82,882
edits
Big data: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Second, in its [[reductionism]], in its funnelling of a dispersed population into an essential homogeneity, it speaks to the underlying belief in a [[grand unifying theory]] of everything: a transcendent ''truth''. This, in the [[JC]]’s view, is a profoundly illiberal idea: to be unable to accommodate pluralism is to ''deny'' of pluralism. | Second, in its [[reductionism]], in its funnelling of a dispersed population into an essential homogeneity, it speaks to the underlying belief in a [[grand unifying theory]] of everything: a transcendent ''truth''. This, in the [[JC]]’s view, is a profoundly illiberal idea: to be unable to accommodate pluralism is to ''deny'' of pluralism. | ||
It may be “true” that the richness of the universe boils down to a single simple algorithm — perhaps not [[Conway ’s Game of Life]], but maybe something winsomely similar — but if so, that we are in and of and ''part'' of the grand machine, and our trajectory through it is just as ineffably preordained — we are a subroutine — this means we cannot control, or know, what we cannot know, either we will attain certain knowledge of that algorithm, or we won't, but either way there's nothing to be done — so we might as well enjoy the illusion that there ''is'' control. | It may be “true” that the richness of the universe boils down to a single simple algorithm — perhaps not [[Conway ’s Game of Life]], but maybe something winsomely similar — but if so, that we are in and of and ''part'' of the grand machine, and our trajectory through it is just as ineffably preordained — we are a subroutine — this means we cannot control, or know, what we cannot know, either we will attain certain knowledge of that algorithm, or we won't, but either way there's nothing to be done — so we might as well enjoy the illusion that there ''is'' control. Island if there is control, then we get to tell our stories —pluralistically plural — we don't know any better, we were going to do that anyway. | ||
Reductionism is both illiberal and nosy: why are you even having this argument? Why do you care (except that you can't help yourself) — you’ve won anyway. What difference does it make, either way, who is right and who is wrong? This is a bad, fatalistic, negative, zero-sum disposition and, since you're arguing about it, you don't even buy it yourself. | |||
You can’t have it both ways. You are either strapped to your rail, a chimpanzee in a rocket ship, in which case shut up already, or you aren't . | |||
But while you move through the Small World, bound and gagged on your rails of destiny, let me sing. | |||
{{Quote|No-one who believes in conspiracy theories has tried to organise a surprise party. | |||
:—Anon}} | |||
Does this idea that this freedom, variability, randomness, that we apprehend throughout all of creation, is all an illusion seem rather ''neat''? | |||
There are plenty of things — most things — in creation that seem deterministic and play no such tricks on us: the way a shadow falls and light reflects, as you pass under streetlights. All the causal regularities of the physical world that allow our ships to sail, planes to fly, and satellites to orbit the world. They really are as deterministic is the feel. It would certainly be odd if something that wasn't deterministic nonetheless behaved as if it were. Wouldn't that be odd? But is it any odder that something that ''is'' deterministic behaves as if it is not? And does this by the dint of the same regularity that casts shadows and propels cellular mitosis? | |||
What an exceedingly clever trick to trace every possible voluntary movement to make it feel willed, when in fact every molecule is strung upon a causal wire. | |||
Isn't that the greatest conspiracy that there ever was? Isn't that is fantastical as God? | |||
Does not [[Occam’s razor]] come down on the pragmatists side? | |||
===It is noisy=== | ===It is noisy=== | ||
Thirdly, to embrace all the data you can find is to degrade the [[signal-to-noise ratio]]. Even if you buy into the incoherent [[reductionist]] idea that the “signal” is some kind of transcendent truth, by industrialising your data, you risk burying it and if you don’t — if like we pluralists you see ''any'' signal as not just a suitable narrative for your present purposes, the more data you gather, the more possible narratives — conflicting narratives; [[incommensurable]] narratives — you will have. Now this is, for a pluralist, is a good thing: every narrative is a tool in your workshop, the more you have the better you are equipped to deal with the [[unknown unknown]]s our [[complex]] world will surely throw at us — but that tends ''not'' to be what big data disciples are after. | Thirdly, to embrace all the data you can find is to degrade the [[signal-to-noise ratio]]. Even if you buy into the incoherent [[reductionist]] idea that the “signal” is some kind of transcendent truth, by industrialising your data, you risk burying it and if you don’t — if like we pluralists you see ''any'' signal as not just a suitable narrative for your present purposes, the more data you gather, the more possible narratives — conflicting narratives; [[incommensurable]] narratives — you will have. Now this is, for a pluralist, is a good thing: every narrative is a tool in your workshop, the more you have the better you are equipped to deal with the [[unknown unknown]]s our [[complex]] world will surely throw at us — but that tends ''not'' to be what big data disciples are after. | ||