5 ms·

> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and canno

> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system. – John Gall While this sounds more like a strong tendency than a law it sure rings true for my programming career. I've built complex systems from scratch, but they all started from the universe of discourse of an existing business model. When writing such systems I've learned to always start from a dead simple version of it. (I called one such system "Moe" to purposely keep it stupid simple) And then increment it. If the creationists are correct, and God did indeed cook up Adam from scratch, that would be more evidence of the exceptional power of God. What we do know about actual evolution seems to support Gall's Law.

x220 8y ago
>What we do know about actual evolution seems to support Gall's Law. That's because evolution takes place with very small changes in genome. It is an undirected process. Sexual reproduction makes evolution better for certain fitness landscapes since you can basically jump somewhere between two points on a landscape when you have two organisms sexually reproduce, but it is still undirected. This doesn't necessarily show that conscious long term planning is ineffective.
hhs 8y ago
This made me think of your point, too: "what we do know about actual evolution seems to support Gall's Law." But I do wonder if this world is one big 'system'? Or is it something else? I am curious if we are limited by our languages in thinking only of 'system'. Do we need to figure out something else (e.g., via science tools and stronger languages) to a get a 'deep' sense of reality? And by this, I draw on 'linguistic relativity'.
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  Some people have been working on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_systems#Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_systems#Research
  - hhs 8y ago
    This is interesting, especially with the points on "Establishment of an effective frame of reference" and "Crafting of a unifying lexicon", thank you. I still wonder if we're limited by our languages and need to consider constructs other than 'system'?
  - alexpetralia 8y ago
    Damn, mind blown. Thanks for this.
  - sideshowb 8y ago
    Given that systems can contain other systems as it is, I don't see what this concept adds that people who work with complex systems (for example climate modelling) wouldn't be dealing with anyway?
    - peterwwillis 8y ago
      It's just an abstraction. Climate scientists know how to deal with their climate system, but they may not be equipped to then relate their data back to a military defense system or water treatment plant. SoS allows a different team to take a set of not-quite-related systems and analyze their interactions, similar to how a climate scientist might analyze climate models.
- kodz4 8y ago
  Yup we do. It's called quantum field theory - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
  - hhs 8y ago
    I'll check this out, thanks, this gets to the granularity, though I still wonder if our languages, to date, are primitive, and blocking us off from thinking of categories different from 'system'?
    - jdironman 8y ago
      What is a system? "sys·tem noun 1.a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network. "the state railroad system" 2. a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method." This is the mildy condensed version from wikipedia regarding the definition of system. I know that we classify a lot of things in the world as systems, for example: ecosystems. It seems to me you are considering that maybe the world doesn't operate from a higher point of view as a "system", or that system is not the correct terminology? I think our definition of system might cover for what the world as we know very well. All the little parts of the world have a purpose. The ants, when they come out of the eggs have an internal rule set it seems. They know what it is they "do". They go right to it and that is all that they do the rest of their existance. Building their nests, protecting their nests, the queen and her role. I suppose the same can be said about most of nature. Its a lot to think about, as the diversity of it is amazing, but it is also fun to observe and ponder.
      - hhs 8y ago
        Exactly, I think you hit at it when you write: "it seems to me you are considering that maybe the world doesn't operate from a higher point of view as a "system", or that system is not the correct terminology?" Plus, you give a useful example with the species of ants; for them, their humble interactions are relative to their existence. In contrast, for us, maybe the 'system' is the term we're bounded by relative to our existence. It may be the best frame of reference we can grasp. It could be our edge and we can't go further. If that's the case, I wonder if evolution needs to advance further to get at some sharper-level species. Compared to a human, might a sharper-level species perceive the world operating at a higher point of view other than a 'system'? And I wonder how their languages might operate?
norswap 8y ago
Who is John Gall? (I'm sorry, I had to!)
Barrin92 8y ago
>What we do know about actual evolution seems to support Gall's Law. But human design is not evolution. That Gall's law, which is a form of incrementalism, rings true for a system without a designer appears to be almost true by definition, but it is far from obvious for human design. We have many examples of human architecture that went from "0 to 1". The von Neumann architecture. The first spaceships, new breakthrough theories in mathematics or physics. While you can debate whether those systems were built literally from scratch or not, they sure made qualitative jumps not comparable to evolution. And also I would point out that there is a strong survivorship bias in Gall's law. All sustainable complex systems built up incrementally that are still around are by definition an example of success. But we don't actively see the resource cost of incrementalist dead-ends, or the limitations. ("You don't get to the moon by climbing up trees"), whereas every failure in ambitious design is actively debated, or even derided.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  Von Neumann, seems to me, brilliant and his contributions vastly underappreciated. But isn't any architecture, by definition, also the creation of a complex system from simple systems?
- Majromax 8y ago
  > And also I would point out that there is a strong survivorship bias in Gall's law. All sustainable complex systems built up incrementally that are still around are by definition an example of success. But we don't actively see the resource cost of incrementalist dead-ends, or the limitations. I don't see this as a problem. As expressed, Gall's Law describes necessary conditions for success, not sufficient conditions. Not all evolutions of simple systems will work, but according to the law not starting with a simple system will always result in failure. There's still undoubtedly plenty to criticize, and I'm sure there's a law somewhere saying that all simple laws are wrong, but this law does express a coherent logical proposition.
- infinity0 8y ago
  > The von Neumann architecture How do you get that? There was decades of prior experience both in computer science theory as well as practice, especially from the code breakers in WW2.

x220 8y ago

>What we do know about actual evolution seems to support Gall's Law. That's because evolution takes place with very small changes in genome. It is an undirected process. Sexual reproduction makes evolution better for certain fitness landscapes since you can basically jump somewhere between two points on a landscape when you have two organisms sexually reproduce, but it is still undirected. This doesn't necessarily show that conscious long term planning is ineffective.

hhs 8y ago

This made me think of your point, too: "what we do know about actual evolution seems to support Gall's Law." But I do wonder if this world is one big 'system'? Or is it something else? I am curious if we are limited by our languages in thinking only of 'system'. Do we need to figure out something else (e.g., via science tools and stronger languages) to a get a 'deep' sense of reality? And by this, I draw on 'linguistic relativity'.

peterwwillis 8y ago
Some people have been working on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_systems#Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_systems#Research
- hhs 8y ago
  This is interesting, especially with the points on "Establishment of an effective frame of reference" and "Crafting of a unifying lexicon", thank you. I still wonder if we're limited by our languages and need to consider constructs other than 'system'?
- alexpetralia 8y ago
  Damn, mind blown. Thanks for this.
- sideshowb 8y ago
  Given that systems can contain other systems as it is, I don't see what this concept adds that people who work with complex systems (for example climate modelling) wouldn't be dealing with anyway?
  - peterwwillis 8y ago
    It's just an abstraction. Climate scientists know how to deal with their climate system, but they may not be equipped to then relate their data back to a military defense system or water treatment plant. SoS allows a different team to take a set of not-quite-related systems and analyze their interactions, similar to how a climate scientist might analyze climate models.
kodz4 8y ago
Yup we do. It's called quantum field theory - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
- hhs 8y ago
  I'll check this out, thanks, this gets to the granularity, though I still wonder if our languages, to date, are primitive, and blocking us off from thinking of categories different from 'system'?
  - jdironman 8y ago
    What is a system? "sys·tem noun 1.a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network. "the state railroad system" 2. a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method." This is the mildy condensed version from wikipedia regarding the definition of system. I know that we classify a lot of things in the world as systems, for example: ecosystems. It seems to me you are considering that maybe the world doesn't operate from a higher point of view as a "system", or that system is not the correct terminology? I think our definition of system might cover for what the world as we know very well. All the little parts of the world have a purpose. The ants, when they come out of the eggs have an internal rule set it seems. They know what it is they "do". They go right to it and that is all that they do the rest of their existance. Building their nests, protecting their nests, the queen and her role. I suppose the same can be said about most of nature. Its a lot to think about, as the diversity of it is amazing, but it is also fun to observe and ponder.
    - hhs 8y ago
      Exactly, I think you hit at it when you write: "it seems to me you are considering that maybe the world doesn't operate from a higher point of view as a "system", or that system is not the correct terminology?" Plus, you give a useful example with the species of ants; for them, their humble interactions are relative to their existence. In contrast, for us, maybe the 'system' is the term we're bounded by relative to our existence. It may be the best frame of reference we can grasp. It could be our edge and we can't go further. If that's the case, I wonder if evolution needs to advance further to get at some sharper-level species. Compared to a human, might a sharper-level species perceive the world operating at a higher point of view other than a 'system'? And I wonder how their languages might operate?

norswap 8y ago

Who is John Gall? (I'm sorry, I had to!)

Barrin92 8y ago

>What we do know about actual evolution seems to support Gall's Law. But human design is not evolution. That Gall's law, which is a form of incrementalism, rings true for a system without a designer appears to be almost true by definition, but it is far from obvious for human design. We have many examples of human architecture that went from "0 to 1". The von Neumann architecture. The first spaceships, new breakthrough theories in mathematics or physics. While you can debate whether those systems were built literally from scratch or not, they sure made qualitative jumps not comparable to evolution. And also I would point out that there is a strong survivorship bias in Gall's law. All sustainable complex systems built up incrementally that are still around are by definition an example of success. But we don't actively see the resource cost of incrementalist dead-ends, or the limitations. ("You don't get to the moon by climbing up trees"), whereas every failure in ambitious design is actively debated, or even derided.

wallace_f 8y ago
Von Neumann, seems to me, brilliant and his contributions vastly underappreciated. But isn't any architecture, by definition, also the creation of a complex system from simple systems?
Majromax 8y ago
> And also I would point out that there is a strong survivorship bias in Gall's law. All sustainable complex systems built up incrementally that are still around are by definition an example of success. But we don't actively see the resource cost of incrementalist dead-ends, or the limitations. I don't see this as a problem. As expressed, Gall's Law describes necessary conditions for success, not sufficient conditions. Not all evolutions of simple systems will work, but according to the law not starting with a simple system will always result in failure. There's still undoubtedly plenty to criticize, and I'm sure there's a law somewhere saying that all simple laws are wrong, but this law does express a coherent logical proposition.
infinity0 8y ago
> The von Neumann architecture How do you get that? There was decades of prior experience both in computer science theory as well as practice, especially from the code breakers in WW2.