4 ms·

The jump to diversity is a bit iffy. Even taking for granted that this provides a similar gradient then all you can really guarantee is that it will cause somet

The jump to diversity is a bit iffy. Even taking for granted that this provides a similar gradient then all you can really guarantee is that it will cause something. This could be both good and bad. Also if it works in the same way then it will only work at the cost of diversity, the second law of thermodynamics makes sure of that. So yeah, I'm not sure if your analogy works, and if it did I'm not sure if it would be useful.

Majromax 6y ago
For social-science applications, I think the information-theoretic notion of entropy is more appropriate. There's no social analog to the laws of thermodynamics, but we can use the notion of entropy to make statements about information content. In particular, the idea (along with the adjacent subject of Bayesian statistics) has sharpened my thinking about news: there's less information (to me) in otherwise trustworthy headlines/stories that agree with my prior notions. In an analytic sense this isn't surprising, but it runs against the emotional impulse to seek out affirming information.
- contravariant 6y ago
  You still need to be a bit careful, because what you're describing as entropy isn't how much information is in it, but rather how much you didn't already know. Hence random noise has the maximal 'information content' but isn't useful in the slightest. And really I wouldn't worry too much about finding some mathematical justification for everything. It's an easy way to get caught up in technicalities for something that you already knew.
dr_dshiv 6y ago
See below comment on structural holes. I completely agree with your assessment of the uncertainty here. But knowing that 1. Monoculture is dangerous 2. Diversity will be celebrated for good political reasons and 3. Unity in diversity is the classical notion of harmony and beauty ...this makes me hypothesize about a theoretical reason why cultural contrasts could be something to value. It suggests that energy can be "harvested" from flows across those cultural contrasts and that cultural contrasts require energy to maintain. I think it would produce net value because... Idk. (Note, I might be biased on this entire topic simply because I hate Facebook and miss the highly diverse 90s web)
- akiselev 6y ago
  > ...this makes me hypothesize about a theoretical reason why cultural contrasts could be something to value. It suggests that energy can be "harvested" from flows across those cultural contrasts and that cultural contrasts require energy to maintain. I think it would produce net value because... Idk. There is a reason to value diversity but it's as far from theoretical as you can get: billions of years of evolution have demonstrated that diversity is the only way for complex ecosystems (civilization, in our case) to exist on any significant timescale. Monocultures are dangerous because the second the environment changes enough, everything dies pretty much all at once instead of transitioning between a mix of cultures best suited to survive the change. I think there's a world of research to be done on how those principles apply to societies, which are driven more by artificial selection, but there's definitely a connection.
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    > There is a reason to value diversity but it's as far from theoretical as you can get: I'm not sure that's the takeaway. Diversity ensures change and optimization (in a roundabout way). Stability in cultures is about application of optimization and more often, culling. I guess case in point depends on your time frame reference and what you mean by stability. Rome and the Aztecs wiped out almost as much as they assimilated (and assimilation was generally via enslavement, which is not quite the same).
- FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
  In this metaphor, diversity is a consumable resource. It is a store of exergy. You can extract work by connecting reservoirs; in the process, the difference is destroyed. And as you note, if isolation between reservoirs is imperfect, then work is actually required to maintain the difference. So then, in this metaphor -- 1. Monoculture is just the end-state: The exergy has been spent; the Markov Chain has mixed. 2. Diversity is celebrated because it still contains potential; the exergy has not yet been spent. Yet paradoxically, the work is released only via the mixing process that destroys it. 3. Unity in diversity is beautiful either (a) for the same reason we prefer youth to old age -- because it contains potential -- or (b) because it demonstrates the existence of energy flows into the system (without which it would not exist). To elaborate on (3b): When diversity is sustainable (rather than just harvested), it is a true (costly) sign of an underlying energy flow, and it is really that underlying flow that is beautiful (i.e., life-giving). Of course, in a larger scheme the flow must itself come from some process of entropy production. For example: We may worship the Sun (and the Void) for pumping through Earth the energy that creates biodiversity, and celebrate that diversity, yet its existence is paid for by the slow death of the Sun (as it equalizes with Void).

Majromax 6y ago

For social-science applications, I think the information-theoretic notion of entropy is more appropriate. There's no social analog to the laws of thermodynamics, but we can use the notion of entropy to make statements about information content. In particular, the idea (along with the adjacent subject of Bayesian statistics) has sharpened my thinking about news: there's less information (to me) in otherwise trustworthy headlines/stories that agree with my prior notions. In an analytic sense this isn't surprising, but it runs against the emotional impulse to seek out affirming information.

contravariant 6y ago
You still need to be a bit careful, because what you're describing as entropy isn't how much information is in it, but rather how much you didn't already know. Hence random noise has the maximal 'information content' but isn't useful in the slightest. And really I wouldn't worry too much about finding some mathematical justification for everything. It's an easy way to get caught up in technicalities for something that you already knew.

dr_dshiv 6y ago

See below comment on structural holes. I completely agree with your assessment of the uncertainty here. But knowing that 1. Monoculture is dangerous 2. Diversity will be celebrated for good political reasons and 3. Unity in diversity is the classical notion of harmony and beauty ...this makes me hypothesize about a theoretical reason why cultural contrasts could be something to value. It suggests that energy can be "harvested" from flows across those cultural contrasts and that cultural contrasts require energy to maintain. I think it would produce net value because... Idk. (Note, I might be biased on this entire topic simply because I hate Facebook and miss the highly diverse 90s web)

akiselev 6y ago
> ...this makes me hypothesize about a theoretical reason why cultural contrasts could be something to value. It suggests that energy can be "harvested" from flows across those cultural contrasts and that cultural contrasts require energy to maintain. I think it would produce net value because... Idk. There is a reason to value diversity but it's as far from theoretical as you can get: billions of years of evolution have demonstrated that diversity is the only way for complex ecosystems (civilization, in our case) to exist on any significant timescale. Monocultures are dangerous because the second the environment changes enough, everything dies pretty much all at once instead of transitioning between a mix of cultures best suited to survive the change. I think there's a world of research to be done on how those principles apply to societies, which are driven more by artificial selection, but there's definitely a connection.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > There is a reason to value diversity but it's as far from theoretical as you can get: I'm not sure that's the takeaway. Diversity ensures change and optimization (in a roundabout way). Stability in cultures is about application of optimization and more often, culling. I guess case in point depends on your time frame reference and what you mean by stability. Rome and the Aztecs wiped out almost as much as they assimilated (and assimilation was generally via enslavement, which is not quite the same).
FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
In this metaphor, diversity is a consumable resource. It is a store of exergy. You can extract work by connecting reservoirs; in the process, the difference is destroyed. And as you note, if isolation between reservoirs is imperfect, then work is actually required to maintain the difference. So then, in this metaphor -- 1. Monoculture is just the end-state: The exergy has been spent; the Markov Chain has mixed. 2. Diversity is celebrated because it still contains potential; the exergy has not yet been spent. Yet paradoxically, the work is released only via the mixing process that destroys it. 3. Unity in diversity is beautiful either (a) for the same reason we prefer youth to old age -- because it contains potential -- or (b) because it demonstrates the existence of energy flows into the system (without which it would not exist). To elaborate on (3b): When diversity is sustainable (rather than just harvested), it is a true (costly) sign of an underlying energy flow, and it is really that underlying flow that is beautiful (i.e., life-giving). Of course, in a larger scheme the flow must itself come from some process of entropy production. For example: We may worship the Sun (and the Void) for pumping through Earth the energy that creates biodiversity, and celebrate that diversity, yet its existence is paid for by the slow death of the Sun (as it equalizes with Void).