The point about overcomplexification is one that’s important, especially since complexification accelerates entropy, hence a global civilization is in no way sustainable, despite its large capacity for learning and extracting energy from its environment. This would actually be addressed by Chaisson’s free energy rate density, so it is the complexity rate that goes up, as opposed to the scale. This means that aboriginal groups have a higher free energy density rate than industrial civ due to the increased efficiency of energy distribution versus mass inequitable society that is highly inefficient in terms of allocation and time compression, not to mention civilization’s decomplexification of the biospheres biodiversity. Also not sure how metamodernists will sustain accelerating complexity without going full kurzweil-esque singularity embracing transhumanism. In the same way each human will die, perhaps there is a need to embrace our species fate being bound up with this planet, and investing time and energy in enjoying this life rather than escaping it based on a distant removed fantasy of what life could/should be according to an uprooted fantasy detached from reality
Great overview and balance of mapping without overfitting, underfitting, or overcommitment to fitting more generally.
My writing is winding up to include arguments for a dialectical Razor as parsimonious as Occam's (distributive), but that grows in parsimony the more unavoidable presumptions are made explicit and are substantiated as a matter of experience and explanation.
There are several threads required as I am attempting arguments that invite scientists, pragmatists, Philosophers and artists alike, requiring addressing where one is the watchdog for the other, and the requisite reminder to separate the lens from the feature that rises to meet it, and the tool from its use.
For example, the modern conception of heuristics and biases is akin to AI eating its own tail, which is what my first installment of "reducing reductivism" is meant to playfully draw out. The experiential output of a heuristic might appear as "simple" as the elements with which it must interact, but if the real world is complex, then the functionally "simplistic" feature can be attributed to the the complex lens or tool to which projecting and filtering processes converged on a compound product suited for simplified analysis. A complex world seen through a simple lens would still be complex. A complex world filtered through a simple filter would be simple, yes, but for the simple to be useful requires commensurate complexity at some juncture. To point at a simple product in isolation, and proclaim it "mere" is the simplest double-filtering heuristic one could imagine.
The point about overcomplexification is one that’s important, especially since complexification accelerates entropy, hence a global civilization is in no way sustainable, despite its large capacity for learning and extracting energy from its environment. This would actually be addressed by Chaisson’s free energy rate density, so it is the complexity rate that goes up, as opposed to the scale. This means that aboriginal groups have a higher free energy density rate than industrial civ due to the increased efficiency of energy distribution versus mass inequitable society that is highly inefficient in terms of allocation and time compression, not to mention civilization’s decomplexification of the biospheres biodiversity. Also not sure how metamodernists will sustain accelerating complexity without going full kurzweil-esque singularity embracing transhumanism. In the same way each human will die, perhaps there is a need to embrace our species fate being bound up with this planet, and investing time and energy in enjoying this life rather than escaping it based on a distant removed fantasy of what life could/should be according to an uprooted fantasy detached from reality
Great overview and balance of mapping without overfitting, underfitting, or overcommitment to fitting more generally.
My writing is winding up to include arguments for a dialectical Razor as parsimonious as Occam's (distributive), but that grows in parsimony the more unavoidable presumptions are made explicit and are substantiated as a matter of experience and explanation.
There are several threads required as I am attempting arguments that invite scientists, pragmatists, Philosophers and artists alike, requiring addressing where one is the watchdog for the other, and the requisite reminder to separate the lens from the feature that rises to meet it, and the tool from its use.
For example, the modern conception of heuristics and biases is akin to AI eating its own tail, which is what my first installment of "reducing reductivism" is meant to playfully draw out. The experiential output of a heuristic might appear as "simple" as the elements with which it must interact, but if the real world is complex, then the functionally "simplistic" feature can be attributed to the the complex lens or tool to which projecting and filtering processes converged on a compound product suited for simplified analysis. A complex world seen through a simple lens would still be complex. A complex world filtered through a simple filter would be simple, yes, but for the simple to be useful requires commensurate complexity at some juncture. To point at a simple product in isolation, and proclaim it "mere" is the simplest double-filtering heuristic one could imagine.
Cheers to reading more of your thoughts!