4 ms·

"finding patterns where there are none" is"systems level thinking" now? the idea of an all encompassing force that affects everyone on Earth is hard to fathom,

"finding patterns where there are none" is"systems level thinking" now? the idea of an all encompassing force that affects everyone on Earth is hard to fathom, and yet gravity is an accepted idea today, where it wasn't at the start And yet it turns out that gravity is not a force at all. Gravity is just the shape of space.

patcon 6y ago
I believe the parent comment is trying to defend a "complexity science" approach to the world. Adherents would argue that all these "fuzzy patterns" (conspiracy-thinking, some might say) stem from shared generalized properties of networks operating in different substrates and scales and energy transitions. Societies, companies, cities, ants, cells, forests, biofilms, minds, languages, storytelling, social conflict, river networks, etc etc infinity. https://www.santafe.edu/culture/podcast https://www.santafe.edu/culture/podcast If you feel like it, pls do listen to this popular podcast by the Santa Fe Institute, and you'll hear them connecting things rather frenetically. Some adherents ground all this in rigorous science, but others participate very effectively as amateurs, guided by pure intuition/creativity that's often complementary and comparably fruitful. Complexity science offers an approach that elevates metaphor to a curious form of information/knowledge. Some amateurs in the community just participate in this "rhyming game" of networks, and leave the hard science to others in the community. That works fine. Cormac McCarthy (of "The Road" and "No Country For Old Men" fame) has been hanging out with these folks for decades, and participating in their discussions even though he lacks the scientific underpinnings. These's a symbiosis of sorts between the hard and soft "scientists" doing this work. Adam Curtis sounds like he's one of the "soft" researchers. If you can't straddle this fuzzy boundary, it doesn't mean it's not real wisdom they're chewing on -- it's just not the sort everyone can easily stomach/navigate/sift imho, just as some don't have the neurotype to excel in deep programmatic thinking) Anyhow, thanks for the opportunity to think this through out loud :)
- bmitc 6y ago
  Yes, thank you. This was nicely written. Another place that takes a similar but more applicative view, but is less well known, is College of the Atlantic. https://www.coa.edu/ https://www.coa.edu/
  - patcon 6y ago
    Oh jeez! I'm admittedly an SFI super-fan, but had never heard of CoA! They seem like a neat little feeder institution. I used to camp there as a kid, so the area is very familiar to me. Thanks so so much! I feel like some kid in my "future sphere of influence" -- whatever that might be -- could very well end up there, so your comment feels impactful.
    - bmitc 6y ago
      No problem! I had the same reaction when I found out about College of the Atlantic. I was like, I should quit my job and go study there. Haha. I actually found out about them via Complexity Explorer, the Santa Fe Institute's online MOOC platform, by looking up David Feldman, who teaches a course on Complexity Explorer and is a professor at College of the Atlantic. http://hornacek.coa.edu/dave/ http://hornacek.coa.edu/dave/ https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Dynamical-Systems-Primers-Complex/dp/0691161526 https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Dynamical-Systems-Primers-Compl... College of the Atlantic actually has a lot of neat videos on YouTube, and below is a tour of the campus by the college president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRgGpHu67rw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRgGpHu67rw
bmitc 6y ago
> And yet it turns out that gravity is not a force at all. Gravity is just the shape of space. This is really a distraction from the discussion. Why is this semantical argument important to discuss? Although, if I were to answer it, "is" is not well-defined in physics. But "is" typically is understood to be "is modeled by". Yes, in general relativity, gravity is modeled by something different than what it is modeled by in Newtonian gravity, which is a force. General relativity didn't exist 300 years ago when gravity was difficult to accept. Newtonian gravity did. Models evolve but sometimes old models remain useful. My entire point in this discussion was that we need new models to understand the complexity of modern society and human behavior. The old models aren't good enough. That's why I react somewhat negatively to complaining of conspiracy theories at an attempt to understand the complexity of the systems we've created and participate in. This stuff is tough to understand and wrap one's head around. Even something as deductive, in a way, as Newtonian gravity and general relativity was met with great resistance, if not outright rejection. We shouldn't follow these patterns.

patcon 6y ago

I believe the parent comment is trying to defend a "complexity science" approach to the world. Adherents would argue that all these "fuzzy patterns" (conspiracy-thinking, some might say) stem from shared generalized properties of networks operating in different substrates and scales and energy transitions. Societies, companies, cities, ants, cells, forests, biofilms, minds, languages, storytelling, social conflict, river networks, etc etc infinity. https://www.santafe.edu/culture/podcast https://www.santafe.edu/culture/podcast If you feel like it, pls do listen to this popular podcast by the Santa Fe Institute, and you'll hear them connecting things rather frenetically. Some adherents ground all this in rigorous science, but others participate very effectively as amateurs, guided by pure intuition/creativity that's often complementary and comparably fruitful. Complexity science offers an approach that elevates metaphor to a curious form of information/knowledge. Some amateurs in the community just participate in this "rhyming game" of networks, and leave the hard science to others in the community. That works fine. Cormac McCarthy (of "The Road" and "No Country For Old Men" fame) has been hanging out with these folks for decades, and participating in their discussions even though he lacks the scientific underpinnings. These's a symbiosis of sorts between the hard and soft "scientists" doing this work. Adam Curtis sounds like he's one of the "soft" researchers. If you can't straddle this fuzzy boundary, it doesn't mean it's not real wisdom they're chewing on -- it's just not the sort everyone can easily stomach/navigate/sift imho, just as some don't have the neurotype to excel in deep programmatic thinking) Anyhow, thanks for the opportunity to think this through out loud :)

bmitc 6y ago
Yes, thank you. This was nicely written. Another place that takes a similar but more applicative view, but is less well known, is College of the Atlantic. https://www.coa.edu/ https://www.coa.edu/
- patcon 6y ago
  Oh jeez! I'm admittedly an SFI super-fan, but had never heard of CoA! They seem like a neat little feeder institution. I used to camp there as a kid, so the area is very familiar to me. Thanks so so much! I feel like some kid in my "future sphere of influence" -- whatever that might be -- could very well end up there, so your comment feels impactful.
  - bmitc 6y ago
    No problem! I had the same reaction when I found out about College of the Atlantic. I was like, I should quit my job and go study there. Haha. I actually found out about them via Complexity Explorer, the Santa Fe Institute's online MOOC platform, by looking up David Feldman, who teaches a course on Complexity Explorer and is a professor at College of the Atlantic. http://hornacek.coa.edu/dave/ http://hornacek.coa.edu/dave/ https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Dynamical-Systems-Primers-Complex/dp/0691161526 https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Dynamical-Systems-Primers-Compl... College of the Atlantic actually has a lot of neat videos on YouTube, and below is a tour of the campus by the college president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRgGpHu67rw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRgGpHu67rw

bmitc 6y ago

> And yet it turns out that gravity is not a force at all. Gravity is just the shape of space. This is really a distraction from the discussion. Why is this semantical argument important to discuss? Although, if I were to answer it, "is" is not well-defined in physics. But "is" typically is understood to be "is modeled by". Yes, in general relativity, gravity is modeled by something different than what it is modeled by in Newtonian gravity, which is a force. General relativity didn't exist 300 years ago when gravity was difficult to accept. Newtonian gravity did. Models evolve but sometimes old models remain useful. My entire point in this discussion was that we need new models to understand the complexity of modern society and human behavior. The old models aren't good enough. That's why I react somewhat negatively to complaining of conspiracy theories at an attempt to understand the complexity of the systems we've created and participate in. This stuff is tough to understand and wrap one's head around. Even something as deductive, in a way, as Newtonian gravity and general relativity was met with great resistance, if not outright rejection. We shouldn't follow these patterns.