All Roads Lead to “Philosophy”
There was an idea floating around that continuously following the first link of any Wikipedia article will eventually lead to “Philosophy.” 1 This sounded like a reasonable assertion, one that makes a certain amount of sense in retrospect: any description of something will typically use more general terms. Following that idea will eventually lead… somewhere.
It also sounded like an idea that would be easily examinable with basic client-side scripting tools, using the Wikipedia API and a good graphing package. …
via { xefer }
••••••
Interesting experiment. Click through to test it!
But I wonder, isn’t this a fallacy? I don’t know the formal name — backwards reasoning? Why Philosophy? Would the same work for, say, “information” or “science” or “universe”?
••••••
ANSWERS:
{ What I Remembered }:
Science is pretty narrow in terms of what it is designed to know (as I seem to be forever pointing out), the Universe, although it is everything, is still understood by most as an object of study, which leaves open the question (and the next click) to means of study and how we know things. Information is just what Wikipedia is, so everything they present falls into this set, but having the wikipedia page on information be the page that all others lead to would be like having the wikipedia page on wikipedia be the page that all others ultimately point to.
OS, RE WIR:
Thank you for your answer; a good point! I tend to think of things in an interconnected way (thus why I also named science; despite the practice of Science being specific), but as you said, the context of this project has to do with study; “how we know things”, and “the next click”.
In my question (and usually when I use the word) I meant “universe” as everything. The object containing study, not purely the object of it (this is a visual description).
The part about the recursive Wikipedia link — I see what you’re getting at. Yes, in the context of this code, it’s probably true. But in a more general sense, I disagree. The way I’m using it here is, like “universe”, in the sense that all “things” are information. (There’s some outlining of that { here }, though mostly in a more specific sense, about Algorithmic Information Content.) Philosophy is, itself, information, just as it is itself contained within the Universe, inescapably so.
{ The Revolution is Coming… }
i think the point here is that everything starts as philosophy, as philosophy is basically just life theory. some of it is reasonable, some of it isn’t. the point is that all ideas start as a thought, which is your personal philosophy, and transform over time into something else altogether, be that science, or math, art, politics, religion, etc. of course if you trace anything back over time your going to find the inception of the idea, being personal philosophy. its a logical beginning to all things. imo.
OS, RE RIC:
Also a good answer! But the last part “its a logical beginning to all things” is something to question. I’m not sure that it’s obvious, as I attempted to explain with the reasoning for an even more “general” or “core” word like Universe or Information.
And this: “the point is that all ideas start as a thought” — I’d argue that they do not. That is of course a philosophical argument in itself, but I’m not interested in debating Chairs here. Just a suggestion to reach past that; consider that ideas start as a thought, which in turn begins as something from outside ourselves. (I don’t mean Plato’s world of ideas or anything, just that our ideas stem from the experience of Information over millenia. “Experience of Info.” meaning our experience as being info., ancestral genetic experience of it, and info. as physical constituents of the universe.)
{ Jack Crofts }
I agree with your stance on fallacy. In fact, in high school during lulls in classroom activity, we would play a game called the 6 degrees of Wikipedia. The challenge was to get from one random article to another though linked articles, and it was always possible. With any number of degrees of separation I would say you could link any article to anything.
OS RE JC:
This is what I was getting at! But you stated it much more clearly. Thanks for this. Basically, if we allow the number of links between any two words to be infinite, as you said, it’s probably possible to link anything to anything.
I think this is also a kind of “cherry-picking”, like that { BS snowflake experiment }. If you want to get to a conclusion, eventually you will. Thus the importance in experimental science to not try to arrive at a result.
••••••
It’s great to see some discussion about this!
This helps me define the question better: Again, thinking on broader terms than only the project in question and the limits of code (but also encompassing this project/inquiry), what do we consider the meeting point of all roads? (Loaded, I know. Don’t have to answer.)
Because this is something I tend to think about a lot, I find it funny that Philosophy is the “Rome” here. Not funny as in unusual, but because it seems clear that it should be so. But it’s also completely human-centric — I want to bring attention to that. Philosophy is the product of Our thoughts, whereas We can be thought of as the product of the Universe / of Information.
I’ll continue to re-post answers here, if that’s fine. Message me if you want yours omitted.
How do mathematical patterns evolve in nature? Is it anything like animal evolution — the result of chance varieties coalescing until some “species” become more prominent? Why are certain shapes and ratios taken repeatedly, over others?
For example:
“…many networks are found to contain a small but significant number of “hubs” — vertices with an unusually high degree.”
- from Networks: An Introduction
It seems obvious and “natural” in that it makes sense to us, but why should it be the case?
…tbc.
••••••
Discussion:
{ camerxn }:
This question stumped me, but I’ll give it a try :) Perhaps the evolution of mathematical patterns happens alongside the evolution of other systems in nature. Our recognition of mathematical patterns may be evidence of where that system currently is in its evolution.
A question I have is would it be possible to determine levels of fitness from mathematical patterns of a given system?
OS re: camerxn :
The two statements that I set in bold are essentially the questions I’m asking as well, although yours are perhaps more clearly stated.
For the second, I would think it would be, right? “Fitness” would likely be determined in terms of the physics of our universe — the laws set forth during the initial conditions of this place, if it happened that way. (Although, those laws themselves can be counted as emergent patterns, also.) Everything else follows according to what works best with those laws, and things that don’t work so well don’t “survive” — I’d imagine they end up “breaking down”, or being unable to complete formation in the first place due to some physical/mathematical disagreements.
Actually this reminds me of the { Rule 30 }, wherein you have an initial condition and a set of rules determined by a system (the programmer) which result in something that appears random (but is actually pseudorandom due to the deterministic programming in the beginning) and contains repeating similarities.
{ memeengine } said:
I suspect some number of hubs might minimize distance between two random nodes… both neural networks, and human-designed networks are subject to survival of the fittest. Hmmmm
OS re: memeengine :
Yes, likely. That idea about the hubs is something that makes sense for us. But I’m wondering how things got to a place where that is a sensible thing to happen. A loaded question obviously :/ , maybe won’t be truly answerable for some time. But definitely, a beginning lies in the evolution of systems…
I wonder if you could share some knowledge/examples of survival in neural and human networks? Message, or post — I’ll reblog or add it here?
{ Simple mathematical pattern describes shape of neuron ‘jungle’ }
A 2/3 power law: L = (3/4π)1/3 × V1/3n2/3
where n is the number of dendritic sections to make up the tree, L is the total length of these sections, and V is the total volume
{ A scaling law derived from optimal dendritic wiring }
Authors:
Hermann Cuntza,b,c,1,
Alexandre Mathya, and
Michael Häussera
Abstract:
The wide diversity of dendritic trees is one of the most striking features of neural circuits. Here we develop a general quantitative theory relating the total length of dendritic wiring to the number of branch points and synapses. We show that optimal wiring predicts a 2/3 power law between these measures. We demonstrate that the theory is consistent with data from a wide variety of neurons across many different species and helps define the computational compartments in dendritic trees. Our results imply fundamentally distinct design principles for dendritic arbors compared with vascular, bronchial, and botanical trees.
The larger lesson is that the brain is a neural tangle of near infinite possibility, which means that it spends a lot of time and energy choosing what not to notice. As a result, creativity is traded away for efficiency; we think in literal prose, not symbolist poetry. And this is why constraints are so important: It’s not until we encounter an unexpected hindrance – a challenge we can’t easily resolve – that the chains of cognition are loosened, giving us newfound access to the weird connections simmering in the unconscious. Here are the scientists: Consistently, these studies show that encountering an obstacle in one task can elicit a more global, Gestalt-like processing style that automatically carries over to unrelated tasks, leading people to broaden their perception, open up mental categories, and improve at integrating seemingly unrelated concepts.
Need to Create? Get a Constraint | Wired Science | Wired.com (via wildcat2030)
••••••
OS:
linking this to the { network synchronization } study
+ this post about { networks }
I had a thought a while back, when I first read about networks synchronizing at faster speeds when disordered, that it might have something to do with creativity. I haven’t read Lehrer’s article yet, but the title, “Need to Create? Get a constraint.” is relevant. If it’s enough to go off of, I’m not sure yet. But, my idea is about the wandering mind — versus beginning with an end in mind (beginning with a pre-ordered network, which excludes anything (seemingly) unrelated to the goal), things really happen when you begin with disorder: everything is included. “Think Wrong.” And those “wrong” things trigger pathways that wouldn’t have otherwise come about (in an ordered network, they’d be closed off). A surprisingly inefficient beginning leads to efficiency later by leaving possibilities open…
…
Lehrer is talking about something a little different, but, constraints are what help shape a disordered network. Everything is open, but eventually, you do want to get somewhere… In a class I had two years ago, we went through a process of making lists of things that popped up. The end product might be a book, but on the list you might have cabbage, lions, nuns, stained glass, a library, two crabs and a pineapple. They’re not necessarily things to use so much as triggers to help unravel the pathways that would otherwise go unnoticed, since pre-ordering is sort of like tunnel vision.
Additionally, there were some studies about creatives & depression that I was interested in some time ago. Someone wrote about the fact that creative people actually pay attention to many more sensory stimuli than someone more… “efficient”. Stimuli that can, and maybe should, otherwise be ignored… the rust on a pole, some gravel, the color of a particular brick, and those thoughts about being a crocodile. All totally inefficient, and possibly draining, for a mind to be attentive of the unimportant and the important, simultaneously and round the clock.
Back to constraints. Finally, you have some thing. Maybe a problem, an object, a canvas… and that’s a point of concentration. Then you can put all of your lobsters on it and whatever else you’d been collecting, and once they’re all on there you can begin to take some away, and there it is. Problem solved. Hopefully.
Something like that.
…
Lehrer sums it up well:
A more global thought process is generally ideal for coming up with truly creative solutions, as it makes people more likely to notice cross-cutting connections.
But, how? And isn’t it interesting that it applies so extensively to various types of networks… I don’t want to say universally, I’m not sure about that. But the network synchronization study seems to point to it.
(via wildcat2030)
NETWORKS.
…a thing I’d like to research/work on, extensively.
An interest was sparked when I read about { this study } on the synchronization of disordered vs ordered networks — although the best I can do at this point in time is speculate, I’m curious about the non-obvious applications of a deeper understanding of the functioning of networks, generally…
By non-obvious, I mean those things that cannot be found through the kind of approach that aims to generate specific outcomes, which is usually the kind of setting where that expertise is applied. Jobs & products. It can’t be there — this has to be experimental & free.
But there should be anchors. It doesn’t help to forge superficial connections between things that may be entirely different on imperceptible levels. “Atoms are not things,” said Heisenberg. But non-things form networks according to some order that allows them to work, to be and grow, as if they had a goal to do that. Networks have always been, and will always be. What would it mean, to be able to harness network growth, to have the ability to mold them in more sophisticated ways than we can, now?
And what about the { brain }, { dark matter }, { the internet }, and { fungi }?
Image: Yayoi Kusama, Infinity Net
There are those who say that the current (human-guided, because I don’t like to distinguish { “natural” & “artificial” } without proper definition, to exclude those terms from their colloquial meaning) evolution of the human world depends on technology above all (especially as opposed to direct philosophy, doctrine, etc.) — the materials we create and the way we use them define our global culture.
But technology comes from experiment, and much of it from experimentally-derived accidents that happen to make something new that works (sort of like “natural” evolution).
And what drives experimentation but the desires of a culture (whatever the scale of that culture — a group, a nation, etc.)? Those desires come from a mode of thinking, a set of views and theories — a philosophy. Where does that philosophy come from? The cycle… Isn’t it necessary that, while some create and consume, others observe, think, and suggest? { And who will pay attention }?
The idea of edges, of separateness, is antithetical to the web, which as a hypermedium dissolves all boundaries, renders implicit connections explicit. Indeed, much of the power and usefulness of the web as a technology derives from the way it destroys all forms of containment and turns everything it subsumes into a part of a greater, ever shifting, amorphous whole. The web is an assembly not of things but of shards, of snippets, of bits and pieces. An electronic book is therefore a contradiction in terms. To move the words of a book onto the screen of a networked computer is to engineer a collision between two contradictory technological, and aesthetic, forces. Something’s got to give. Either the web gains edges, or the book loses them.
Rough Type: Nicholas Carr’s Blog: The remains of the book (via infoneer-pulse)
••••••
In that way — maybe, in a metaphorical way — the web is like a macroscopic simulation of the universe. If we can understand that nothing on the web is an isolated “thing”, maybe we can begin to understand it about our “physical” world as well, and experience it in a new way through that understanding.
(via wildcat2030)
{ Collaborative Learning for the Digital Age }
By Cathy N. Davidson
August 26, 2011
We used a method that I call “collaboration by difference.” Collaboration by difference is an antidote to attention blindness. It signifies that the complex and interconnected problems of our time cannot be solved by anyone alone, and that those who think they can act in an entirely focused, solitary fashion are undoubtedly missing the main point that is right there in front of them, { thumping its chest and staring them in the face. } Collaboration by difference respects and rewards different forms and levels of expertise, perspective, culture, age, ability, and insight, treating difference not as a deficit but as a point of distinction. It always seems more cumbersome in the short run to seek out divergent and even quirky opinions, but it turns out to be efficient in the end and necessary for success if one seeks an outcome that is unexpected and sustainable. That’s what I was aiming for.
See also:
Jonah Lehrer on { The Power of Outsider Intelligence }
& A new study showing faster synchronization in { disordered networks }
