Phil, You speak of causality and "why" answers as if they "ought" be deterministic in some scientific paradigm. Uncle Occam cautions that may be one assumption too many.
Therefore, I sense that the underlying assumption in your observation is that science is "supposed" to be the search for truth from events of the past. I refer you to Henry Pollack's book "Uncertain Science, Uncertain World", and Michael Lynton's observation that the purpose of science is to "separate the demonstrably false from the probably true". I would add that "probably true" actually means "probably not false", so even that logical state is approached asymptotically. This is an artifact (meaning a residual error or inaccuracy) from a Newtonian era paradigm of science that has long been shown erroneous yet still permeates most peoples thinking. The problem caused by planning on things working is what I call The Sunny Day Paradox - usually faced by those who believe in a deterministic scientific paradigm. In other words, in spite of successful surgery, the patient died. One last point, by "pump" do you mean "probabilistic wavefunction"? Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:17 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] MIT experts analyze financial crisis, > debate cures > > Gosh, I don't know why it's so hard to convey, but it's > important to understand. > > The error in planning on things working as if responding to a > normal curve distribution (i.e. admirably designed for all > the usual problems) is relying on it if there is a growing > 'fat tail' of abnormal events (the black swan). > That situation is sure to develop when trying to regulate a system for > producing ever more unusual and complex events. That is > precisely what we > were, and have always been, and still are trying to do. > > A bubble pops at it's weakest point, not it's strongest. > When the 'containment' is a regulatory design, the certainty > is that the breach will occur at the most critical place that > no one checked. By definition it's a small error that > multiplies to an irreversible point before anyone quite > realizes it. The CAUSE of that is not the rare event (the > pin prick). > It's not the weak point in the containment that no one > checked (patches of poor design or regulation or greed, etc). > It's not the size of the bubble (how big the gradient is > from high to low). It's the pump. > > The cause is pumping the bubble of complications in an > accelerating way that > guarantees people will miss the problems developing. It's > operating an > growth system and making the first regulatory error, > accepting the learning curve of exploding complication > required to stabilize it forever. > > There are a lot of 'why' answers, and some of them circular. > I think the correctable reason why is the common scientific > error of reading the future > in the past. We plan on the future behaving like the past > by trusting old > stereotypes and patterns for changing things. We plan on > the future being > like the past EVEN for systems we design for the purpose changing at > continually multiplying rates. The solution is to notice > the cognitive > dissonance... you could say, and just ask the dumb questions. > > Phil Henshaw > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:06 PM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] MIT experts analyze financial crisis, debate > > cures > > > > Of course!, the reason they fooled everyone so completely was that > > they were > > designed to be completely sensible. That's what is meant by the > > "black > > swan". > > > > Phil Henshaw > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Behalf Of Owen Densmore > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:11 PM > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > Subject: [FRIAM] MIT experts analyze financial crisis, > debate cures > > > > > > This seemed to be a pretty sound analysis of the current crisis: > > > http://techtv.mit.edu/file/1448/ > > > In particular, I was surprised to see how reasonable > several things > > > I had thought to be "bad" were. For example, the > "securitization" > > > of mortgages arose from a very reasonable desire to > "smooth out" risk. > > I > > > hadn't understood their function before. > > > > > > -- Owen > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at > > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at > > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > 9a-11:30 at cafe > > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
