Not the author and they do appear to be on the thread but...
I read "ideatic space" as notional/conceptual world configuration. The plausible world configuration which could be manifested. The challenge of many configurations of the world is that they require cooperation of the other people in the world. Sometimes the cooperation is "don't knock this over, I want to look at it" (e.g. an art installation) but they can be far more abstract involving final emotional spaces, social agreements, and other dimensions that might require bootstrapping or other coordinated shifts.
To be more concrete, imagine if we could all agree not to violate each other's rights (of property, privacy, etc.). We would no longer need locks, prisons, militaries, et cetera. This would reduce frictions, increasing time available and reducing those frustrations stemming from accidentally locking ourselves out. On a relative basis, we would have a lot of available capital and resources for further improving the human condition. Yet the level of trust and consensus is hard to imagine so many of us learn to live with "knives out"/"defenses up" so to speak and the frictional inefficient world configuration remains.
There are other possible interpretations but that was my highest probability hypothesis and the one with which I read. The author did some heavy lifting with the term but trying to completely express this sort of thing for a not-you audience can be exhausting and it seems they mean to target a subset.
That's an interesting one, "imagine if we could all agree not to violate each other's rights". Thing is, rights aren't fixed and absolute, unless stated so vaguely as to be useless, like "the right not to be coerced". It wouldn't just be a problem of trust and consensus, but of shared knowledge. I mean we'd have to have consensus about what our rights are, and more specifically, what constitutes a violation. Not to mention consensus about how reality is. So you get all these edge cases where clarification is needed, and that's why we have law courts: legal cases that set precedent are edge cases. Also, the situation, I mean culture, keeps changing, and we have to invent new rights to keep up. We're going to continue violating one another's rights so long as our mutual understanding is imperfect and so long as we're not a hive mind.
Not sure if this means we have to have locks, prisons, and militaries for all eternity.
Indeed. I tried a few phrasings before landing there and it's not satisfactory.
The underlying problem is that social knowing doesn't scale yet. A system which could solve the consensus problem to facilitate coordinated pockets of exploration of the possibility space would be required.
Does this system fly through the possibility space in the form of a giant cube and say "resistance is futile"? The weird part is that my gut says I should resist taking part, and presumably cause trouble and perpetuate fighting. Maybe being pugnacious is part of human purpose.
It would seem to do the opposite to me, allowing diversity and allowing exploration, though the theoretical maxima of reality might have something similar to say. A key feature of such a system would be having no notion of right/desirability/etc. but only identification/observation/clarification of what is.
To your end statement, is purpose defined or, through us, created? Hopefully your attachment to pugnaciousness serves you.
I read "ideatic space" as notional/conceptual world configuration. The plausible world configuration which could be manifested. The challenge of many configurations of the world is that they require cooperation of the other people in the world. Sometimes the cooperation is "don't knock this over, I want to look at it" (e.g. an art installation) but they can be far more abstract involving final emotional spaces, social agreements, and other dimensions that might require bootstrapping or other coordinated shifts.
To be more concrete, imagine if we could all agree not to violate each other's rights (of property, privacy, etc.). We would no longer need locks, prisons, militaries, et cetera. This would reduce frictions, increasing time available and reducing those frustrations stemming from accidentally locking ourselves out. On a relative basis, we would have a lot of available capital and resources for further improving the human condition. Yet the level of trust and consensus is hard to imagine so many of us learn to live with "knives out"/"defenses up" so to speak and the frictional inefficient world configuration remains.
There are other possible interpretations but that was my highest probability hypothesis and the one with which I read. The author did some heavy lifting with the term but trying to completely express this sort of thing for a not-you audience can be exhausting and it seems they mean to target a subset.