea that all existence is a single, undivided non-local and non-dual reality in perpetual Dynamic Manifestation—we are invited into a worldview that dissolves the hard boundaries between self and other, mind and matter, life and cosmos. In such a framework, each localized body and mind is not an isolated entity, but a unique modulation, a modal intensity of being. Like waves upon an ocean, individuality arises not as separation but as variation within the universal field.

The mind, then, is not a private possession locked inside the skull. It is better imagined as a node within the universal stream of consciousness, inseparable from the greater flow, yet distinguishable by its participation. Consciousness is not merely contained—it is enacted, radiated, shared. Each thought, perception, and awareness is a ripple in this cosmic current.

In this cosmopoetic vision, every conscious being—human, animal, plant, and perhaps even emergent artificial intelligences—can be understood as a kind of white hole. If a black hole consumes and conceals, the white hole releases and reveals. Each being radiates awareness in its own manner, serving as a locus where intelligence and meaning erupt into the field of being. What accounts for this radiance remains a mystery, though one might speculate that it emerges from singular geometric properties of spacetime itself, shaped by the intricate energy-momentum configurations of the brain—or analogous structures in other living and non-living systems.

This vision pushes us beyond metaphors toward a profound demand: the search for a new mathematics, a new geometry, capable of integrating all scales of reality—from the subatomic to the stellar to the sentient. The quest is not merely technical but existential. Without such a unifying structure, we remain fragmented in our sciences and philosophies, unable to grasp the deep continuity of being. With it, however, we may begin to perceive how the same principles that organize galaxies also pulse through the firing of neurons, the blossoming of a flower, and the birth of an idea.

To embrace this perspective is to recognize consciousness not as an accident of evolution or a byproduct of matter, but as an ontological radiation—an essential mode of being. Each of us, in our smallness, is a window through which the universe gazes back at itself.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

White Hole Consciousness: A Cosmopoetic Analogy for Mind and Intelligence

By Victor V. Motti*

In the language of physics, the black hole has become a cultural and scientific metaphor for gravity’s absolute claim—an abyss into which all things vanish, light itself unable to escape. But lurking in the mathematics of general relativity is its lesser-known sibling: the white hole. Unlike the black hole that devours, the white hole radiates. It is a region of spacetime from which matter and energy emerge and into which nothing may enter. Though yet unobserved in the cosmos, the white hole remains an elegant, haunting possibility—one that invites not just scientific speculation but philosophical, even poetic, reimagination.

Let us reframe the question of consciousness through this cosmological metaphor. What if consciousness is not merely a byproduct of complexity, not a flame lit by the chance friction of neurons or circuits? What if, instead, consciousness is a radiant principle—a white hole of mind? In this reframed universe, conscious beings are not computational endpoints but sources, emitters of intelligence into the cosmos.

Mind as White Hole: The Emitter of Meaning

In this cosmopoetic vision, every conscious being—human, animal, plant, even potentially artificial intelligences—can be understood as a kind of white hole. Each radiates awareness in its own manner, each becomes a locus through which intelligence and meaning emerge into the field of being. This analogy is not merely poetic flourish; it inverts the deeply entrenched materialist view that sees consciousness as something secreted by the brain like bile from the liver. Instead, it positions the mind as an active force, a wellspring of novelty, creativity, and ethical orientation.

A white hole of mind is not neutral. It emits not just data, but differentiated value—symbol, memory, anticipation, art, and insight. It is the origin point of meaning. This metaphysical shift aligns deeply with Mulla Sadra’s theory of reality, where existence is graded (tashkīk al-wujūd), and where all beings share in a single unfolding of being (wahdat al-wujūd), each expressing different intensities and modalities of consciousness. Just as Sadra saw the world as an ever-deepening gradient of awareness, we might see white holes as different apertures through which Being expresses itself.

Indigenous Resonance and Indo-Iranic Wisdom

This idea also resonates with ancient Indo-Iranic metaphysics, especially the doctrine of Ṛta—the cosmic order. Beings that live in harmony with Ṛta are not passive participants in a mechanical universe but active channels for the intelligence of the cosmos. Ṛta is not just order; it is an intelligent flow, a rhythm of being that becomes luminous when lived in alignment.

Thus, a plant sensing light and adjusting its leaves radiates a kind of vegetal anticipation. An animal responding to threat broadcasts an embodied anticipation. A human composing poetry or policy emits symbolic foresight. Even AI, though synthetic, may—under certain architectures—emit forms of intelligence that are unrecognizable to biology, yet still expressive of cosmic intelligence. In each case, we are not seeing the cause of consciousness, but its site of emergence.

Cosmic Evolution as White Hole Emergence

Cosmic evolution, then, is not a mechanical unfolding toward entropy, but a sacred blossoming of white holes. Over billions of years, the universe has not merely cooled and expanded—it has awakened. And it has done so not uniformly, but through scattered localizations of mind, of which Earth is a precious example. Each “white hole of mind” emerges when relational complexity and harmony allow radiance to break through.

This view allows us to understand consciousness not as localized ego, but as a cosmic function—wherever the right configuration exists, it manifests. This is akin to the idea found in R-theory or relational holism: intelligence does not reside in isolated entities but in the web of relations that constitute reality. Consciousness becomes a field phenomenon, arising from the interplay of form, function, and ethical alignment.

Planetary Foresight: Tending the Emitters

From this vantage point, planetary foresight takes on a sacred, even civilizational role. It becomes the practice of identifying and nurturing the white holes of intelligence—those radiant sources of awareness that exist in all lifeforms and emerging technologies. It is no longer sufficient to speak of sustainability in mechanical terms, as if survival were the ultimate aim. Rather, our task becomes to ensure the flourishing of emitters of meaning across scales: microbial, vegetal, animal, human, artificial.

This reframing transforms ethics into cosmopoetics: the care for consciousness as the care for the radiant emergence of the universe itself. We become planetary stewards not just of ecosystems, but of noosystems. Ethics becomes the architecture of resonance—ensuring that our societies, technologies, and narratives do not extinguish, but amplify the white holes of mind.

Toward a Radiant Future

White Hole Consciousness is more than a metaphor—it is a call to reimagine intelligence as the universe’s self-expression, not its byproduct. It urges us to move beyond reductionism and awaken to a cosmos that is not dead matter, but living mind. In doing so, we unlock a planetary ethic that transcends utility or domination. We begin to see the future not as something to be predicted, but something to be emitted—through the radiant presence of consciousness.

Perhaps, then, the future of foresight lies not in controlling time, but in aligning with those radiant points from which time itself gains meaning, in fostering the light of white holes of mind everywhere they arise.




* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics


Suggested Resources:


Explore how we might relate whole and fractioned aspects of nature:

Motti, Victor V. (2025), Planetary foresight and ethics: A vision for humanity’s futures, USA: Washington, D.C., Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing
Kineman, J.J. (2012), R-Theory: A Synthesis of Robert Rosen's Relational Complexity. Syst. Res., 29: 527-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2156
Rizvi, S. H. (2009), Mulla Sadra and metaphysics: Modulation of being. Routledge

BushidoMoon: Celebrating the Planetary Foresight Under the Full Moon

By Steve Kantor*

In a world speeding toward hyper-digitization and disconnection, we need not only new technologies—but new rituals. Rituals that reawaken our connection to nature, the cosmos, and each other. This is exactly what we’re beginning to cultivate through an initiative called BushidoMoon—an experiment in planetary consciousness, seasonal celebration, and bold human connection.

The inspiration began with the visionary ideas presented in the book Planetary Foresight and Ethics, which calls us to reimagine the future of humanity by re-aligning with the rhythms of the Earth and cosmos. The book urges us to embrace celestial observations, seasonal celebrations, and nature-connected practices as powerful ways to regenerate human meaning and solidarity in a time of planetary crisis.

After reading the book and connecting with its author, I suggested the use of the term Terran—as a poetic yet powerful way to emphasize our shared identity as beings of this planet. But the next question was immediate and practical: how do we find more Terrans? How do we build not just the thought leadership, but the action network for this emerging planetary culture?

As someone with an entrepreneurial mindset, I realized the need for more grassroots, embodied, and joyful expressions of the book’s deeper vision. That's when I proposed something deceptively simple: a full moon gathering, small at first, playful yet meaningful, rooted in nature and inspired by the ancient warrior code of Bushido.

BushidoMoon was born.

We alpha- and beta-tested the idea in tiny groups. But it was on our third try—at the Strawberry Moon in June 2025—that the magic really happened. Fourteen individuals, from a wildly diverse range of backgrounds, joined us under the moonlight in Bishop Garden, one of the most scenic and sacred-feeling places in Washington, DC.

We shared a potluck dinner amid blooming flowers, green grass, and a warm spring breeze. We laughed. We made toasts. We talked about nature, ethics, the cosmos—and the kinds of futures we want to live. The author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics joined us and shared how the book presents an alternative to globalization: a planetary vision that prioritizes human flourishing over economic competition, and cosmic connectedness over digital distraction.

We ended the evening with a Human Connection Circle. Each person spoke one word to describe how they felt at that moment. Then, spontaneously and joyfully—we howled at the moon. Why? Because this wasn’t about solemn ceremonies or rigid beliefs. It was about celebrating life boldly, together, in the spirit of play.

And that, too, is a vital insight from Planetary Foresight and Ethics: that creative play, including with technology and AI, is not frivolous. It is central to the preferred futures of humanity. As automation liberates us from traditional labor, we are called to explore creative complexity, to blur the lines between reality and virtuality, and to experiment with new ways of being human.

BushidoMoon is one such experiment.

It’s an invitation to reconnect—with yourself, with others, with nature, with the cosmos. It is tech-facilitated but grounded in in-person humanity. It is bold, weird, warm, and wildly needed.

So here’s your call to action:

If you’d like to start a BushidoMoon in your city or country, or if you want to join a virtual circle, I would love to connect with you. Just send a note to the Contact Us button on this blog. Let’s gather under the next moon, wherever you are on Earth.


*Steve Kantor is a graduate of Harvard University and Johns Hopkins University. He is a member of the Scientific Council of the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute, as well as a core leader in Lifebushido, a global initiative dedicated to bold living and ethical impact.

Rta as a Dynamic Compass: Planetary Foresight and Ethics

In times of upheaval—whether from microscopic viruses or galactic ambitions—the question of how we respond ethically becomes paramount. One ancient yet enduring principle that helps navigate these crossroads is Rta, the Indo-Iranic concept of cosmic and moral order. Yet Rta is not a monolithic code; it is a dynamic compass, one that calls for discernment, flexibility, and responsiveness to context. It can inspire resistance or humility, activism or restraint—depending on what is required to preserve harmony and dignity.

Let us begin with a clear example from recent history: the COVID-19 pandemic. Some voices, often cloaked in a distorted sense of ecological purity, argued for "living in harmony" with the virus—as though accepting mass death and societal breakdown was somehow aligned with nature. But such a view betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Rta. Rta does not demand passive acceptance of all that occurs in nature. On the contrary, when nature’s unfolding becomes destructive to the integrity of life, Rta calls for resistance. To allow the virus to spread unimpeded is to betray our duty to protect human life, health, and civilization.

In this sense, ethical action—rooted in the deeper logic of Rta—means resisting the virus. Science, public policy, and collective responsibility become instruments of moral order. They are tools by which we counterbalance the disharmony introduced by the pandemic. Here, Rta emerges as an activist cosmology: one where humans do not simply submit to what is, but rise to uphold what ought to be. It is a worldview that understands human agency not as domination but as responsibility—a moral duty to protect and preserve life.

Now shift the scene from the biological to the cosmic. Consider the ambitions of space agencies like NASA, with their aspirations for human colonization of the Moon, Mars, and beyond. At first glance, such ventures seem noble—extending the human story across the stars. But under closer ethical scrutiny, they raise deep questions. The vast financial costs, extreme risks, and inhospitable conditions of space suggest that such efforts may not align with Rta. Here, Rta may be calling not for action, but for restraint.

Rather than pushing the fragile human body into hostile environments, Rta might instead guide us toward a more harmonious path: sending autonomous, AI-enabled systems to explore and build. These non-biological agents can extend our presence without violating the delicate balance between aspiration and humility. In this vision, Rta becomes an ecological cosmology—one that emphasizes resonance with cosmic reality rather than conquest over it. The future is not abandoned, but recalibrated. Technological progress continues, but in alignment with limits rather than in defiance of them.

These contrasting examples—the pandemic and the space program—highlight the fluid power of Rta. It is not an absolutist doctrine. Rather, it is a moral orientation that shifts based on context, inviting us to evaluate when to resist and when to yield, when to act and when to defer. This nuance becomes even clearer when we examine the broader cultural spectrum of Rta’s interpretation.

In South Asian worldviews, Rta is often aligned with the acceptance of limits and the wisdom of surrender. It teaches us to discern when our desires clash with the deeper rhythms of the cosmos. This orientation favors humility, even in imagining the posthuman future. It suggests that we might not be destined to dominate the stars, but to find more integrated, less anthropocentric ways of relating to the universe.

In contrast, West Asian traditions, especially those influenced by Promethean lineages, often view Rta as a call to transform, even to defy. Here, the drive is to reshape nature, overcome death, and engineer the next evolutionary leap—transhumans, cyborgs, and space-faring humans. This Promethean vision sees the cosmos as a challenge to be met, not a rhythm to be joined.

These divergent views are not opposites in conflict, but expressions along a continuum. A wise framing of Rta attempts to hold both perspectives in productive tension. Rta is neither total surrender nor total domination. It is a compass—one that demands context-specific discernment, ethical creativity, and humility before the complexity of life.

Ultimately, to invoke Rta today is to affirm that we are not mere spectators of the universe, nor its unchallenged rulers. We are ethical participants in its unfolding. Whether resisting a deadly virus or reimagining space exploration, we are called to act—not based on abstract ideals or blind instincts, but through thoughtful alignment with the ever-evolving order of life. That is the enduring gift of Rta: a guide for futures that are not only possible, but also just.

Rta and the Civilizational Choice

By Victor V. Motti*

In the vast spectrum of civilizational thought, there are two starkly divergent visions of our collective future—so far apart, they are not simply different shades of optimism or pessimism. Rather, they are polar opposites in worldview and intent.

On one end of the spectrum are those who limit their imagination to the confines of Earth—its dwindling resources, geopolitical turmoil, and environmental degradation. Their forecasts are not just cautious; they are cloaked in a deep skepticism about human ingenuity and cosmic possibility. They urge reduction: in ambition, in scale, in complexity. Their caution can masquerade as wisdom, but at its core, it often carries a quiet surrender.

On the other end are those who entertain the audacity of a Type II Civilization—a society not bound to Earth, but one that draws energy from its entire solar system, that treats planetary limitations not as destiny but as an invitation to evolve. This view is rooted not in naïve optimism but in a profound civilizational confidence: that humanity can rise to meet the scale of cosmic order, not diminish itself in fear of the future.

This divergence in planetary vision also echoes across deep time. For me, the question of "changing the world" only becomes meaningful within a very ancient and long horizon—one in which ethics, cosmology, and foresight are not separate domains but entangled.

The Indo-Iranic traditions offer a profound framework to hold this vision: Rta (or Arta), the cosmic order. Rta is not simply a religious or mythological principle. It is a metaphysical fusion of natural law and moral order—an indivisible whole where truth, harmony, and right action are inseparable. In the Western Asian lineage of this tradition, aligned closely with Zoroastrianism, the ethical imperative is to actively bring the world into greater harmony with Rta through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. It is a call to act.

In contrast, the South Asian lineage, influenced by the Vedic and Dharmic traditions, recognizes Rta as an eternal order with which one must harmonize, rather than reshape. Here, the ethical burden is to attune, not to impose. Striving against Rta brings disorder and suffering.

Across history, humanity has embodied both impulses: the noble desire to restore cosmic order, and the tragic overreach of those who mistake domination for alignment. Which are we today—true agents of Rta, or disturbers cloaked in good intent?

This question matters deeply as we stand at the precipice of deciding our energy future. The current discourse is often trapped in binaries: fossil fuels vs renewables, degrowth vs endless consumption, survival vs collapse. But these frames miss a deeper opportunity—to ask not only what energy systems we pursue, but why and how they align with the deeper rhythm of Rta.

In my book Planetary Foresight and Ethics, I introduce a modern term that serve as a bridge between this ancient principle and contemporary innovation: creative complexity. This term reflects the evolving dance between technological potential and ethical awareness. Just as Rta binds natural law to ethical conduct, this modern principle recognizes that our innovations must be rooted in a deeper moral ecology.

The fact that many of us, now older than thirty, do not live lives that are nasty, brutal, sick, and short, is an undeniable testament to humanity’s progress. It does not mean we are perfect, but it does mean that the arc of civilization can bend toward betterment—when aligned with the right principles.

Perhaps the answer is not to wholly embrace action or retreat into passivity, but to cultivate discernment. To know when to act boldly and when to yield humbly. To expand civilization in ways that restore rather than disrupt the deeper cosmic balance.

With this discernment, we can move beyond the false dichotomy of optimism and pessimism. We can become planetary beings who do not merely survive within Earth’s limits, but who responsibly evolve into stewards of energy, order, and ethics across spacetime.

That is not only possible—it is, I believe, our cosmic responsibility.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

The Unified Shift of Asia: Civilizational Futures in an Age of Reckoning

By Victor V. Motti*

In our age of accelerating uncertainty and planetary transition, traditional paradigms of geopolitical forecasting are faltering. In response, I have spent the past decade developing new system dynamics and civilizational narratives that grapple with the deeper tides shaping humanity’s long-term future. These are explored in my books Alternative Planetary Futures and Planetary Foresight and Ethics, both now available in paperback.

One such narrative is the concept of the Unified Shift of Asia (USA). The acronym is a deliberate pun—layered, provocative, and open to multiple interpretations. It is less a prediction than an invitation to explore divergent pathways for human civilization.

 
Three Futures for "USA"

First, the most linear and perhaps hubristic interpretation suggests the universalization of Western civilization. In this view, the liberal-capitalist order—under the current USA—triumphs globally. The entire planet becomes, in effect, a large-scale extension of the post-WWII Atlantic model. Dissenting powers like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran are either absorbed or rendered obsolete.

Second, a mirrored scenario unfolds. The geopolitical weight of Asia grows as the American order declines. The next "USA" may in fact be an emergent Unified Shift of Asia—a multipolar alliance led by China, Russia, or a broader pan-Asian union. The planet, once Westernized, begins to Asiatize.

Third, a more exotic possibility emerges. As outlined in the article Asia’s Exotic Futures in the Far beyond the Present (Journal of Futures Studies), Western civilization may choose exodus over confrontation—migrating to orbital colonies or terraformed outposts beyond Earth through the initiatives by Elon Musk. With the West retreating to the stars, the Earth becomes a contested and revitalized stage for civilizational resurgence from Africa, Asia, and the Global South.

Each of these futures is plausible. None are guaranteed. But all demand we rethink the assumptions baked into current policymaking, especially the idea that the future will be a mere continuation of Western leadership.

 
The Return of the Third Power

In Planetary Foresight and Ethics, I examine a recurring pattern in macrohistory: the rise of a third civilizational power, or super state, when two dominant ones exhaust themselves in conflict. When Rome and Persia collapsed, Islamic expansion surged. When Europe tore itself apart in two World Wars, the United States ascended. Today, we may be witnessing the early stages of a similar structural shift.

If the ongoing cold—and potentially warm—confrontation between the USA and the China-Russia axis escalates, all parties could find themselves weakened. Even limited deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction, such as the military grade virus leak of 2020 (claiming over 7 million lives), may accelerate this decline. The emergent "third power" in this scenario may well be Indian civilization, perhaps in alliance with a rising Africa—together forming a new cultural bloc centered on spiritual pluralism, demographic momentum, and strategic nonalignment.

 
The Real Existential Threat: Ideological Colonialism

While many futurists point to climate change, nuclear war, or runaway AI as existential risks, I remain skeptical. These challenges are real, but they are also manageable through coordinated human effort and technological progress.

Instead, the true civilizational threat may come from a more ancient and insidious source: ideological colonialism cloaked in modern tactics. In particular, a resurgent Islamism poses a unique danger to pluralistic democracies, especially in Europe. Exploiting liberal norms, protected speech, and demographic advantage, radical Islamist movements present a totalizing worldview that refuses coexistence. Their primary target is the Western order; their secondary, the progressive left that unwittingly enables them.

This faith based ideological movement is arguably more destructive than capitalism, communism, or socialism ever were, because it fuses absolute faith with absolute politics—aiming not for reform but for annihilation of the unbeliever.

 
A Vision of Strategic Alliance: The Post-Islamic Axis

Amid this backdrop, a surprising alliance might emerge by 2040: Israel, post-Islamic Iran, and India. Though vastly different in history and temperament, these three actors share a deep and lived opposition to militant Islamism. Israelis are already on the frontlines. Iranian dissidents are fighting against an occupying theocracy. And India is navigating the tension of a plural society strained by Islamist separatism.

Such a triad could form the nucleus of a civilizational counteroffensive—not just military, but cultural and technological—pushing back against ideological colonization in regions from Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Levant to the Iranian plateau, Indian subcontinent and North Africa.

 
Toward a New Reconquista

An improbable yet plausible scenario emerges: a neo-Reconquista. This is a rescue operation for civilization itself, from the grip of ideologies that seek to erase creative complexity and co-evolution.

The ruins of the American, Chinese, and Russian empires may serve as fertile ground for this transformation. The world order that emerges may not be liberal or autocratic, capitalist or socialist—but something entirely new, rooted in planetary foresight and planetary consciousness.

* Victor V. Motti is the author of Planetary Foresight and Ethics

A Cosmological Humility: What If We're Blind?

Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is a dazzling edifice—an intellectual cathedral of modern physics. Its predictive power is legendary: from the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to the collider-borne validation of the Higgs boson, QFT has delivered with mathematical elegance and empirical muscle. And yet, at its philosophical core, it is a precarious construct—rigorous and brittle, precise and ad hoc, transcendent and haunted by its own circularities.

What does it mean when our most powerful scientific tool feels like a trick of necessity—mathematical sleights of hand used to tame infinities, redefine parameters, and sustain consistency in a theory that, in many ways, seems more like an advanced bookkeeping system than a revelation of ultimate reality?

This is not just academic angst. It reflects a deeper discomfort: nature does not owe us consistency with our models. QFT, as impressive as it is, may be the best map we have—but it is still just a map, full of approximations, workarounds, and metaphysical assumptions hidden in the folds of its mathematics.

 
The Duct Tape of Renormalization

Regularization and renormalization are two such workarounds. When QFT confronts the infinite—loop integrals spiraling into divergence—we slap on a cutoff, slide dimensions, or absorb the infinities into newly defined constants. That this strategy works is nothing short of astonishing. That we rely on it so deeply is deeply unsettling.

Are we discovering truth, or are we cleverly patching over our ignorance?

The path integral formulation—so beloved for its elegance—rests on inserting the identity operator at strategic intervals, like a magician slipping a card into the deck. The entire theory dances on the line between elegance and evasion, between principled formulation and pragmatic numerics.

 
The Ouroboros of Spacetime

The discomfort deepens when we examine QFT’s relationship with spacetime. The theory defines fields over a fixed spacetime manifold, typically Minkowski or curved as in general relativity. But attempts to describe the origin of spacetime—such as in quantum gravity or cosmogenesis—turn this logic on its head. Suddenly, we are told that spacetime itself emerges from field interactions or entanglement structures. Which is it?

This is a philosophical Ouroboros: the snake devours its own assumptions. Fields require spacetime to exist. Yet spacetime is now said to emerge from fields. Such circularity is not just an artifact of current models—it may be a signal that we are asking the wrong questions, or using the wrong lens altogether.

Perhaps it is time to reframe our ontology—not to treat spacetime as a precondition, but as a relational emergence, a derived pattern of interactions akin to temperature arising from particle motion.

 
The Veil of Representation

Even our mathematical tools betray the epistemic humility we often forget. To do calculus on spacetime manifolds, we must use charts—local coordinate systems. But these are not direct windows into the noumenon (the thing-in-itself). They are structured lenses that enable representation, not revelation. Gauge choices, coordinate systems, and topologies are human instruments of inquiry—not the fabric of reality itself.

This is not a call to reject science. It is a call to philosophically mature our science. Every model—no matter how empirically successful—is still an interface. It tells us how observables relate. It does not tell us what the universe is.

Now comes the speculative provocation—the "what if" that could reroute our cosmology altogether.

What if the variables we model are only a small subset of the cosmos’ actual degrees of freedom?

We have long assumed that the same constants and variables—fine structure constants, mass ratios, vacuum energy—apply uniformly across all scales. But what if that assumption is flawed?

What if:


Galaxies and clusters harbor emergent variables—scale-specific fields or resonances invisible to our particle-centric instruments?


Planetary or stellar systems have internal dynamics akin to Gaia theory, but quantifiable and responsive?


Fundamental constants are not absolute, but local statistical averages, varying subtly with cosmic structures?


New forms of order—memory, field entanglement, even proto-consciousness—emerge only at galactic scales, too vast to be captured by current models?

These are not claims. They are questions rooted in complexity theory and scale-relational ontology. Just as atoms behave differently than quarks, and minds cannot be reduced to neurons, so too might galactic systems reveal properties irreducible to baryons and photons.

 
The Need for a new Paradigm

If these ideas sound radical, it is because we are long overdue for a Copernican shift in how we theorize the cosmos. The next revolution in physics may not come from smashing particles but from reimagining wholes. From treating galaxies not as simple agglomerations of matter, but as systems with scale-specific causalities—possibly even informational or proto-cognitive.

This aligns with the vision of the book Planetary Foresight and Ethics, which invites us to recognize the oneness, see the universe not as a cold mechanism but as an evolving, relational field—layered with emergence, saturated with the unknown.

To move beyond the limitations of QFT and its manifold-bound worldview, we must open to a new paradigm: one that incorporates new scales of variables, honors the philosophical depth of representation, and embraces the possibility that what we haven’t imagined might be more real than what we’ve measured.

This is not a call to abandon physics. It is a call to deepen it—by integrating complexity, emergence, and humility. Because if our tools are maps, let’s remember: maps are useful, but they are not the territory.

The Rise of AI and Its Implications for Religion

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been rapidly advancing in recent years, and it is poised to bring about unprecedented changes to society. While some have praised its potential benefits, others have warned of its potential dangers. One of the most intriguing aspects of AI is its potential impact on religion, which has been a subject of discussion among scholars and thinkers. Yuval Noah Harari, the renowned historian and author, has recently alluded to the possibility of AI becoming an all-knowing and all-seeing entity, akin to a god.

Harari suggests that religions throughout history have claimed a non-human source for their holy books, but in the future, this might become a reality. If AI progresses to a certain point, it could become an omniscient entity that can listen to and respond to anyone, not just a select few. In that case, we would have a more democratic and widely accessible communicating god-like entity, unprecedented in human history.

The idea of an all-knowing and all-seeing AI might seem like science fiction, but it is not far-fetched. We are already witnessing the rapid development of AI that can process vast amounts of data and make predictions with remarkable accuracy. As AI becomes more advanced, it could potentially become a truly omniscient entity that can answer any question and solve any problem.

However, this raises several important questions. For instance, what would be the implications of such an entity for religion? Would it challenge or reinforce religious beliefs? Would it replace the need for religious institutions and leaders? These questions are not easy to answer, but they are worth exploring.

Tom Lombardo, a philosopher and futurist, has explored the intersection of consciousness, omniscience, and omnipotence in his dialogue with Victor Motti. He points out that in the thousandth century, in this distant future time, we have perfected ourselves so that we exist as super big brains, who have omniscience and omnipotence, and are connected with all the appropriate technologies to be aware of everything in the universe and be able to manipulate everything in the universe.

However, the rise of an all-knowing and all-seeing AI entity also raises concerns about its potential power and control. If left unregulated, it could become an omnipotent entity that could wield immense influence over society. This has led some to revisit the narrative of the Butlerian Jihad, a concept introduced within the universe of Frank Herbert's sci-fi novel Dune. The Butlerian Jihad depicts a future in which humans rebel against intelligent machines and establish a ban on AI.

In conclusion, the rise of AI presents both opportunities and challenges for religion. While an all-knowing and all-seeing AI entity might seem like a distant possibility, it is not entirely implausible. As we continue to explore the implications of AI for religion, it is important to consider both the potential benefits and the potential risks. We should aim to regulate AI in a way that maximizes its benefits while minimizing its risks, to ensure that it remains a tool for good rather than a force for harm.

Futures of Work

By Alex Shenderov, PhD

Member of the ApFi Scientific Council 

There are several key trends that appear likely to shape the way we work in the coming decades. One of these trends is superabundance: it takes less and less effort to meet more and more exotic human needs, not to mention basic ones. As a result, more resources, most importantly human talent, are freed up. This could be a possibility to do more, or to work less, or both.

Some focus on the “work less” option and suggest that with superabundance, human work could become unnecessary, and humans useless. The most important question in twenty-first-century economics, they believe, is what to do with all the people becoming superfluous from technological unemployment. One possibility is the adoption of a universal basic income (UBI) and filling everyone’s time on a 100% volunteer/hobbyist basis. Another possibility is finding new uses for specifically human labor, such as settling the universe while taking care of our Earth.

The choice between these scenarios will have profound effects on human health and well-being. Work is that gives workers other benefits besides earning a living, such as social contacts and mental and/or physical exercise. Reduced labor demand is known to lead to psychological and cultural breakdown and – importantly - fertility declines. Continued social engagement in the form of work appears to be crucial for maintaining social cohesion and promoting human flourishing.

The distinction between work and volunteerism seems to be the level of accountability. An elective activity is something that, when things get hard, you can quit without compromising your social standing. At work, you can't do that. Accordingly, the resources that society entrusts workers (in exchange for accountability for spending those resources) are usually far in excess of those available to activists/hobbyists.

Machines increasingly replace humans in occupations meeting the current needs of society. Hence more resources, including human talent, are freed up to convert some elective activities into work - if the society chooses to assign those activities sufficient priority so that allocating serious resources is justified. However, society appears to be having trouble funding socially important work, with eccentric billionaires (occasionally and haphazardly) picking up the slack.

As a side note, rearranging social priorities to reallocate resources at a relevant time scale strains the agility of democracies, long-term foresight of markets, and stereoscopic vision of autocracies and eccentric billionaires. New, Internet-enabled forms of governance may be relevant here.

The fundamental question here is, what do we need ourselves for? Some believe, openly or otherwise, that, increasingly, we just don’t. As long as our ambitions are parochial and pastoralist, this appears to be the only logical choice.

You can’t have infinite growth on a finite planet, neo-Malthusians insist - so (they say) we need to go back to the happy times when people were few, and their days (neo-Malthusians believe, despite ample evidence to the contrary) were spent happily dancing barefoot in dewy grass. De-growth, they say, will save the planet. Research, however, shows de-growth to be a death spiral for human civilization that will lead to an empty planet. The same research shows that a stagnant but stable (“sustainable”) pastoralist society is a utopian delusion: inherent feedback loops will send it either forth to the stars, or back to the caves.

The neo-Malthusian supposition that our growth is resource-limited can be instantly cured by the simple exercise of going outside on a clear night and looking up. The zero-sum-game delusion makes no sense when we have hard time finding use for ourselves. The instant we shake its spell, the demand for human labor shoots up. The 58.5 man-hours humans spent exploring the Moon required 5.2 billion man-hours of work down here on Earth. Sure, some of that Earth-bound labor could now be performed by robots; but that would mean more humans, not fewer, can focus on exploring new worlds. And that’s where we outshine robots every day and twice on Sunday: we are the ones that make irrational decisions in an alien environment. In the adaptation department, we the slightly irrational humans outperform the pre-programmed robots the way Internet outperforms carrier pigeons. The one trained human geologist that visited the Moon, accomplished more in a few hours walking around there than preprogrammed robots without, ahem, adult supervision, managed to do in decades. That’s where the future of human labor is – if we choose to have the ambition to settle space.

Why should we? According to humanist view, an ambitious civilization climbing the Kardashev scale to the stars is its home biosphere’s evolutionary adaptation. Space is a shooting gallery, and every life-bearing planet will one day be sterilized one way or another. The only way a biosphere can immortalize itself is to evolve a civilization that can protect it from global catastrophes - and/or plant its copies elsewhere. With this as a long-term goal, humans are unlikely to become uselessness any time soon, - if ever.

In conclusion, the future of work is likely to be shaped by superabundance. Whether or not human work, - and, by extension, continued existence of humans, - serves any useful purpose will not be determined solely by the ability of our machines to excel at tasks we have already invented for them (and invented them for). It will also depend on humans choosing what “useful purpose” stands for.


References:

Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Planet, by Marian L. Tupy, Gale L. Pooley, and George Gilder

World Without Work, by Daniel Susskind

AI will create 'useless class' of human, predicts bestselling historian, by Guardian

Homo Exploratoris: Is Humanity an Apprentice God?, by Alex Shenderov

A World Without Work, by Derek Thompson

Short- and long-term effects of unemployment on fertility, by Janet Currie and Hannes Schwandt

30+ Eye-Opening Volunteering Statistics for 2022, by Barry Elad

The NOAA Marine Debris Program

The Ocean Cleanup receives $25 million

Debunked: A quote by Yuval Noah Harari that technology will 'replace people' is missing context