83,492
edits
Doubt: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
As the information revolution unfolds, this is a twilight world. Margins diminish. As dusk falls, we scramble around collecting ever fewer pennies in front of the onward progress of the same, monstrous, [[Entropy|entropic]] steam-roller. The better, and more widely dispersed our technology becomes, the less return there is to make. There is no assured annuity from computerisation. Just ask Eastman Kodak, Sears or the people who made aerogrammes. Ask the Parisienne artisan weavers put out of work by Joseph Jacquard’s new, [[Jacquard loom|automated looms]]. They threw their wooden “''sabots''” into the machines to damage the gears — “''[[sabotage]]''”, they called it — but they could not fight history. | As the information revolution unfolds, this is a twilight world. Margins diminish. As dusk falls, we scramble around collecting ever fewer pennies in front of the onward progress of the same, monstrous, [[Entropy|entropic]] steam-roller. The better, and more widely dispersed our technology becomes, the less return there is to make. There is no assured annuity from computerisation. Just ask Eastman Kodak, Sears or the people who made aerogrammes. Ask the Parisienne artisan weavers put out of work by Joseph Jacquard’s new, [[Jacquard loom|automated looms]]. They threw their wooden “''sabots''” into the machines to damage the gears — “''[[sabotage]]''”, they called it — but they could not fight history. | ||
A world in which all outcomes ''can be coded for'' is one where ''no-one wants to play | A world in which all outcomes ''can be coded for'' is one where ''no-one wants to play any more''. It is fully priced. Margins are at zero. There is no surprise; there is no risk; all punchlines are known. It is a life of noughts and crosses<ref>''Tic-tac-toe'' to you, my American friends. The same will, in theory, one day be true of [[chess]] and [[go]] — but the calculations are exponentially harder.</ref> and not [[chess]], much less bridge or poker. At every point, there is a known optimal move: ''including at the first move''. If the optimal move is a [[known known]] (as it is in noughts and crosses, but is not ''yet'' in [[chess]]) the game is ''solved'': ''there is no point in playing''. This is not a competition of wits, but of memory and data processing power. That’s [[certainty]], and it isn’t interesting. | ||
[[Complex system]]s are not like that. They are “[[non-linear]]”. Non-adjacent components interact in unexpected ways. They do not have pre-defined boundaries. There is no common set of protocols; there are no agreed rules. Information is incomplete, ambiguous, and provisional. The system is not bounded; there is no complete data set: it is in perpetual flux. It is filled with independent systems and agents making their own independent decisions, each one of which alters the contours of the landscape. ''Everything is liable to change''. | [[Complex system]]s are not like that. They are “[[non-linear]]”. Non-adjacent components interact in unexpected ways. They do not have pre-defined boundaries. There is no common set of protocols; there are no agreed rules. Information is incomplete, ambiguous, and provisional. The system is not bounded; there is no complete data set: it is in perpetual flux. It is filled with independent systems and agents making their own independent decisions, each one of which alters the contours of the landscape. ''Everything is liable to change''. | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
This observation we owe to [[Kurt Gödel]]. The same one snookered Bertrand Russell: not even ''mathematics'' is a closed logical system. It also snookers [[reductionism]] and [[modernism]]. There is no single truth. | This observation we owe to [[Kurt Gödel]]. The same one snookered Bertrand Russell: not even ''mathematics'' is a closed logical system. It also snookers [[reductionism]] and [[modernism]]. There is no single truth. | ||
Now we can, with our word games, do our best minimise indeterminacy. For example, [[legal language]] is ''meant'' to do this, by convention eliminating [[metaphor]], slang and informal constructions; generally sacrificing ''elegance'' for [[certainty]]. Where there remains potential ambiguity, legal language tries to further | Now we can, with our word games, do our best minimise indeterminacy. For example, [[legal language]] is ''meant'' to do this, by convention eliminating [[metaphor]], slang and informal constructions; generally sacrificing ''elegance'' for [[certainty]]. Where there remains potential ambiguity, legal language tries to further diminish it with [[definitions]], but even there, the best we can hope for is that our static document can describe the order, state and function of a simple system. It is beyond the power of any algorithm to describe a complex system. | ||
We start, therefore, in a place where “the only [[certainty]] is doubt”. Carry on, chaps. | We start, therefore, in a place where “the only [[certainty]] is doubt”. | ||
Carry on, chaps. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||