Updates
I have posted Chapter One: Three Pillars for everyone. I hope some will find the time to provide feedback—including criticism—because it is really hard to right in a vacuum. (Yes, this might indicate my head is empty.)
I have restructured the book and will post a new table of contents within the next day or two, along with Chapter Two: Program in a Page. Chapter Three: Concepts and Models will be up by next Monday.
I have been posting about AI on LinkedIn and will probably share some of that content here in the next few days. I have two book reviews in the works and a post in the area of my avocation: mysticism, altered states of consciousness.
I tried posting under the posts for preface and the first chapter, but it wouldn't let me for some reason, so I'll post here. This comment is directed at both the preface and first chapter.
Your criticism of the idea that reality is deterministic, I think, is entirely correct. People (scientists, philosophers, etc.) just take it for granted, but nobody has ever been able to prove it or demonstrate it. The same with the idea that human intellect is reducible to biology, biology is reducible to chemistry, and chemistry is reducible to physics. This is just a philosophical assumption, it has never been proven. However, if you assume that physics is deterministic, and humans are reducible to physics, and business is reducible to humans, then it's reasonable to think that business is governed by laws similar to those of physics. But that's not true.
However, if our current business management is scientistic, it's not the only available option. The scientistic worldview is very recent, were there alternative business management models historically? Perhaps medieval guild system, etc? Could we take examples from them?
You make an interesting observation about Turing space and computer science. You say that physics, chemistry and biology are intended to increase our knowledge of the world/universe we inhabit, while computer science does not. That may be true if we consider the material world only. However, there is more to reality than matter. Mathematics has real objects which we discover, not invent, even if they are not material. You could even argue that mathematics governs material reality. Isn't it the same with Turing space? It is a world in its own, but we discover it, not invent it, and so it's part of our reality, and computer science does increase our knowledge of it.
I think your idea that business should be organized as a holarchy is very good, but I think it would help if you explained the term, because I don't think most people are aware of it. I also wouldn't contrast it with hierarchy, I think it is a type of hierarchy. Alternative to hierarchy isn't holarchy, it's egalitarianism - undifferentiated flatness, which is unnatural and doesn't work anywhere.
I'm not entirely sure what "conscious capitalism" is and how it differs from normal capitalism, but it seems suspect to me. It sounds suspiciuosly like "woke capitalism", which brings into mind ESG, regulations, arbitrary bureaucracy and all other novel attempts to bring about new iterations of central planning which has failed spectacularly so many times in the previous century, bringing pain and misery to hundreds of millions of people. True capitalism (free market) is the perfect self-regulating CAS - we don't need to be conscious of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" for it to work. It doesn't need controllers.
You tell a story of a fast-food chain which outsourced its ordering to a call center in a different state. I can understand very well it's not fun to sit in a cubicle and repeat “do you want fries with that?” all day, but nobody forced that person to take that job. If he did, then it was the best option available to him, and the company merely gave him the opportunity, which he took. If the company didn't outsource the call center, making the job available to him, what job would he have had to take then? It's a pretty bad job, so the alternatives had to be abysmal. Would he have had to work in coal mines or a shoe factory?
If we want to take as an axiom the maxim that the goal of our business has to be to serve the purpose of enhancing and supporting human individuals and humanity, then we can certainly do it (in a free market we can do whatever we want), and indeed it would be a noble thing to do, but I think it would be wise to:
1) Do it within the model of normal capitalism (free market), not try to replace it with anything that will eventually lead to a loss of freedom;
2) Not oppose it to making profit, because if a company doesn't produce profit, it will be outcompeted by a company that does, and our employees will lose their jobs. And I think it's perfectly fine, because profit is direct indicator that we are producing something that is valuable to our customers, otherwise they wouldn't buy our services and we would not have any profit (as long as it's true capitalism and not a regulated system where the government can choose winners and losers).
If I wanted to promote the idea of unleashing human potential and flourishing for employees and customers, I would do that within the framework of capitalism. I would argue that Taylorism is wrong and doesn't work, because in order to handle ambiguity, we need to empower human beings, and this model of business is better than the ones which treat humans as soulless tools, and therefore will outcompete them.
By the way, I'm not too familiar myself, but I hear there is a lot of relatively new work being done in 4E cognitive science about collective intelligences, it seems that you may be interested in that.
It's great that you are writing this book. I don't think I will agree with everything in it, but I'm very excited to read it and try to change or improve my thinking, and hopefully apply something in my work. I don't want to promise anything, but I will definitely try to find time to read the chapters you post and write some feedback.