Some loosely organized thoughts on the current Zeitgeist. They were inspired by the response to my recent meta-project mentioned in my previous post mathstodon.xyz/@tao/1152541452…, where within 24 hours I became aware of a large number of ongoing small-scale collaborative math projects with their own modest but active community (now listed at mathoverflow.net/questions/500… ); but they are from the perspective of a human rather than a mathematician.
As a crude first approximation, one can think of human society as the interaction between entities at four different scales:
1. Individual humans
2. Small organized groups of humans (e.g., close or extended family; friends; local social or religious organizations; informal sports clubs; small businesses and non-profits; ad hoc collaborations
... show moreSome loosely organized thoughts on the current Zeitgeist. They were inspired by the response to my recent meta-project mentioned in my previous post mathstodon.xyz/@tao/1152541452…, where within 24 hours I became aware of a large number of ongoing small-scale collaborative math projects with their own modest but active community (now listed at mathoverflow.net/questions/500… ); but they are from the perspective of a human rather than a mathematician.
As a crude first approximation, one can think of human society as the interaction between entities at four different scales:
1. Individual humans
2. Small organized groups of humans (e.g., close or extended family; friends; local social or religious organizations; informal sports clubs; small businesses and non-profits; ad hoc collaborations on small projects; small online communities)
3. Large organized groups of humans (e.g., large companies; governments; global institutions; professional sports clubs; large political parties or movements; large social media sites)
4. Large complex systems (e.g., the global economy; the environment; the geopolitical climate; popular culture and "viral" topics; the collective state of science and technology).
(1/5)
I believe that with the advent of modern online collaboration platforms (such as Github), proof assistant languages (such as Lean), and (potentially) AI tools, there are many emerging opportunities...
MathOverflow
Terence Tao
in reply to Terence Tao • • •An individual human without any of the support provided by larger organized groups is only able to exist at quite primitive levels, as any number of pieces of post-apocalyptic fiction can portray. Both small and large organized groups offer significant economies of scale and division of labor that provide most of the material conveniences that we take for granted in the modern world: abundant food, access to power, clean water, internet; cheap, safe and affordable long distance travel; and so forth. It is also only through such groups that one can meaningfully interact with (and even influence) the largest scale systems that humans are part of.
But the benefits and dynamics of small and large groups are quite different. Small organized groups offer some economy of scale, but - being essentially below Dunbar's number en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%2… in size - also fill social and emotional needs, and the average participant in such groups can feel connected to such gr
... show moreAn individual human without any of the support provided by larger organized groups is only able to exist at quite primitive levels, as any number of pieces of post-apocalyptic fiction can portray. Both small and large organized groups offer significant economies of scale and division of labor that provide most of the material conveniences that we take for granted in the modern world: abundant food, access to power, clean water, internet; cheap, safe and affordable long distance travel; and so forth. It is also only through such groups that one can meaningfully interact with (and even influence) the largest scale systems that humans are part of.
But the benefits and dynamics of small and large groups are quite different. Small organized groups offer some economy of scale, but - being essentially below Dunbar's number en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%2… in size - also fill social and emotional needs, and the average participant in such groups can feel connected to such groups and able to have real influence on their direction. Their dynamics can range anywhere from extremely healthy to extremely dysfunctional and toxic, or anything in between; but in the latter cases there is real possibility of individuals able to effect change in the organization (or at least to escape it and leave it to fail on its own).
(2/5)
value important in sociology and anthropology
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Terence Tao
in reply to Terence Tao • • •Large organized groups can offer substantially more economies of scale, and so can outcompete small organizations based on the economic goods they offer. They also have more significant impact on global systems than either average individuals or small organizations. But the social and emotional services they provide are significantly less satisfying and authentic. And unless an individual is extremely wealthy, well-connected, or popular, they are unlikely to have any influence on the direction of such a large organization, except possibly through small organizations acting as intermediaries. In particular, when a large organization becomes dysfunctional, it can be an extremely frustrating task to try to correct its course (and if it is extremely large, other options such as escaping it or leaving it to fail are also highly problematic).
(3/5)
Terence Tao
in reply to Terence Tao • • •My tentative theory is that the systems, incentives, and technologies in modern world have managed to slightly empower (many) individuals, and massively empower large organizations, but at the significant expense of small organizations, whose role in the human societal ecosystem has thus shrunk significantly, with many small organizations either weakening in influence or transitioning to (or absorbed by) large organizations. While this imbalanced system does provide significant material comforts (albeit distributed rather unequally) and some limited feeling of agency, it has led at the level of the individual to feelings of disconnection, alienation, loneliness, and cynicism or pessimism about the ability to influence future events or meet major challenges, except perhaps through the often ruthless competition to become wealthy or influential enough to gain, as an individual, a status comparable to a small or even large organization. And larger organizations have begun to imperfectly step in the void formed by the absence of small communities, providing synthetic social or emotion
... show moreMy tentative theory is that the systems, incentives, and technologies in modern world have managed to slightly empower (many) individuals, and massively empower large organizations, but at the significant expense of small organizations, whose role in the human societal ecosystem has thus shrunk significantly, with many small organizations either weakening in influence or transitioning to (or absorbed by) large organizations. While this imbalanced system does provide significant material comforts (albeit distributed rather unequally) and some limited feeling of agency, it has led at the level of the individual to feelings of disconnection, alienation, loneliness, and cynicism or pessimism about the ability to influence future events or meet major challenges, except perhaps through the often ruthless competition to become wealthy or influential enough to gain, as an individual, a status comparable to a small or even large organization. And larger organizations have begun to imperfectly step in the void formed by the absence of small communities, providing synthetic social or emotional goods that are, roughly speaking, to more authentic such products as highly processed "junk" food is to more nutritious fare, due to the inherently impersonal nature of such organizations (particularly in the modern era of advanced algorithms and AI, which when left to their own devices tend to exacerbate the trends listed above).
(4/5)
Terence Tao
in reply to Terence Tao • • •(5/5)
shan
in reply to Terence Tao • • •GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to shan • • •I would dispute that. Again, drawing from cultural anthropology and their own knowledge base about the nature of the human animal and how we can adopt hierarchy or egalitarianism, we know the material conditions and the sociological structures that will favor hierarchy or egalitarianism.
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •@gongshan
At core and in particular, it is the social moral code held by the rank-and-file in society that jealously guards equality. It is the preemptive stop to authoritarianism and ultimately overthrow it when it gains the upper hand.
Extreme levels of wealth, consolidation and economic consolidation breeds dark triad personality traits. Beyond a critical mass of net worth further increases rapidly expand the power of those traits.
Lin
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •@GhostOnTheHalfShell @gongshan
Centralization is not sociology or class struggle, but a thermodynamic inevitability.
Humanity has crossed the synergistic tipping point of complex systems, and if we are to maintain basic modernity, there is no going back.
shan
in reply to Lin • • •GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to shan • • •@gongshan @linrui
I would suggest complexity really isn’t the goal for the global economic system. The complexity serves economic consolidation. This system devotes human ingenuity to a very parochial set of goals of economic consolidation.
If we look at nature, we see an enormous tapestry where the diversity of the system is its resilience and adaptability, but it is a resilience of legions working largely symbiotically, cooperatively as well as in competition.
Lin
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •@GhostOnTheHalfShell @gongshan
Because nature is not a whole, the goal of each subsystem is still to maintain its own existence and stability.
Diversity is still a side effect.
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to Lin • • •@linrui @gongshan
That statement becomes a bit more complex in the face of symbiosis and interdependence.
Survival of the one is bound to the survival of the many.
There is also no goal. There are simply systems that work or that do not work subject to conditions, which may make some things obsolete and other things relevant as conditions change. Diverse systems step in or fade away as conditions change.
Diversity is systemic stability. Without it, the system becomes fragile.
Lin
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •You don't truly understand diversity; in fact, diversity makes systems fragile. Simpler systems are better equipped to face complex environments because they lack intricate causal structures that need protection.
The longest-living organisms in this world are single-celled organisms, not humans.
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to Lin • • •@linrui @gongshan
I’m going to have to disagree. Ecological diversity is its adaptability and resilience..
Fungi, which seemed to be simple, but whose behavior which is fairly complex it’s still not understood by science. It’s complex relationships with plant life for instance is an area of intense research..
But the biome in the soil is incredibly complicated.
It is the monoculture of massive global supply chains that make them fragile. See Fukushima.
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •@linrui @gongshan
It was only after the Fukushima disaster that many global companies realize they had become overly reliant on a very streamline supply chain, and they had to diversify.
In natural systems, diversity of lifeforms is correlated with resilience
Lin
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •You haven't realized that after the Fukushima disaster, the strategies adopted by companies like Toyota and Apple were not at all what you imagine as "biodiversity."
It wasn't "let's introduce some fungi and moss," it was:
"We can no longer bet the success or failure of the entire system on a single, linear, Just-in-Time serial process. We need to build a parallel, redundant, distributed system."
This new system, in terms of information structure, is precisely "simpler." By increasing the number of components (a semblance of "diversity"), it eliminates fatal, complex, and cross-regional causal dependencies. It trades higher operating costs (inventory, management) for a lower risk of system collapse when facing black swan events.
This is not diversity at all, this is load balancing. And this perfect match is my discourse in the algorithm of civilization.
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to Lin • • •@linrui @gongshan
I don’t think I stated that the result was biodiversity in terms of the supply chain. I only stated that Fukushima resulted in international companies broadening their supply chain. It did not increase the number of components it increased the number of suppliers of the same components.
But saying that there is the algorithm of civilization is something I considered to be a categorical error. It is an algorithm pursued by particular economic system.
Lin
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •@GhostOnTheHalfShell @gongshan
Ah, I'm very sorry, I forgot to attach the link. It's in another comment thread.
dmf-archive.github.io/posts/th…
The Algorithm of Civilization: A Computational Sociology History of Thermodynamics and Computational Complexity
Chain://EncyclopediaGhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to Lin • • •@linrui @gongshan
Mildly interesting this document of yours.
Complex systems are characterized by chaotic behavior and emergent effects.
Fundamentally what you’re arguing is that you can solve chaos.
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •@linrui @gongshan
That economic system embraces a very specific kind of strategy in economies of scale in standardization and fragmentation local economies all around the world.
This fragmentation includes communities within the financial and industrial core.
For instance, the entire financial sector of the economic core is completely reliant on insurance, which is now facing financial insolvency due to extreme weather. If property becomes uninsurable the global financial will fail
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •@linrui @gongshan
Civilization conformity does not breed variety nor diversity of economic strategies leading to a particular event, destroying the entire system in the same way a virus can wipe out a population of clones.
The many nations and communities that have been made reliance on the global supply chain in on national supply chains will suffer. The communities that had built in food resilience, for instance weathered Covid lockdowns much better.
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •@linrui @gongshan
This form, a very mild economic autonomy provided resilience against supply chain collapse.
The chief problem with extreme weather is the stress and destruction of existing productive capacity. We have seen instances of this occur with dam collapses, bridge collapses, ecological disasters brought on by extreme weather.
Today is only a waypoint to an increasingly volatile weather regime where extreme events will increase in frequency intensity and scale…
Lin
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •This is my last reply, as I realize we lack a basic foundation for communication: your description precisely describes how a local system with simpler causal relationships can overcome a global redundancy minimization system with complex causal dependencies.
This is not an ecology problem, it is mathematics.
EOF.
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to Lin • • •@linrui @gongshan
Well, I still disagree. Because your statement that the local system has simpler, casual relationships is belied by the actual structure of an ecology.
I would argue you don’t understand enough about ecology to understand the mathematics that would describe it
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •@linrui @gongshan
Obliterating existing infrastructure and constraining the window of time that any construction or infrastructure project remains relevant to the conditions must operate under.
13,000 years ago, the climate stabilized and we have only known a statistically, unusually consistent climate regime. That period of unusual calm has ended.
Before 13,000 years ago, agriculture could not remain viable for more than a few decades before climate regime changed
shan
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to shan • • •@gongshan @linrui
I have a very different view of the economy, which is characterized by huge differences in scale.
It is the exponential nature of economic consolidation that creates a polarization. Regional economic autonomy, which has been sacrificed to the constraints and dictates of the WMF, WTO and the world bank, have forced local economies to dismember themselves in order to become a cog serving the global industrial financial core..
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •@gongshan @linrui
In doing so the diversity of the world’s economies has gone extinct. In this sense, I will agree with you that the world has become far more linear because it has been subjected to a standardization of goals on consolidation (the so-called economies of scale).
But this is simply one system cloning itself and more ever forcing a standardization, leaving every greater numbers of human populations, subject to the weakness of a monoculture
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to Terence Tao • • •This is an entirely incorrect assertion.
I would recommend reading the cultural anthropology book “ hierarchy in the forest” by Boehm to gain a clear understanding of this topic.
Sci-fi writers are engaging in entertainment, but not actual human societies that exist today and in the past.
In addition, the argument that there is a compromise between equality and egalitarianism and freedom or liberty is a false dichotomy. Egalitarianism and freedom are inseparable.
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •