Conservation laws stem from symmetry.
Since there is no symmetry in the past or in the future, we have no conservation laws. Only nullness. That’s one uniting feature between the historian and the prophet; not nearly as interesting as what distinguishes them.
The historian looks to the past, studying the preceding sequences of humanity and life. The evolutionist tries to study the steps in life using current technology. They then retrodict (a prediction about the past). Without the details, the past retains its opacity.
The prophet (if you believe in them, but for the sake of argument, let’s consider this possibility) looks to the future and affirms the potential possibilities for humanity and life. The meteorologist tries to study elements of weather using current technology. They then predict. Without the details, the future upholds its opacity.
On the number line, let’s take the number zero to represent the present. On the left are the negative numbers, and on the right are the positive numbers. The present shows the symmetry between the left and the right. Since it’s a symmetry, there’s a conservation law. That is, ordinal numbers have equal spaces between them.
If we do the same for the past and the future, with particular reference to the professions, that is, for the historian and the prophet, can we develop a conservation law? I believe we can. The law is prediction.
Organisms predict.
That is the conservation law. Strange, huh?
For historians, they predict leftward and reflect. For prophets, they predict rightward and contemplate. As with predictions, they are subject to error. The law of prediction, however, stands.
We can’t live without prediction.
Enter AI.
Let’s assume we use AI to make our predictions. First-level thinking will argue that human decisions are always inferior to AI decisions. In short, our predictions are not as accurate.
Gradually, there will be lobbying for more decisions from AI than humans (if we get to that stage). But how AI works is through statistical modeling, through autocomplete.
If a decision was made yesterday using an AI and that decision was approved, the next decision will be based on the previous AI decision. Basically, the past and future predictions will be boxed to achieve perfect symmetry. Self-fulfilling prophecies on steroids.
AI becomes the historian and the prophet.
It would have achieved perfect symmetry on the left and the right, but at what cost?
We know that big corporations don’t like to headline circulations as the big ship that sank. So they stick to what has always worked. AI can help with that.
But landscapes change. The keyboard outcompeted the pen. Would you want an overfitted AI to guide the landscape transitions, what Andy Grove calls inflection points?
*sips drink