first intro here (i think):
while reading (ch3 p 61 of Dave Elder-Vass‘ The Causal Power of Social Structure).. this tweet/reading.. fitting…
textbook social systems that are engraved in stone”can be changed in one single generation. There may be hope for the human race, it seems.
Recent research shows that evolution is on the side of those who cooperate.
“We found evolution will punish you if you’re selfish and mean. For a short time and against a specific set of opponents, some selfish organisms may come out ahead. But selfishness isn’t evolutionarily sustainable.”
Hierarchical control structures are symptomatic of collective behavior that is no more complex than one individual.
As Yaneer Bar-Yam explains in Complexity Rising, hierarchies have diminishing usefulness as complexity increases.
Better social relationships (non-hierarchical and not based on the dominance of others) can make for healthier populations. In addition, networks are the only way our collective intelligence can be used to address increasing complexity
then this from feldercarb:
You need to follow @ if you’re not already. He knows a thing or two about systems theory and problems of scale.
2015 – with Taleb on Peace for Syria
8 min video of highlights from above:
6 min – how to create a structure which is going to be robust and be a natural solution..
let’s try this: a nother way
8 min – my theory is.. we’ve got to move on.. the existing structure is not working..
6 min – there’s a lot of data in the world.. we don’t want to just look at how one thing correlates to another..
we really want to understand how all things work across all the info
8 min – really about understanding cascades, crisis, leverage points.. a complex dependent system..by understanding the dependencies.. we can apply .. patterns..
11 min – need to understand financials..
? deep enough..?
secret info.. don’t reveal till published.. this is privileged info
13 min – in order to implement policy.. have to get country needs.. can’t do policy till do the analysis.. this is just how econ flows work.. if money accumulates somewhere the econ doesn’t work..
is this complex..? or irrelevant..
made up money.. is the complexity we’re researching for a better world..?
15 min – we have to understand this structure (diagram w 3 parts: labor, capital, firms)
new trade opp – 2013
29 min – (this was on getting things into the market) a piece that is crucial.. recognizing that things work together and not separate.. core to thinking in complex systems sense.. guides understanding to what’s happening now.. what you want to be present and how to transition..
let’s transition like this.. short bp
44 min – i think a lot of decision now are being made locally.. i think the main thing is to show the effectiveness of global decision making
rather both.. at once.. ie: redefine decision making
using tools and science.. the fact that we can come up with better decisions and policies.. that will actually improve things ultimately will drive the fact that people will listen to those decisions..
not about creating global decisions.. if we can show decisions being made.. like here.. are effective.. i think people will listen..
let’s go there.. for (blank)’s sake…
i think we’re looking at.. obsessing with too much data.. that doesn’t even include the data that could save us.. ie: self-talk as data
56 min – time scale.. how long we should expect something to take.. so have to understand from an expectations pov.. and gear toward that time plan.. (taking small holder farming)
he starts at 2:22 here (2014):
2:23 -we are no longer individuals acting on stage.. it’s us collectively.. ie: wikipedia
basis of convo has to be the matching..
org’s have to match the complexity of the challenge
ginorm small ness
very important statement.. ..in order to be successful an org structure has to match the structure of the challenge in scale and complexity
so what’s the task.. 2 diff parts.. one complex (content) and one large scale (structure/format).. the format that repeats itself across all scales.. uniform across the system..
2:24 – content is complex is quite clear.. but wikipedia has demo’s that even individual articles benefit from multiple contributing authors.. so complexity already exists at individual article.. and the format is large scale.. because it is uniform by its definition
2:25 – large scale required a specific time to be finished and therefore required and benefitted from central control… the internet set aside that second piece.. so more complexity possible.. but also meant challenges for large scale in terms of creating uniformity/conformity
he keeps saying.. is that clear.. no response.. so he says.. great..
2:26 – so leads to tug of war between decentralization (for purposes of complexity) and centralization (for purposes of conformity)..
systems that are not controlled are… evolutionary
evolution in biology creates these incredibly complex amazing systems.. we can’t do this..
evolution is always a work in progress
2:28 – major.. most successful systems today.. almost all distributed thru method of evolutionary dynamics.. ie: markets; visa/mastercard (account for more than 10 trillion dollars of transactions global.. why you’re not aware as evolutionary system because process takes place at level of the card issuers.. nice book about this: birth of chaortic age by dee hock.. founder of visa international); internet; open source; wikipedia; app communities
2:29 – how these systems are structured.. *centralized.. framework consistent across system that enables.. individual actions which are distributed.. the combine to collective behaviors thru the mechs we often associate with evolution…persistence with variation.. selection with **competition
*with you there.. we just need to disengage from tons of stuff to get to a deep/simple/open enough framework for all of us..
contradictory things exist in this system.. and the fact that they are paradoxically coexistent means that there are some choices about balance/trade-offs that one has to understand..
2:30 – in order to think about this.. have to map wikipedia in to evolutionary process.. not an institution.. an evolution of pages..
the standard evolutionary dynamics.. set of orgs .. they reproduce.. creating more.. some selection process.. variation.. end up with diff things later than had at beginning..
2:31 – process of editing: edit; edit; edit.. doesn’t look like that.. variation variation variation is not evolution… the key step in the evolution (of wikipedia) is the reading.. and deciding whether to edit.. that’s a selection process.. a selective process..
issue: lack of parallelism.. we compare with prior versions.. and that’s not quite the same.. turns out.. mathematically still puts us in category of evolutionary dynamics.. but we’re concerned with what that should do..
2:32 – want to talk about some of the things evolution needs to accomplish..
2:33 – problem we have with evolutionary dynamics.. is one gets stuck at a local optima.. any time you have complex entities.. they’re going to have local optimas
what we want to do.. is jump to another one which is better
indeed.. for (blank)’s sake…
problem is is that we can’t tell how.. we can only take small steps..
let’s try this: model a nother way – 6-12 months.. then 7 bn can leap.. w/in say a year
2:34 – so we have a situation where we take a step.. we’re going in wrong direction.. in terms of quality
this is why we have to leap.. we’ll never sync up..
so if we immediately select.. we will get stuck.. and this is a problem.. in any process that involves incremental changes that are trying to make improvements
so what we would really like to do.. is to take some set of steps.. and end up in the other one (local maxima).. now this is a problem.. because if we look more generally.. we’ll see.. it really looks like this.. (zoom out.. to see we’re really just at another optima.. maximas galore ahead)
zoom dance matters.. huge
there are all these local optima that are separated by a deep valleys .. and this is generally the way the world is.. you don’t have the control over this.. sorry..
what if the control over it.. is to let go of control over it.. what if that’s the complexity we’re missing.. trusting us.. all of us.. partial is what gets us out of sync.. clear vision of the zoom dance]
2:35 – so if you don’t have control over this.. how do you solve the problem.. and the answer is .. that we need balance of different processes.. particularly divergence (brainstorming).. and convergence (decision making).. di/con vergence
here’s the point.. it’s not exactly a balance.. because balance suggests that they are kind of happening at the same time.. and it may turn out that that’s not the best way to do it
2:36 – too much divergence.. end up in random places.. in entropy…. too much convergence.. you get stuck.. stasis
two kinds of people.. thick boundaried: everything has a place… thin boundaried: open to exploration.. so need a balance of *diff kinds of people.. and balance of **automation of people..
*how about all the kinds
**facil whimsy via self-talk as data
2:37 – automation works on the large scale part.. the structure.. the stuff that has to be done over and over
can’t automate the complex part
so what does framework look like.. can have central control of framework.. to create evolutionary context.. rules enable rather than restrict
2:38 – rules turn out to be huge between control and evolutionary process
in a controlled system rules are about what to do and what not to do .. in an evolutionary system rules are enabling and selection is the process that creates the improvement
2:39 – rules are white and black.. and selection is fundamentally recursive.. it’s not about where you are .. it’s whether you’re moving.. and that’s really important.. evolution is always a work in progress… always changing the organisms around us..
rules are about integrity of the system and the protection of the participants..
2:40 – rules are often about promoting change rather than preventing change..
evolution is a metaframework.. we can make it as a way to analyze what’s going on .. and that’s an opportunity..
human civilization is a complex collective.. you are all part of it.. wikipedia is a very important part of it today..
3:03 – what is a community.. i think the nature of collective is broader than the definition of .. common interest..
3:30 – i’m quite agnostic about structure of that decision making process… ie: www .. or carefully thought out.. i do know.. we’ve shown .. that very simple ideas can be transformational.. because of how people interact with them..
3:31 – on ai ideas and machines replacing people.. same fear as steam engines replacing people.. i think we’re discovering more and more that people are diff from machines.. and i do think.. that thinking about civilization as mostly about people and secondly about tech is really important..
opp.. is not to think about the code but to think about the people.. if we do that well and whoever does that well.. will create transformations..
continuing opp to transform society..
Complexity scientist. Exploring the space of possibilities and its boundaries.
Working on solving our societal crises.
Team building for a better world.
yes.. let’s go deep Yaneer – short bit
NECSI has been instrumental in the development of complex systems science and its applications. We study how interactions within a system lead to its behavioral patterns, and how the system interacts with its environment. Our new tools overcome the limitations of classical approximations for the scientific study of complex systems, such as social organizations, biological organisms and ecological communities. NECSI’s unified mathematically-based approach transcends the boundaries of physical, biological and social sciences, as well as engineering, management, and medicine (see Complex Systems Resources).
NECSI research advances fundamental science and its applications to real world problems, including social policy matters. NECSI researchers study networks, agent-based modeling, multiscale analysis and complexity, chaos and predictability, evolution, ecology, biodiversity, altruism, systems biology, cellular response, health care, systems engineering, negotiation, military conflict, ethnic violence, and international development. (see NECSI Research).
Yaneer Bar-Yam (born 1959) is an American physicist, systems scientist, and founding president of the New England Complex Systems Institute.
Yaneer Bar-Yam was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1959. He received his B.S. degree in 1978 and his Ph.D. degree in 1984, both in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a Bantrell PostDoctoral Fellow, and a joint postdoctoral fellow at MIT and IBM. In 1991, after a junior faculty appointment at the Weizmann Institute, he became an Associate Professor of Engineering at Boston University.
He left Boston University in 1997 to become president of the New England Complex Systems Institute. He is also an Associate of the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology at Harvard University. He is chairman of the International Conference on Complex Systems and managing editor of InterJournal.
Bar-Yam studies the unified properties of complex systems as a systematic strategy for answering basic questions about the world. His research is focused both on formalizing complex systems concepts and relating them to everyday problems. In particular, he studies the relationship between observations at different scales, formal properties of descriptions of systems, the relationship of structure and function, the representation of information as a physical quantity, and quantitative properties of the complexity of real systems. Applications have been to physical, biological and social systems.
Bar-Yam has made further contributions to the theory of the structural and electronic dynamics of materials, the theory of polymer dynamics and protein folding, the theory of neural networks and structure-function relationships, the theory of quantitative multiscale complexity, and the theory of evolution.
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 5:26 PM – 15 May 2017 :
@nntaleb @IGUZM4N @RonPaul In case you haven’t seen this https://t.co/UONPN01QEi(http://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/864260624594939906?s=17)
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 10:44 AM – 14 May 2017 :
@IGUZM4N @RonPaul @nntaleb There is a substantial literature. For example, markets are unstable to monopolization. We have other work on this https://t.co/nxr6AonogU (http://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/863797289705504768?s=17)
people are unstable to marketization
we have other work on this
it is the internal structure of the market, not external news, which can cause a market to crash
The uptick rule was designed to limit the rapid selling of borrowed shares and was implemented after the crash of 1929 to prevent future crashes. After it was repealed in the summer of 2007 due to unsound interpretations of data, the market was left more vulnerable to spikes and drops. At NECSI recommendation, the SEC announced a return of the rule, which caused an immediate market response. However, the rule has been reinstated only in a limited form, leaving the market vulnerable.
better up stick rule: quit measuring transactions
@yaneerbaryamReplying to @TBeholder @IGUZM4N and 2 others
Regulatory capture necsi.edu/research/econo…
“It’s hard to maintain integrity when the monetary benefits are so high, especially when the harmful consequences are not obvious even when they are severe, as happens often in the financial sector,” says Bar-Yam. “We need to make the consequences more clear and the process of collusion more difficult.”
hard to maintain integrity when measuring transactions..need to disengage
NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) tweeted at 11:07 AM – 14 May 2017 :
@yaneerbaryam @IGUZM4N @RonPaul Well functioning markets REQUIRE absence of monopolies. Monopolies are often the result of government cronies/patronage
well functioning people require absence of markets ..markets are often result of measure/compare
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 9:12 AM on Tue, Aug 15, 2017:
Question: I am interested in suggestions about how to teach the concept of “space of possibilities”
depends..do you want people who can 1\ discuss math or 2\ imagine a nother way to live (aka: the seemingly impossible)
How about both possibilities ;)
Suggestions for two possibilities welcome–
perhaps watch i am .. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYtfnONazTU]
a dose of reality.. elements that undermine everything we’ve been told.. wake up..
we are far grander than we have been told
[your sec 3.1 suggested movies as helping with description: @yaneerbaryam No great reference. Space of possibilities is a set of possible states (or time histories). Related: Sec 3.1 in necsi.edu/projects/yanee…]
and perhaps.. let’s try this .. for space of possibilities:
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 10:19 AM on Tue, Oct 17, 2017:
How can we fix the economy? Our just released analysis https://t.co/6iqKmrcmNJhttps://t.co/F8oXYXl8bX
Our analysis supports advocates of greater income and / or government support for the poor who use a larger fraction of income for consumption. This promotes investment due to the growth in expenditures. Otherwise, investment has limited opportunities to gain returns above inflation so capital remains uninvested, and does not contribute to the growth of economic activity.
wow. contribute to growth of econ? that’s how you fix it..? more money circulated.
Exploring the space of possibilities and its boundaries.
Working on solving our societal crises.
this (what you suggest) is not that
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 10:31 AM on Wed, Oct 18, 2017:
Wealth Redistribution is Essential to Stabilize Economy Says Math
by Daniel Starkey and https://t.co/MVvU1UM4N4 Original paper https://t.co/6iqKmrcmNJ
Look, it’s been pretty clear that “Reaganomics” wasn’t really a viable tactic for some time now. We haven’t been lead to any new economic promised land..Now there’s another bit of evidence to back up the idea that other economic tools — like wealth redistribution — are more effective for achieving tangible goals. *It’s called math.
A new paper by the New England Complex Systems Institute uses mathematics to find a solution one of society’s most pernicious problems — income inequality..t
oy.. of math and men
math isn’t going to bring us equity (everyone getting a go everyday)
*“We need a very measured, but definite shift in direction that will address the economic problems and also address economic inequality problems,” Yaneer Bar-Yam, physicist and founder of the New England Complex Systems Institute, told Motherboard. “We went too far with Reaganomics, and now we have to go back in order to have healthy economic growth.”
rather.. *we need a very un measured.. shift.. that will address equity.. everyone getting a go everyday
Without enough cash in the hands of consumers, they won’t have resources to buy the things manufacturers make
affluence w/o abundance.. and sans measuring/money
Citizens have to be able to buy things *for this economic systems to work, and right now many of the poorest among us just don’t have the ability to buy anything. By giving them money through government programs and wage hikes and the like, they’ll have money to spend which will then go back into the hands of the wealthy to encourage more investment and production.
*that’s our goal..? in 2017.. that’s our goal..?
People want less inequality. Wealth redistribution does that. And we can prove it mathematically.
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 4:45 AM – 9 Nov 2017 :
example of tragedy of the commons as tragedy https://t.co/26DiO6fRAm(http://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/928589439248556032?s=17)
dehli was commoning..?
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 6:31 AM – 27 Dec 2017 :
This presentation at EB conference at a special obesity symposium was well received. Research should be done to quantify https://t.co/8wtuMYCfjShttps://t.co/rJkBkztyJr (http://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/946010678221033473?s=17)
Dr. Bar-Yam noted that the complex nature of many of our problems, including the obesity epidemic, requires systems-oriented solutions. He pointed out that an individual has a regulatory system that should be preventing obesity. This regulatory system should cause people to stop eating when they are satiated (Panel A in the figure). The reason this regulatory system isn’t it working is that the society is overriding the individual regulation (Panel B in the figure)
self-talk as data
He presented a simple dynamic model to demonstrate that the eat-satiate balance is broken by the profit-pursuing behaviors of the food industry, which promotes overeating and suggested a systematic future research direction: to understand the combined individual-societal regulatory systems.
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 5:46 PM on Tue, Jan 02, 2018:
Changing a system–even in a good direction–is destabilizing because self-consistency (attractor state) has to be reestablished.
so imagine we shorten the time for that re establishment
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 6:42 AM – 17 Jan 2018 :
Society is at a transition point. Behaviors at all scales have similar challenges: Making relationships that work. (http://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/953623652737716224?s=17)
The Handbook of Research Methods in #Complexity Science is out https://t.co/raBLJfA11c Edited by @lsecomplexity Prof Eve Mitleton-Kelly & Christopher Day and @UniWestLondon Prof Alexandros Paraskevas, Read free chapter by @yaneerbaryam https://t.co/HilLa3hmlJ https://t.co/O85bL2lfc7
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/Elgar_Politics/status/958714199735140353
Focus of my chapter is on multiscale analysis
many of the key problems today have to do with ‘indirect effects’ of human activities
current approaches continue to be dominated by large-scale strategies that are not effective in addressing complex problems.. even w the appearance of more holistic approaches.. the basic concept of existing strategy remains weakly informed by complex systems insights..t
when properties of a system result from dependences and relationships, but we assign them to their parts, major obstacles to understanding, design, regulation and control arise.
one of central insights about complex systems is that the effect of dependencies among components cannot be fully rep’d by traditional math and conceptual approaches based in calc and stats..t
multi scale anal can be used to id the complex relationships between the behavior of parts and the whole across scales
the space of possibilities is an essential and deep concept about the behavior of complex systems.. ie: while description appears to be very concrete.. any description must reflect not only what is observed but also an understanding of what might be possible.. t
(on biomed) – the key to a broader perspective on such applications is recognizing that the large quantities of data that are currently being collected are being org’d into data bases that reflect the data acquisition process rather than the potential use of this info..t
and too.. if the data being collected is the data the matters..
ie: self-talk as data
(on cog ness – mind and brain) – an approach that recognizes the diff’s between individuals is needed..
in our increasingly complex interdependent world.. it is important to recognize how changes in one part of the world can have important effects in another.. ie: can be used to trace the cause of arab spring to market policies in the us
in general, the ability of humanity to address these global problems must rely upon the collective behavior of people around the the world..t
the excitement in the study of complex systems arises not from a complete set of answers but rather from the appearance of a new set of questions..t
ie: what problem matters (aka – deep enough for 7 bn to resonate w/today).. and to that then.. what data matters.. (how to collect it.. et al)
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 5:18 PM on Tue, Feb 06, 2018:
Proof of motivational statement “Follow your dreams”: Distinguishing realistic goals from fantasies is frequently impossible in a complex system.
We need to think how to make such complex systems applications more widely intuitive.
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/966809318594109440
his ie (linked) is teacher looking at who kids would recommend as ie: hero.. in order to see who is left out..
how to do that.. how to get there..?
while reading assembly.. ch 3 in particular
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Sun, Jul 08, 2018:
Worth rereading the amazing Exupére story “The Little Prince” on relatedness. See attached. See also Relational properties: https://t.co/GzTSbDI7PMhttps://t.co/gcZTq1I2Qb
The insight of physical law is that if we properly define these quantities in relative terms, then we have an objective (rather than subjective) description of events.
but then is it still truth/alive..?
This type of relatedness is more generally expressed by the possessive words including “my, his, hers, ours, their.” In a sense, just as molecular lock/key relationships are central to biology, so possession/ownership is central in society as an essential general purpose relatedness concept.
ugh.. seeing property ness as cancerous
quote from the little prince: lovelier.. because she is my rose
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 5:14 AM – 27 Jul 2018 :
Sleep deprivation shows that sleep is important. My discussion is in Chapter 3 of Dynamics of Complex Systems online at https://t.co/Gf3nGWvGoNhttps://t.co/6AQEvHR1ZQ (http://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/1022802357204254720?s=17
Yaneer Bar-Yam (@yaneerbaryam) tweeted at 1:43 PM on Tue, Dec 11, 2018:
An open system exposed to a structured environment will develop complexity at all scales: New paper about the paradoxical instability of disorder #Anarchy #Localism https://t.co/DmYt2Gp4iYhttps://t.co/VsByYSZ9hP
The Inherent Instability of Disordered Systems..t
depends.. on who is defining ie: instability; disorder; .. no?
The Multiscale Law of Requisite Variety is a scientific law relating, at each scale, the variation in an environment to the variation in internal state that is necessary for effective response by a system. While this law has been used to describe the effectiveness of systems in self-regulation, the consequences for failure have not been formalized. Here we use this law to consider the internal dynamics of an unstructured system, and its *response to a structured environment..t
so.. like a healthy 5 yr old.. entering school
ie: the *coerciveness of imposed structure on anything
We find that, due to its inability to respond, a completely unstructured system is inherently unstable to the formation of structure..t
again.. depends.. on who is defining ie: inability; structure; ..
And in general, any system without structure above a certain scale is unable to withstand structure arising above that scale. To describe complicated internal dynamics, we develop a characterization of multiscale changes in a system. This characterization is motivated by Shannon information theoretic ideas of noise, but considers structured information. We then relate our findings to political anarchism showing that *society requires some organizing processes, even if there is no traditional government or hierarchies..t
*perhaps.. either this is not true.. ie: child is better off w/o imposed structure of school; or.. it is true.. but we haven’t yet gotten to a structure deep enough that it doesn’t impose/coerce.. ie: maté basic needs
We also formulate our findings as an inverse second law of thermodynamics; while closed systems collapse into disorder, systems open to a structured environment spontaneously generate order.
here.. we could say.. everything has a structure.. just because we can’t see it.. doesn’t mean it’s not there.. we’re just not looking long enough or listening quiet enough
from paper (14 pages – 24 in total)
When we talk about a system having a structure, we are talking about a set, or ensemble, of states the system is allowed to be in, possibly augmented by probabilities of the system being in each state.
so this defn assumes imposed (not natural) structure
The system state changes within this ensemble, but given a static structure the ensemble itself does not change.
the only structure that would not change.. (to relate it to humanity/anarchism et al) would have to be deep enough that it doesn’t impose/coerce.. ie: maté basic needs.. otherwise.. we’re just looking at whales in sea world.. (in order to match the agenda of the research/math)
The examples of cancer and revolution can be considered in the same way as external threats, like an infection or invasion respectively. There is on the one hand the system, and on the other hand the problem which the system must solve, even if the problem originates within the old system..t
who’s defining the problem?
perhaps not seeing center of problem (ie: authenticity of structure/humanity)
Mathematically: when a subset of the system takes on a new behavior, that subsystem becomes considered part of the environment that the system must now deal with as an external threat. In order to maintain itself in the face of such a disturbance, the system must be able to either re-program those parts to their appropriate behavior and thus reabsorb them, or destroy/eject and replace them. This occurs in biological systems with processes such as autophagy or apoptosis, in which *misbehaving cells are either consumed by other cells or forced to self-destruct using chemical signaling, and in social systems with reeducation, ostracization, imprisonment, and capital punishment..t
*wow.. such a vivid picture of what we’re doing today.. to those/us whales..
an environment that has extremely high variety at a small scale will not allow *large scale structure to persist..t
not *fake/imposed/coerced/manufactured structure.. but high variety small scale would allow (swim/dance with) natural large scale structure
In such a case, *any structure that develops at the large scale necessarily sacrifices variety to do so, and therefore leaves itself unable to handle the variety of the environment..t
, but the system is not behaving according to its defined behavior..t
As a motivating example, consider a change in the priorities of the population that causes an arbitrarily small change in the standard work week from 40 hours to 40 − ε. . For the sake of this example we suppose that this policy causes people to spend less time at work, and more time at home with their families or out with their friends. The structure of the system has changed; relationships have become weaker or stronger, and people will therefore be coordinated in different ways.
As an example we can explore the implications to a conception of anarchy as a society of completely autonomous individuals. Our analysis shows that such anarchy is unstable to the formation of structure. In Section 1 we only considered the possibility of a *fragment of the society deviating completely; now we can also talk about order emerging **gradually within the system..t
For instance, a trade network could start with neighbors *bartering for some of their needs, but then grow to encompass an entire region and become used for more goods, as differences in local production capabilities make long-distance trade desirable, and essential to conduct.
By Theorem D.1, the change that created this trade network has *complexity at a scale *greater than the individual..t
or perhaps *complexity non natural to the individual/humanity/undisturbed ecosystem
As a consequence of the multiscale law of requisite variety, in order for the system to respond to the change it must have complexity at a scale greater than the individual, which it does not. Thus, the system has no means of regulating the emergence of a large-scale structure. Since a largescale structure is a system breakdown with regard to the definition of an unstructured society, the original system cannot survive—the change will persist. This concept of anarchy is often presented as a solution to the problems of central control in society . *Our results imply that without an alternative form of large scale coordination, anarchy will ultimately be unsuccessful..t
Modern anarchists do not assume that there will be no large scale coordination . For instance, anarcho-syndicalists propose organization into worker-groups, and anarcho-capitalists believe in markets. The framework of this paper does not allow us to identify what is a viable replacement for central control. However, *developing a theory of which systems are stable and which systems are not stable is an important step towards answering this question..t
rather *determining which are natural and unnatural.. important to getting to the root of the problem/healing
One of the original works on the failure of anarchy was Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, which famously characterized life in such a society as “nasty, brutish, and short”. Hobbes advocated monarchy as an alternative. Perhaps Hobbes’ absolutist view was incubated by his earlier study of physics, which at the time only dealt with rigid bodies and easily solvable equations. In this modern age, *we too look to science to explain society. ..t
perhaps the real problem is that we are trying to explain society
explain for what purpose..? in oder to predict..? or what?
However, rather than relying on analogies to physical systems, we have the ability to study society directly with information theoretic laws and draw *more sophisticated conclusions..t
*even if that means we’re really looking at ie: info/whales in sea world
The multiscale law of requisite variety implies that there is no single organizational “silver bullet”—different organizational strategies are best suited to different environments.
Our addition of a formalism for multiscale noise opens the door to characterizing the stability and dynamics of complex systems. *A more general approach may help us discover how to change our society from the inside to better fit the complexity profile of **modern challenges
*a deeper approach (or more general) maybe help us discover how to change society from inside back to an undisturbed ecosystem..