Norbert Wiener had this all figured out 70 years ago - everything old is new again!
We must seek a widely-applicable science of systems
21–30 of 71 posts
Re: We must seek a widely-applicable science of systems
#22[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: We must seek a widely-applicable science of systems
#23This is an incredible perspective coming from a 16 y/o. For what it’s worth, it took me spending 12+ years studying biochem and adjacent topics at university, to reach a very similar perspective. The one criticism I’d make here (and tbh it’s unfair to expect more from the author) is that there has been a lot of work done towards this already. There are many systems biology textbooks, a much greater number of systems…
[deleted]
Re: We must seek a widely-applicable science of systems
#24Having studied complexity from a computational perspective (via Santa Fe Institute and 1st wave Cybernetics) and a natural sciences one (via Dave Snowden and Alicia Juarrero) my preference is to stay away from modelling complex systems particularly complex adaptive ones. There is value in modelling, but heed the advice that all models are wrong. If you want to understand why, take a look at Steven Wolfram's Computati…
There's value in studying this stuff rigorously even if you can't predict the exact future state of complex systems. Being able to model whether a system tends towards equilibrium or disequilibrium is enormously valuable.
In economics, George Soros's theory of reflexivity, for example, is a rejection of efficient market hypothesis. The idea here being that price signals can lead to second order effects and market disequilibrium.
In ecology/climate, it's very useful to understand what kinds of perturbations (introduction of cane toads to Australia) are more likely to break equilibrium.
In fluid dynamics, we still don't really understand turbulence, but we can do useful modelling in wind tunnels without grokking the fundamental principles.
As the world becomes increasingly interconnected it becomes even more important to get a rigorous understanding of this science. We might not get to the power of Harry Seldon's psychohistory anytime soon but there's useful value we can gain along the way.
Re: We must seek a widely-applicable science of systems
#25I would recommend reading:
Complexity by M. Waldrop https://commoncog.com/learning-from-waldrop-complexity/
The Systems Bible by J. Gall (This one is an odd one but it is good for developing a sense of humor) https://novelinvestor.com/notes/systemantics-how-systems-wor...
Re: We must seek a widely-applicable science of systems
#26Somewhat related, I feel like the book Thinking in Systems should be taught in high school https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3828902
Absolutely. Broadly, I wonder what leads to schools not adopting emerging fields as part of the formal curriculum. Interesting to note even in 2021, only 51% US k12 high schools were found to have a CS course. Does not seem like a capital problem to me. Is this just inertia or a legibility problem?
Who will teach them?
Re: We must seek a widely-applicable science of systems
#27This is a wonderful post and articulates something I've also struggled with over the years - and I'm much older than 16!
To me, it can be distilled down to human decision making... how flawed we are in terms of cause/effect, how logical fallacies are so powerful. Ultimately we discovered that the Scientific Method was a tool for us to overcome these flaws. Hopefully there is a similar tool out there in the ether which can help us to navigate complexity with similar confidence.
Re: We must seek a widely-applicable science of systems
#28Having studied complexity from a computational perspective (via Santa Fe Institute and 1st wave Cybernetics) and a natural sciences one (via Dave Snowden and Alicia Juarrero) my preference is to stay away from modelling complex systems particularly complex adaptive ones. There is value in modelling, but heed the advice that all models are wrong. If you want to understand why, take a look at Steven Wolfram's Computati…
There's value in studying this stuff rigorously even if you can't predict the exact future state of complex systems. Being able to model whether a system tends towards equilibrium or disequilibrium is enormously valuable. In economics, George Soros's theory of reflexivity, for example, is a rejection of efficient market hypothesis. The idea here being that price signals can lead to second order effects and market dis…
> In fluid dynamics, we still don't really understand turbulence,
Not to be pedantic - isn't this mathematically well described?
You seem to have broad knowledge, am appealing to your insight :)
Re: We must seek a widely-applicable science of systems
#29It would be very useful to have an inheritance system to feed outputs of scientific theories into other theories. Just like how computer programs can access code from included libraries.
Chiara Marletto and David Deutch developped such a system, called constructor theory. It is build up from constructors, which are like little computer programs that describe what they refer to as different "tasks". And these tasks are counterfactual operations.
Re: We must seek a widely-applicable science of systems
#30To me, Christopher Alexander's work comes closest to describing "systems science". I recommend Notes on the Synthesis of Form , The Timeless Way of Building , and then skipping to the Nature of Order series. I'm of the opinion right now that what we call "design" and "architecture" is really just the science of finding stable habitable zones in high-dimensional problem spaces. What's cool about Alexander's work is th…
I strongly recommend picking up Carliss Baldwin’s Design Rules. It is a great addition to the thinking done in Notes on the Synthesis of Form, in a more empirical and specific technological context (the advent of the computer).