Log in

No account? Create an account
Complexity's History and the Future - Transience Divine
August 7th, 2014
09:37 pm


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Complexity's History and the Future
A vast leading edge of a new gestalt has begun to upset and encompass mathematics, philosophy, computers and the Internet, psychology, art, and science. It will change how we understand our world and ourselves, and what we believe is possible.

This new gestalt is the culmination of threads that have been developing in many different areas, and they intersect in the emerging understanding of complexity and its connection with computers. Here are a few thoughts of how historical developments have brought us to this point.

Within mathematics, the rise of formalism upended the very nature of mathematics, making math about the creation of math, only to see this approach run up against fundamental flaws (Incompleteness and Halting problems). However, that process of realization itself led to the creation of computer.

Within physics, linear models gave rise to systems understandings (the inadequacy of causality, overdeterminacy), paralleling the evolution of mathematics away from the simple mechanics of truth. This process of exploration is now giving rise to models of out-of-equilibrium processes and entropy, possible only to study through simulation.

These processes in academics were connected to what happened in art, with the transition from the importance of technique (like physics’s former focus on formulas), to an exploration into the nature of painting itself (formalism), to a re-engagement with society (systems). Now new media (computers) are breaking open the possibilities of experience (simulation).

Within philosophy, the trench warfare that has shown a slow receding of absolutism to the forces of relativism is giving way to a new philosophy of multiple perspectives.

Within psychology, early neurobiology combined with the opportunities of technology produced positive psychology, but now more modern views are developing an idea of the emergent self.

It is no mistake the study of complexity is arising at this moment in history, nor that complexity science is so closely tied to developments in computational approaches. Another society-wide driver is also inextricably connected: the rise of big data. Big data lays out complexity for us to see, and demands a new fundamental theory of physics which combines thermodynamics with information theory.

The process of formalism changed the way that people thought about what they were doing, and computers are changing the way we think about everything again. The new gestalt recognizes multiple realities, and it recognizes the importance of simulation. In fact, it ties these two together: simulation and reality are linked. When you make a simulation, you create a new reality. It isn’t this reality, but this reality isn’t a well-defined thing either.

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

[User Picture]
Date:August 8th, 2014 11:59 pm (UTC)
I would also point to performance studies in theater/anthropology, casual narratives and agent-based models in sociology, HCI in CS/design, queer theory and gender studies as novel disciplines, and much of geography as other places that have made similar transitions from the linear towards context-dependent computational epistemologies.
[User Picture]
Date:August 11th, 2014 03:06 pm (UTC)
These are excellent examples. I got particularly excited about performance studies, as a model for breaking down the divisions between social science and art. Whereas there has been a long drive toward specializing fields, I think that we're going to see increased effort first in building bridges between them, with plenty of new developments coming out, and then recognizing the bridges as subjects worthy of study.
[User Picture]
Date:August 11th, 2014 09:38 pm (UTC)
It was a total revelation to me when I attended a geography talk (on "what kind of place is outer space?") and discovered parallel evolution with subsets of gender theory. Neither group was familiar with the other, and I was able to make useful introductions, but also it kind of shattered my conception of "fields".

If I were able to do any work I wanted it would probably be in the application of performance studies and historical ethnography to artifacts of clothing, especially around how that can reveal history that has been erased by racism and other systematic forces, but when I looked into graduate school (not even for that, just in general) I became so discouraged by trying to find a field where I would actually fit and seeing how beaten down fringe CS professors seemed by the grant process, that I eventually gave up and kept the day job.
[User Picture]
Date:August 12th, 2014 03:55 pm (UTC)
Geography might be an interesting option for you though, since (at least from outside it seems) inherently such an interdisciplinary field.

In my interdisciplinary field, it really seems like there's a rising wave of interest and financial support (more and more grants require interdisciplinary authors, so I'm often asked to join in on them), and faculty positions (I hope!) out there. It's very tough to stay on the crest of that wave though-- most established faculty are verbally supportive but the ways they have to help are very much within their disciplines. But if you find a program that is built around interdisciplinary, it can really work.
My Website Powered by LiveJournal.com