Degeneration VS Collapse

What is the relationship between systems that degenerate and systems that collapse, and is it an inverse relationship: systems that don't collapse - degenerate gradually to a great extent, and vice versa? Is a learning system of the collapsing or degenerating type preferable? A comparative examination of different fields in art, science, and society reveals two patterns of deterioration - fading and disintegrating - and allows mapping the types according to the philosophical basis of the disciplines

The whole world is a very narrow bridge  (Source)

Is it possible to build capitalism that won't collapse? That is - communism collapsed from degeneration, in decline, finally, without cyclical intermediate collapses, but capitalism collapses seasonally, cyclically. Therefore, the question is whether it's possible to build capitalism that will progress at the same speed without intermediate collapses? Are there learning systems that don't collapse, and still learn with the same efficiency? Or is collapse an integral part of learning, as it prevents fixation on a local optimum and creates a new beginning?

Evolution is built on collapses more catastrophic than capitalism. And so is political evolution, in the collapse of empires. Terrible collapses lead to dark ages, meaning there are collapses after which there is no rapid progress but slow recovery. These are collapses of a more severe type. Cultures collapse completely, like communism, from degeneration. It's actually the slow collapse, like the Roman one, that is dangerous, if we characterize the collapse of the type before the Dark Ages. It's precisely its gradualness, meaning the degeneration spreading in everything before it, that prevents revival. Good collapses happen in good times, quickly, not in bad times. Like the collapse at the peak of dinosaur rule. Within a thousand years, let's say.

But does the human brain learn without collapse? No, because the infant's brain is a total collapse of the adult brain (its parent - the brain is erased and only the genetic hardware remains. And therefore sometimes to progress in thinking, a generation needs to change, and this is the deep reason for aging and death), and also sleep every night is a collapse (which is essential for learning), and also - in the end, the brain reaches degeneration. Who said degeneration is a disease? Maybe it's a natural state to which a learning system without collapse converges. And what actually collapses less? Science, despite scientific revolutions, and mathematics. Already a few hundred years of progress without collapse. Will the internet collapse from time to time? That is - it's likely that there will be a collapse of Facebook, and of every large company, but the question is what is the cycle time of the network itself, how many years, or maybe a few decades, and maybe more? After all, Rome also fell, and every empire and society, and therefore the internet will also collapse someday. Or not? Let's return to science.

What allows science not to collapse? Being a loose system from the outset, without central control. Its learning being based on nature, and therefore as long as nature doesn't collapse, it's a good scaffold. Meaning if the economy is based on technology, and if technology doesn't collapse, because it's based on science, which is based on nature, then the question returns whether learning without collapse is indeed possible, and in particular such a capitalist system?

For this purpose, the desire to profit needs to be replaced with the desire to create. This will happen when women judge men not by the desire to profit but by the desire to create, because sex is stronger than money as motivation. Today, capitalism is based on a significant positive correlation between material means and sexual desirability. Can this correlation be broken? Yes, and soon - because we are close to a standard of living where economic means no longer bring greater well-being, so there is no objective reason for the pursuit of money, but only a reason of cultural ethos, which is subject to social value change.

Why does the economy collapse more than science? Because the economy is based on speculative desire and therefore collapses. While technology, from its scientific side, internally, is a desire to create, and from its more economic and external side, it is also a speculative desire to profit, being a mediator between science and economy. And science at its core mediates between the desire to know - within science - and an external desire to create, which is the beginning of technology. Meaning it has two degrees of motivational isolation from economic speculation. And within science, the place that values stability the most, especially conceptual, and makes the best efforts to preserve it and not introduce anything unfounded - is mathematics. Therefore it is the most stable, and not because of its nature, but because of its ethos which is the fruit of generations of effort.

The desire to know, which is at the basis of science, is the least speculative, and therefore tends less to collapses (or sometimes paradigm collapses, especially in social sciences and humanities, which don't happen until there's a new paradigm, and therefore are not destructive). Meaning the less learning is based on something stable, the learning is not about something, but learning to do something, then it is less stable by the very type of learning, and needs collapses to progress because it gets stuck. Meaning there are actually different qualities of learning. Whose nature is different. And they are the basic ontological categories of the world. And perhaps built on different complexity classes, or different mathematical definitions of learning at their core.

Meaning the collapse is related to what kind of learning it is. Capitalism, as speculation, needs to collapse a lot, because desires collapse a lot. Science, as knowledge, can collapse little, because objects collapse less than subjects. The economy is a system of subjects, and science deals with a system of objects. And the sciences that deal with subjects - indeed collapse more. Music - anchored only in the most subjective feeling - collapses more than literature (objectively and intellectually more by nature), and we don't have music from ancient times, and new styles begin and disappear every decade or two, and music from other cultures has more difficulty reaching us than their literature. Humor collapses quickly, because it relies by nature precisely on the most shaky and special and delicate foundations in perception, and humor from ancient times doesn't "work" at all today, and neither does humor from a hundred years ago. On the other hand, poetry, which is based on hard foundations of language and linguistic and phonetic matching and of meaning and anchored in many more anchors - it survives the most. And it also uses translation to survive far beyond language. Therefore we don't have comedies that still make us laugh from Greece, but the tragedies are very strong. And what degenerates the fastest is visual art. Because there are no real collapses in it. Religion also doesn't collapse, because of its strength, and precisely because of its strength it is almost always in an advanced state of degeneration. And so is the empire (union of many countries). In our days - the European Union.