You most likely are aware that, historically, ships precede trains, and trains precede cars. But, have you ever wondered at incongruity of the technological sequence?
Whether it is a ship with sails, or a ship with an engine, a ship is a much more complex technological phenomenon than a train. The mere fact that a large ship has to navigate itself with a very small rudder represents a much greater challenge than fitting of a train on tracks that already are well designed. Once tracks for a train are well designed, a train simply moves forwards or backwards, does not have to negotiate recalibration of its movement against forces of waves or wind.
Absent a rudder, regardless of presence of an engine, a ship simply will drift with waves or wind. Absent either of sails and oars, or an engine, a rudder’s capacity for guiding of a ship’s movements are compromised. In the combining of engines and windsails in racing yachts, technology admits functionalities of which windsails are capable that augment capabilities of engines.
The ship is a much more complicated technology to build than the train, yet ships precede trains in history.
Consider then the train and the car. Each of the train and the car run on combustion that transpires in an engine. If a train is not to derail off of its tracks, there exist angles that the rails must avoid. Even if a train engine is able to navigate such angles, some carriages attached to the engine still would derail. In the design then of trains and tracks for trains, a lot of attention is paid to management of each of centripetal and centrifugal force.
While cars also experience each of centrifugal or centripetal force, these forces are managed not primarily by design of roads, but by responses of those who drive cars. In this respect, it is normative that at a T-intersection — a phenomenon that a train never encounters — a person driving a car slows to a crawl, or a halt, then navigates the turn. We arrive then at the following stylized inference, namely, whereas a train must be designed, absent any actions on part of the navigator, to navigate all twists and turns that it encounters along its tracks, navigation of twists and turns in context of cars is entrusted not to the car, but to the person driving a car. Clearly, combined, design of trains and associated tracks embeds more complexity than design of cars. Yet, trains precede cars in history.
While trains are more complex to design and build than cars, trains precede cars in history.
How then to reconcile the sequence, ships, trains, then cars, a sequence that aligns with ‘more complex to design’, ‘complex to design’, and ‘less complex to design’?
The principle of ‘Completing the Market’. The principle that, in respect of innovation, it is the most pressing need that ought to be addressed.
At timing of design of ships, man already had the horse and buggy for moving around of food and other household items. The most pressing need was a means for trading with faraway lands, an objective that, at that point in time, required travel by ship. Stuff that was traded, as such moved with ships in ancient times mainly were items such as food, minerals, or precious stones, items that easily are transported using a horse and buggy, and that load easily on a ship.
Why was the train not needed at timing of demand for ships? Because the industrial age that commenced in the 1700s, which would produce large industrial equipment in need of trains for safety of movement — large equipment can be batted down on train floors, such that they do not rattle or move around during movement; plus, train floors do not experience any bumps—remained thousands of years in the future.
It is straightforward to see that neither of ships nor cars serve for moving of large equipment from factories in which they are built to either of local customers, or faraway customers who live on land that is contiguous, such as the contiguous 48 states of the United States of America. Given there was not any demand for movements of large industrial equipment until arrival of the industrial age, it was not until commencement of the industrial age that demand for trains became acute.
At timing of demand for ships, there was not as yet any industrial revolution, so ships Completed the Transportation Market in context of a mode of transportation that facilitated trade, but that as yet did not exist.
Upon arrival of the industrial revolution in the 1700s, demand for movement of large equipment across land, and over great distances became acute, resulting in necessity of invention of the train. The train then Completed the Transportation Market, complemented ships. If there was demand for moving of equipment across the ocean, ships, which already were in existence, only had to be retrofitted for satisfaction of the objective.
Cars arrived on the scene primarily for freeing up of families, such that leisure times could be more enjoyable, and such that families could travel greater distances for socialization with either of extended family or friends. At timing of invention of cars, the horse and buggy, or horse and carriage still were existent, still were primary modes of transportation for families. The car, however, is more comfortable than the horse and carriage, and relative to horses can handle greater distances. The combination of greater comfort and greater distances provided a double advantage that enhanced families’ capacity for enjoyment of leisure times. Naturally, the car also would become a tool for business, a tool that helps maximize efficiency of business interactions.
While ships and trains Completed the Transportation Market in context of demand for solutions to teething problems of business, the car Completed the Transportation Market primarily as a tool that enabled families make more efficient use of leisure time. The car, of course, has gone on to become a tool of business.
In my book, ‘Completing the Market: A Theory of Everything’, published by Eliva Press, and available for sale on Amazon.com, I show how the principle of Completing the Market explains all of progression or retrogression that has transpired in history.
In respect of progression in society, imagine how much less our world would be if physicists had not realized that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity Completed Newton’s Law of Gravity? Note that stated recognition came at a price, required admission, on part of physicists, that a genius with a PhD in Physics had been working as a clerk in the Swiss patent office.
In order to admit genius of Einstein’s work, physicists had to eat Crow.
Consider, however, the outcome. Consequent on their willingness to eat Crow, physicists have taken on character of ‘rock stars’, this because they realized and acted on the fact that Einstein’s Law of Relativity Completed the Market that can be characterized as Laws of Motion.
Subsequent to willingness of Physicists to eat Crow, Physics has become the most glamorous of all of the basic sciences. Turns out being willing to admit a mistake can be source of much shared prosperity.
In addition to the realm of the Basic Sciences — Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology — my book shows how the principle of Completing the Market is evident in positive externalities that accrue from Commercial Banking, Investment Banking, Stock Markets, Education, Research, Economic Development, and decisions taken at timing of leaving of High School that provide good foundations for maximization of happiness later in adult life.
In presence of application of the principle of Completing the Market, my book shows how ‘happiness’ (satisfaction with life) of each and every individual can be meshed with happiness of entire society at large — an important objective of the demand for government in context of Aristotle’s characterization of how exactly man ought to live. With focus on maximization of happiness in adult life, the book shows High School education is of far greater importance than College Education.
If kids do not acquire self awareness prior to completion of High School, decisions taken upon completion of High School can become foundation for unhappiness later in life, this because the decisions become discordant with awareness arrived at in adult life.
Any principle which lays claim to being ‘a Theory of Everything’, but which does not connect the physical and metaphysical worlds is puerile, is nothing but an idle claim.
Regardless, whether a person does not believe in spirituality, existence of the metaphysical is fact of life. Except while sick or not on land, no one thinks about whether there is oxygen present in the air for breathing. Yet oxygen, which is not a physical entity, is source of creation of new cells that make up the body. We have then that, that which is not physical—oxygen — is part source of that which is physical — that is, the human body.
It is matter of fact that we live in a world that is both metaphysical, and physical. Consistent with a ‘big bang’ theory for origins of life, the metaphysical is source of the physical.
Using scientific principles, and with gaseous matter representative of the metaphysical — a characterization consistent with a ‘big bang’ theory for origins of life on earth — my book provides evidence that the principle of Completing the Market provides a robust explanation for interactions that subsist between the physical and the metaphysical. In this respect, consider innovation.
Just about every innovation that subsists in life requires combustion of gases for its realization. In this respect, note that absent combustion, bricks for building of houses are impossible to realize.
If you seek some new reading with a new and refreshing perspective, if you seek a book that is easy to read, but yet which provides evidence, as opposed to opinions, buy my book.
I do not claim that there do not exist any other viable claims to ‘a theory of everything’. In this respect, there is not any dogmatism in the development of the evidence for the principle of Completing the Market. Regardless, in the book, I provide compelling evidence that the principle of Completing the Market provides a unifying, rational, and consistent principle for management of every dimension of life.
One of the banes of modern society is the reality that, having jettisoned religion, modern society, particularly western civilization, has become fragmented. If you are averse to notions of spirituality, the principle of Completing the Market provides you with a secular principle that, would you believe it, remains compatible with belief in spirituality. In this respect, for persons who believe in spirituality, the book shows how a focus on Completing the Market maximizes efficacy of time spent on earth by persons who believe in living a life that is pleasing to God.
I am confident you will find that the time you spend reading ‘Completing the Market: A Theory of Everything’ is time well spent, is time that refreshes your mind with new perspectives on this world and your time in this world, and time you can deem to have been spent on reading that, while informative, remains eminently enjoyable.