|
trendal
J♠



Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Asimov's 'Foundation' series
#7479914 - 10/03/07 07:32 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
For anyone who's read it, a central part to the story is the notion of "psychohistory" - the science of predicting humans (on a large scale).
The basic story goes: you can predict to a VERY high degree what a population of humans will do, as long as you look at the picture on planetary scales. If you look at any human activity on the individual level...you can't predict anything. Individual humans are unpredictable. When you start looking at humans on the scale of entire planets (tens of billions of humans) we become very predictable indeed!
So, then, what do you think the chances are of this being true? Are humans, on the vast scale, predictable?
I'll ask you to think, for a moment, about a glass of water. In that glass of water, if you were to try and predict the motion of ONE single molecule as you pour out the glass...you would find that you can't. Just isn't possible, for something on that scale.
Now if you zoom out and try again...you will find what the water does quite predictable. It's as if all the small-scale unpredictabilities sort of cover each other up...leaving you with a fluid that obeys a set of rules that you can understand.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
DimensionX
King of Birds


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 5,486
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 2 days
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: trendal]
#7479937 - 10/03/07 07:42 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well so far history has repeated itself, making us seem predictable. But then again, humans are very adaptable because of our intelligence, put in a strange situation we may behave very differently.
|
trendal
J♠



Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: DimensionX]
#7479939 - 10/03/07 07:44 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Individual people will act differently...or people as a whole will act differently?
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
wps
Well-PaidScientist


Registered: 09/22/07
Posts: 579
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: trendal]
#7480067 - 10/03/07 08:37 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I loved the foundation series,
but I think psychohistory will remain in the realm of fiction.
-------------------- "America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you've lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn't belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don't care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve." - Tom Morello
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: wps]
#7482664 - 10/03/07 08:43 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
.
Edited by DieCommie (11/10/16 07:22 PM)
|
DimensionX
King of Birds


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 5,486
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 2 days
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: DieCommie]
#7483931 - 10/04/07 07:27 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If you guys like Asimov's Foundation series, i think you would also like Frank herberts Dune series. Really amazing books, they deal with humanity on a large scale as well, espeacilly when you get to the book called "god emperor of dune". Also, has anyone read Asimov's Robots and Empire? Another cool book, featuring a robot which can manipulate peoples emotions.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: DimensionX]
#7483933 - 10/04/07 07:29 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
TheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: trendal]
#7484007 - 10/04/07 08:12 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Excellent series as long as you stick to the first three. The later ones are so bad that honestly it almost ruined the first three for me, luckily I've blocked those out of my mind
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: trendal]
#7484311 - 10/04/07 10:17 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I'll ask you to think, for a moment, about a glass of water. In that glass of water, if you were to try and predict the motion of ONE single molecule as you pour out the glass...you would find that you can't. Just isn't possible, for something on that scale.
Normal distribution.
Nuff said.
|
SampaJasli
Stranger



Registered: 04/09/07
Posts: 1,396
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: DieCommie]
#7485360 - 10/04/07 03:11 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: My favorite Sci-Fi books! 
The water analogy is good, but I think human social dynamics is more than an analogy to statistical mechanics. It is layers of strong emergent properties built on each other. (the body, the consciousness, the group, the society) Also there may or may-not be downward causation which if there is (I like to think there is, no fate FTW) then that compounds the problem.
Theoretically I dont think there is any barrier to modeling emergence and building model upon model. I am not sure if the strength of the emergence can be eliminated and tie it to first principles. Im not talking about practically doing it, I mean theoretically. I suspect there is a level of complexity that a system can obtain where it cannot be reduced to basic properties (perhaps this level is proportional to the complexity of our own system, ie our thoughts and minds)
In either case, I dont think that destroying strong emergence in favor of weak would be necessary to implement a 'Seldon Plan'. It would just be a less elegant, phenomenological model (like chemistry is really just an ad-hoc 'cookbook'). Whether or not Seldon reduced the social dynamics to fundamental principles or not is not discussed in the book (as I can remember...).
So there are two possibilities to doing this, as I see it. 1) Reduce the enormous complexity of the system to basic principles and calculate probabilities from that. (Like your water analogy and statistical mechanics). This would be enormously difficult, of course, because there are many layers of emergence to dig through. It may not even be possible. or... 2) Observe and catalogue interactions and produce accurate models from that (Like biologists do now on very small scales). The problem of this would be the enormous amount of data that would need to be taken, and the lengths of time it would need to be taken for.
I speculate about a problem that each of these might pose... We are a part of the complex system we wish to model. Thus the complexity of our models is inherently limited by the complexity of our system (us as individuals and society). It seems counter intuitive that we can model a complex system with less complexity then the system. This creates an apparent paradox in my mind, but In not sure if its true. For example, using your water analogy... Can we model the complexity of the water in a glass using a model that is less complex then the state of the water in the glass? If we apply it on a macro scale, then yes. But could the water itself model its behavior? Could the water create a complex model that predicts its behavior without creating additional complexity in behavior that in turn requires additional complexity in the model, and so on and so on... Im skeptical that it could.
Anyway, fascinating subject. Its a great topic to think about both scientifically and philosophically. As a matter of fact, the study of emergent properties is a major contender in my list of would be graduate work.
heavy. what are you/ have you studied man?
--------------------
|
falcon


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 9 hours, 59 minutes
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: trendal]
#7485380 - 10/04/07 03:17 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
In the book the predictions didn't work that well, the events needed some steering by the Second Foundation. The Second Foundation was set up to keep Hari Seldon's plan running smoothly.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: SampaJasli]
#7486227 - 10/04/07 07:44 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
.
Edited by DieCommie (11/13/16 10:08 AM)
|
trendal
J♠



Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: DieCommie]
#7487551 - 10/05/07 07:27 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Two books I've read on the subject of emergence are The Emergence of Everything and Sync.
The Emergence of Everything was rather simple...a good read for anyone who doesn't know what emergence is and would like to find out (along with plenty of examples).
Sync was a far better book, in my opinion. It wasn't about emergence as much as it was about the phenomena of "sync" - where some thing sync up together naturally. One thing the author kept pointing out was that you can't predict that something will sync up just by looking at it's parts - in effect, emergence.
I started reading a third book, in which the premise was that science is about to undergo another revolution and that emergence (or the study of it) was going to play a big role! I can't remember what the name was though...
Great posts, DieCommie!! I enjoyed reading them!
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
wps
Well-PaidScientist


Registered: 09/22/07
Posts: 579
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: trendal]
#7487874 - 10/05/07 10:08 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
this thread reminds me of a great quote from an unlikely source:
"Only a person can be intelligent. People in general are idiots."
-Marilyn Manson
-------------------- "America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you've lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn't belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don't care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve." - Tom Morello
|
SampaJasli
Stranger



Registered: 04/09/07
Posts: 1,396
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: wps]
#7489340 - 10/05/07 05:30 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
marilyn manson is apparently extremely intelligent too bad in the greater scheme of things he's a confessed idiot
--------------------
|
AlteredAgain
Visual Alchemist



Registered: 04/27/06
Posts: 11,181
Loc: Solar Circuit
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: trendal]
#7489410 - 10/05/07 06:06 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said: I started reading a third book, in which the premise was that science is about to undergo another revolution and that emergence (or the study of it) was going to play a big role! I can't remember what the name was though...
Great posts, DieCommie!! I enjoyed reading them!
Ditto.
Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science, perhaps?
--------------------
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: trendal]
#7489460 - 10/05/07 06:22 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said:Sync was a far better book, in my opinion. It wasn't about emergence as much as it was about the phenomena of "sync" - where some thing sync up together naturally. One thing the author kept pointing out was that you can't predict that something will sync up just by looking at it's parts - in effect, emergence.
I have that book and started it over the summer. But I had to put it down as I got busy in school. I will definitely pick it up again over the winter. From the very beginnings that I read it was very interesting.
Here is a good article on emergence from one of my universities best thinkers, Dr. Paul Davis. Check it out if you have the time, or inclination http://beyond.asu.edu/complexity.html
|
MOTH
Wild Woman


Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 23,431
Loc: In the jungle
|
Re: Asimov's 'Foundation' series [Re: trendal]
#7491506 - 10/06/07 01:52 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Sweet, I'm in the middle of this series right now. One of my favorite authors.
|
|