Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Heisenburg's Economic Principle vs Nomenklatura (Lenin's and the Chicago-Economists non-answer to a General Staff?)

commentary by Roger Erickson

Are Nomenklatura simply crude caste systems,masquerading as a cargo-cult parody of open coordination?

Do methods always precede understanding, throughout early steps in situational awareness and situational shaping? Are those early stages always comical in retrospect - or tragic? Depends on whether you can see tomorrow's comedy as tragic today, and today's tragedy as comical tomorrow.



Back to Heisenberg, cultural methods development, and cargo-cult Nomenklatura. If militaries can experiment with General Staff, why can't cultures experiment similarly, even faster, on a larger scale, and in the process accelerate exploration of OpenSource Cultural Staff?

Historically, we'd like to plot the time delay between the appearance of every multi-member culture - regardless of whether on a multi-molecular, multi-cellular or multi-citizen scale - and the refinement of it's Nervous System (i.e., it's Automatic Stabilizer Operations Functions for coordinating all inter-dependencies). Such a graph would help us parse and list the key principles common to all methods driving refinement of any complex system, on any scale.

Where would our current culture fall in such a graph? How long will it take our current-size US culture to refine a cultural nervous system able to keep it's own proverbial hands off a hot stove? If that estimated time seems to involve a lot of waste, are there straightforward methods to employ, to accelerate adaptive tuning of our own culture? If so, why not put our heads together, discuss them all, openly, and see what we come up with?

Mathematics alone dictates that - by definition - tuning of all dynamic systems depend upon just-in-time, just-as-required, just-as-distributed data/response cycles. The cycle steps include sampling, analysis and utilization of just-as-much situational awareness is needed to drive adequate responses to changing situations ... aka, just-survivable-outcomes.

For organized systems increasing their complexity, that boils down to complex interplay between 3, increasingly distributed mapping functions:
..feedback sampling permutations;
..simultaneous feedback filtering/distribution permutations;
..option exploring permutations.
(Note: increasing AND accelerating distributions does NOT occur without scalable social liquidity methods.)

If you think sexual recombination is complex, Cultural Recombination occus at scales & speeds that are orders of magnitude larger, and with many more degrees of freedom. Orthodox economics as we know it is pathetically simplistic, and should not be allowed anywhere near adaptive policy formation operations. The only contribution of it's practitioners is negative and limiting - and they should have the humility to act accordingly, with more care for the culture they're tasked with first, doing no harm to.

Moving on, we can simulate our situation as Fxyz[JIT/JAN/JAD/JAMSA] = JSO,
where JIT/JAN/JAD/JAMSA are all time-variant polynomials, each a sequence of inter-dependent variables. Further, x,y and z are all interleaved dependent matrix operations, operating asynchronously on all variables of all 3 polynomials - continuously.

Such complex mathematics sums to probability waves which are - so far - impossible to predict, but possible to surf - with clever methods. Instead of arguing over whether such complexity should or shouldn't be amenable to gross simplification ... can't we just concentrate on surfing? And have a blast doing it?

Who came up with this idea that we shouldn't be having a blast surfing the unknown? Who are the real Refuseniks here?

Anyone who claims they KNOW anything about how simple reality should be - and arrogantly resists it's diversification - is doing far more harm than good. When experiencing FutureShock, it does no good to shout "stop." In fact, it only delays adaptive responses. As all should recognize, Heisenberg's mathematical proof implied a scalable truth. Insisting that escalating probability waves surf us, instead of us surfing the waves, simply causes us to fall off our surfboards.

There's a simple moral to this discussion. Let Theory chase Operations. Stay away from the opposite, which only slows adaptations, and causes wipeouts.

No comments: