3 ms·

Complexity-matching. You have one complex adaptive system with a simplified interface to another complex adaptive system and you leverage that to understand th

by svnt 2y ago

Complexity-matching. You have one complex adaptive system with a simplified interface to another complex adaptive system and you leverage that to understand the first, where trying to reduce it to a toolkit that you can internalize is impossible due to the finite nature of your cognition. OP is like your ancestors trying to predict the arrival of game in the spring and relying on a certain flower blossoming. Yours is trying to arrive at a working calculation involving the time from the winter solstice combined with the daily sun exposure, thermal gain, precipitation, and biennial changes in major weather patterns, etc, leading to the possible but not certain generation of a new complex system that must be sustained by a population of humans and might not ever work as well. In many instances, your perspective is the more questionable one.

AndrewKemendo 2y ago
In effect you’re making a claim that in the general case, less systemic precision is preferable because more precision is brittle However you cannot know the relative brittleness apriori and you have to have a consistent measure that you’re comparing to Like it seems that you’re suggesting a loose grained low variance forecasting model will only find high likelihood inferences and filter everything less impactful - making it more robust However experiments regularly destroy previous concepts by the merging of conflicting variables - this is hegelian synthesis, or popperian falsification So foundationally that thesis is flawed because it implies no system improves from additional observation - it gets more brittle. The entire theory of the firm, monopoly efficiencies etc… are a counter example disproving this logic That said, all systems are coupled, so if a complex system is optimized around a narrow saddle point then it tipping into a new state may perturb other coupled models which cause cascading adjustments - that’s not more brittle by default. It means you have to observe more coupled interactions and not overestimate likelihood you can’t experimentally validate with a functional system.
- svnt 2y ago
  You strawmanned my argument into brittleness, but there are significant other options such as that there may not be sufficient technological reach to even construct a reasonably accurate complex system. I did not say things can only progress into brittleness, you invented that so you could have something to argue against.

by svnt 2y ago

AndrewKemendo 2y ago

In effect you’re making a claim that in the general case, less systemic precision is preferable because more precision is brittle However you cannot know the relative brittleness apriori and you have to have a consistent measure that you’re comparing to Like it seems that you’re suggesting a loose grained low variance forecasting model will only find high likelihood inferences and filter everything less impactful - making it more robust However experiments regularly destroy previous concepts by the merging of conflicting variables - this is hegelian synthesis, or popperian falsification So foundationally that thesis is flawed because it implies no system improves from additional observation - it gets more brittle. The entire theory of the firm, monopoly efficiencies etc… are a counter example disproving this logic That said, all systems are coupled, so if a complex system is optimized around a narrow saddle point then it tipping into a new state may perturb other coupled models which cause cascading adjustments - that’s not more brittle by default. It means you have to observe more coupled interactions and not overestimate likelihood you can’t experimentally validate with a functional system.

svnt 2y ago
You strawmanned my argument into brittleness, but there are significant other options such as that there may not be sufficient technological reach to even construct a reasonably accurate complex system. I did not say things can only progress into brittleness, you invented that so you could have something to argue against.