Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2509.01014

Un avenir commun au sein de la société numérique

Abstract

Today, data and information have become overabundant resources within a global network of machines that exchange signals at speeds approaching that of light. In this highly saturated environment, communication has emerged as the most central form of interaction, supported by a rapidly evolving technical infrastructure. These new communication tools have created an overwhelming surplus of information so much so that no human could process it all. In response, platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Google use algorithms to filter and suggest content. These algorithms act as sorting mechanisms, reducing the informational noise and presenting users with content tailored to their habits and preferences. However, by placing themselves between users and data, these platforms gain control over what users see and, in doing so, shape their preferences and behaviors. In physical terms, we might say they function like selective filters or control gates in an information system directing flows and creating feedback loops. Over time, this can lead to a kind of informational inertia, where users become increasingly shaped by algorithmic influence and lose the ability to form independent judgments. This process reflects a broader trend that Bernard Stiegler describes as a new kind of proletarianization where individuals lose the knowledge and skills that are absorbed and automated by digital systems. Borrowing from physics, we study this as a shift toward higher entropy. However, platforms like Wikipedia and arXiv demonstrate how digital tools can support collective knowledge without leading to cognitive degradation. Inspired by Elinor Ostrom work on commons, we propose a model for a digital commons economy where information is shared and governed collaboratively, helping to restore a balance between entropy and organization in our digital environments.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Miguel Vanvlasselaer. 2025-08-31. Un avenir commun au sein de la société numérique. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.01014

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Niels Bohr in North America (1923) and his Meeting with Robert Frost

During the autumn of 1923, Niels Bohr stayed for about three months in Canada and the United States where he gave a series of lectures on atomic and quantum theory. This paper provides details about his many meetings and lectures. It deals in particular with his stay at Amherst College, where he had a long conversation with the celebrated poet Robert Frost. Based on new archival sources, the paper includes a more fine-grained and better documented version of the episode than the one offered by literary critics and scholars. It concludes, perhaps somewhat disappointingly, that the Bohr-Frost meeting was of no great importance to either the physicist or the poet.

physics.hist-ph

Gauge Matters More Than Curvature

Recent orthodoxy, which we call Curvature Fundamentalism, posits that the field strength $F$ on spacetime exhausts the physically significant content of electromagnetism, at least on prosaic (contractible) spacetimes. We argue that it is gauge invariance that constrains physical significance. As a result, there are physically significant quantities that $F$ does not capture, even on contractible spacetimes. We show that this result is robust: in the presence of charged matter fields, there are interference experiments whose outcome cannot be predicted by $F$ or any other point-local gauge invariant quantities on the basis of initial Cauchy data. We prove this using the example of relative phase of a Klein-Gordon-Maxwell field, and use it to identify a context in which the widely-claimed equivalence between the Maxwell-Faraday formulation $EM_1$ and the gauge formulation $EM_2$ of electromagnetism is untenable, and that new strategies may be needed for the reductionist project.

physics.hist-ph

Lorenz vs Lorentz. The controversy examined from the original texts

The attribution of the condition div A + (1/c^2) dPhi/dt = 0 has been under discussion since 1938 as a question of priority between Ludvig Lorenz and Hendrik Lorentz. This work argues that the problem is of a different nature, and that the discussion does not close because it has never been specified what is being attributed. Drawing on the three versions of the 1867 paper and on six further primary sources, it is documented that three separable acts have been designated under a single name: the obtaining of the relation between potentials, its imposition as a restriction on the admissible potentials, and its denomination as a gauge. It is further documented that in none of the three versions of the 1867 paper does the word potential appear, that the magnetic field does not figure in it as a quantity of the theory, and that the vocabulary in which that paper is described today enters the literature after it was written. It is concluded that the disjunction between the two denominations, posed without specifying which of the three acts is being attributed, is ill formed.

physics.hist-ph