Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Simple, Complicated or Complex?

I was recently in Washington, DC flying in and out of Washington Dulles international Airport. As I was returning, since the airport is being remodeled and expanded, I wondered if the security process and facilities were any different. This I thought would be an interesting opportunity to see what we’ve learned about the facility design for security. After all, this is one of major airports for our nation’s capital, and a brand
new facility.

The security area is a well lit large space with high ceilings. There were numerous x-ray inspection lanes spaced comfortably apart. There is no feeling of claustrophobia in going through this process. However, the process still had two choke points. The first was that there was only one document inspector, and that caused one of the typical snake lines you experience in all security areas. The second choke point was at the x-ray
inspection machines. It’s necessary now to remove a lot of things from your person and the bags and equipment you carry through. For me, it now takes at least three trays with shoes going in alone. It takes time to remember, extract and place the items correctly. The conveyor is short and a jam builds watching and waiting for all this to occur. The same thing occurs after the items have gone through the machine. Longer conveyors would help.

As I was walking out of the security area, but not yet out, I saw a woman standing still with multiple coats, bags and computer looking puzzled. I knew exactly what she was thinking because I had just gone through the same mental check list, “Did I forget any thing.” I stopped and smiled at her and she said, “It’s really complicated.” I agreed, and we walked to our separate gates.

As I was walking, I got to thinking. The systems intent on doing us harm are complex systems that have emergent properties and are composed of adaptive intelligent agents. The question I asked myself is, “Can a complicated system solve a complexity problem?”

Now I know that we have other simple, complicated and even complex systems working to deal with threats. The security process is not the only thing we have. But, the question is a real one.

We are now dealing with numerous complex systems - markets, the economy, insurance, health care and education to name a few. Paul Krugman in a recent New York Times article, “How Did Economists Get it so Wrong?”, quoted H. L. Menken:”There is always an easy solution to every human problem –
neat, plausible and wrong.”

So my questions are “Can simple or complicated systems solve problems created by a complex system? And, if so, under what conditions?”

For more about complexity, go to 1,2,a Few, Many and Foresight in a Time of Simplicity, Complexity and Chaos

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

How Economists Got It So Wrong

From Simplicity and Complexity, Santa Fe Institute

Chris: Paul Krugman’s “How Economists Got It So Wrong”, New York Times Magazine, Sept 6, 2009

Paul Krugman takes on “the economists” in Sunday’s Magazine piece, “How Economists Got It So Wrong”:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html

“Few economists saw our current crisis coming, but this predictive failure was the least of the field’s problems. More important was the profession’s blindness to the very possibility of catastrophic failures in a market economy.”

However, some of his criticisms might apply a bit more broadly. For example:

“Mistaking Beauty for Truth”

Enjoy!


Go to http://blog.santafe.edu/?p=150 for discussion of this post.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Data, Data Eveywhere

From The Economist

Information has gone from scarce to superabundant. That brings huge new benefits, says Kenneth Cukier —but also big headaches


When the Sloan Digital Sky Survey started work in 2000, its telescope in New Mexico collected more data in its first few weeks than had been amassed in the entire history of astronomy. Now, a decade later, its archive contains a whopping 140 terabytes of information. A successor, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, due to come on stream in Chile in 2016, will acquire that quantity of data every five days.

Such astronomical amounts of information can be found closer to Earth too.
Wal-Mart, a retail giant, handles more than 1m customer transactions every hour, feeding databases estimated at more than 2.5 petabytes—the equivalent of 167 times the books in America’s Library of Congress (see article for an explanation of how data are quantified). Facebook, a social-networking website, is home to 40 billion photos. And decoding the human genome involves analysing 3 billion base pairs—which took ten years the first time it was done, in 2003, but can now be achieved in one week.

All these examples tell the same story: that the world contains an unimaginably vast amount of digital information which is getting ever vaster ever more rapidly. This makes it possible to do many things that previously could not be done: spot business trends, prevent diseases, combat crime and so on. Managed well, the data can be used to unlock new sources of economic value, provide fresh insights into science and hold governments to account.

But they are also creating a host of new problems. Despite the abundance of tools to capture, process and share all this information—sensors, computers, mobile phones and the like—it already exceeds the available storage space. Moreover, ensuring data security and protecting privacy is becoming harder as the information multiplies and is shared ever more widely around the world.

Watch Interview

Friday, February 26, 2010

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

1, 2. a Few, Many

The purpose of this article is to give a brief history of the development of complexity science for people unfamiliar with the details of complexity science, describe the different types of complexity, discuss examples of the types of complexity, and introduce some ideas about how complexity could be introduced into education. This essay summarizes other work in the field of complexity science, and organizes the results in a new way with the intent of making a difficult subject easier for the reader to understand. Two different types of complexity are described – organized and unorganized. The focus of the essay is on organized complexity of which three categories are described – complicated, chaotic and critical. Examples, descriptions and characteristics of each category are given. Finally, suggestions are given as to how this transformational science could be integrated into education.

“1, 2, a few, many” are the only words some Australian Aborigines had for number. I used to think that quaint and couldn’t imagine how they could live without words for all the numbers. I now look at that set of words differently for they fit the science of complexity even better than words for all the numbers.

Complexipacity, On the Horizon, V18, Issue 1, 2/5/10

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Thoughts of Time and Space



Imagine yourself as an observer in a universe but not part of the universe. This universe contains no created objects or even energy that you can sense. No mater which way you turn or move through this universe, you sense no change. In this universe you would have no perception of space. Any place you were would seem like any other place and you would have no reference between places. You would have no perception of time either, because nothing is changing. It’s always the same.

Now imagine objects and energy beginning to emerge from the nothingness. As they became perceptible to you, you would begin to develop the perception of space. This place is different that that place over there. The rate of emergence would then lead to the development of the perception of time. Now is different than before. And, perhaps later will be different than now. Without change there is no perception of time.

Imagine now that you are early man on the created earth. Your perception of time is driven by natural events. Daylight and dark repeat in endless procession. The position and appearance of the moon changes more slowly. Seasons cycle even more slowly. Things come to life and die. Your perception of change is slow and so is your perception of time. Mystery surrounds events that do not follow your perception of time.

Now fast forward to the present time. Imagine now that your mind has developed so that ideas get created in your mind. Some of these ideas get transferred to other minds. And, other minds transfer their ideas to yours. Some of the ideas come into being as objects. The rate of change has increased both inside and outside of your mind, and your perception of time has as well. Add tools to that image and imagine that all the minds of the earth are interconnected almost simultaneously. You and every other person are at the center of the rapidly changing world in time and space. Unexpected events abound and you live in a world of mystery.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

How Is America Going to End?

In August 2009 Slate Magazine conducted a weeklong thought experiment on the United States' demise. Josh Levin was listed as the author. The study was composed of several articles during the week, a survey of readers, and some analysis of the survey data. The survey consisted of 144 scenarios of how America could end drawn from research done by Levin. Participants were asked to read brief descriptions of the 144 scenarios and to select the five scenarios they believe will contribute to the country's dissolution, then find out instantly what kind of death scene they’ve envisioned—a bloodbath or a nonviolent end, an end wrought by man or by nature—and compare their choices with those of other Slate readers.

The articles covered the topics of:

Climate Change - We could be crushed by a climate strongman. Levin writes, “In a Weekly Standard piece on ‘The Icarus Syndrome,’ Jim Manzi notes the parallels between Britain's 1860s ‘Coal Panic’ and the modern disaster scenarios of peak oil and climate doom.” He continues, “Manzi argues that, given the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate of a 3-degree increase in global temperature by 2100, ‘the United States is expected to experience no net material economic costs [from anthropogenic global warming] … through the end of this century.’ At the other extreme is the specter of swift weather cataclysm. Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, who wrote a brief on ‘abrupt climate change’ for the Department of Defense, argue that climate chaos will be nonlinear—that ‘clear signs of environmental catastrophe will be evident in a few decades, not centuries’."

Preservation of Civilization - The Catholic Church helped preserve Roman civilization. Can Mormonism do the same for America? Levin comments, “When America disappears 100 or 500 or 1,000 years from now, it will be gone but not forgotten. As the world's leading military, economic, and cultural power since World War II, the United States will linger in the global gene pool and influence whatever comes next. But how exactly will Americanness get transmitted to the civilizations that replace us?

The physical structures we've built won't be our legacy. Our houses, schools, and stadiums will eventually crumble; in The World Without Us, Alan Weisman even imagines the Statue of Liberty getting knocked into the ocean by a glacier, leaving the real world in a similar state as Planet of the Apes. The ideas, art forms, and inventions that we've transmitted around the world will outlast our monuments' inevitable decay, and not just because our national backlog of McRib sandwiches may never biodegrade. While the current financial crisis has cast doubt on free-market capitalism, I'd wager that American-style economics will outlast this country's run as a political entity. The global rise of basketball, a game surpassed in worldwide popularity only by soccer, ensures that at least one artifact of American leisure will persist. America's native musical forms—jazz, rock 'n' roll, and hip-hop music—also seem like good possibilities to serve as cultural carriers.

But for America's intangible qualities to get preserved—our shared history, our ideals, our passions—someone needs to do the preserving.”

Totalitarianism - Five steps to totalitarian rule. “As Hitler and Mussolini prepared to storm Europe, fascism began to generate interest in the United States. In Sinclair Lewis' 1935 novel, It Can't Happen Here, an American president uses an economic crisis as a pretense to take over the media, imprison dissenters, and build his own private army (the Minute Men) into an indomitable force,” writes Levin. He enumerates five phases to totalitarianism:

o Phase 1: Create a perpetual enemy.
o Phase 2: Be savvier than George W. Bush.
o Phase 3: Come to power as America slips in stature.
o Phase 4: Beef up the military and the secret police.

States Rights - Who’s most likely to secede? Levin comments, “In the American end times, our government will take one of two forms. One possibility is that federalism will give way to an all-powerful central government. (In yesterday's global-warming thought experiment, this was the climate strongman scenario.) The other option is decentralization—in the absence of a unifying national interest, the United States of America will fragment and be supplanted by regional governance.”

Futurists’ Views - The world’s leading futurologists have four theories. “The Global Business Network answers the same question for all its corporate and government clients: What happens next? GBN handles a lot of different whats, and even the occasional what-in-the-hell. In 2003, the group's chairman, Peter Schwartz, and his colleague Doug Randall whipped up a not-so-rosy, 22-page report on "abrupt climate change" for the Department of Defense ("The United States and Australia are likely to build defensive fortresses around their countries"). Last year, the municipality of Amsterdam asked the firm to help figure out how it might deal with immigration. GBN has also loaned out its brainpower to Hollywood, advising Minority Report director Steven Spielberg on whether Congress and the Constitution would still exist in 2054. (The answer: yes, with a few buts.),” writes Levin. Using GBN’s typical methodology, they describe four different scenarios for the end of America (quoting from the article):

o Collapse: In this scenario, the country has devolved after a series of catastrophes: unchecked climate change, a pandemic, nuclear war—the stuff that Jared Diamond books and disaster movies are made of. A catastrophe that breeds internal division, Schwartz argues, is more likely to eradicate America than any kind of external threat. A country is like a family, he theorizes. If you feel threatened from the outside, you band together—rather than tear the United States apart, 9/11 galvanized us against a common enemy. The laggard response to Hurricane Katrina, on the other hand, meant that our own government became the common enemy. A long, uninterrupted series of nationwide Katrinas—and a concomitant series of bungled federal responses—is the recipe for collapse.

o Friendly breakup: In future No. 2, the country dissolves peacefully because the overhead of running a large nation becomes unmanageable. Schwartz likens this to the breakup of the Soviet Union, a case where the cost of holding the country together proved too great and the advantages too small.

o Global governance: In our third future, the national government declines in importance relative to the world community. Barack Obama's recent brief in defense of American exceptionalism is just one indicator among many that the United States is nowhere near willing to cede its position as the greatest of the world's great powers. But Slate contributor Robert Wright argues in his book Nonzero that humankind must come together to head off the challenges of the "non-zero-sum," globalized world: climate change, biological weapons, pandemics. While Wright tells me that "you wouldn't need something so centralized" as a souped-up United Nations, he believes that if in the next 100 years "America's identity has not dissolved into some sort of larger body of global governance, then chaos will reign."

o Global conquest: The final scenario and the grimmest of all: a figure described variously as a "global Napoleon," "a much more empowered Hitler," and "a super-Mao" conquers America and the rest of the world via brute force. This idea, which Schwartz classifies as the least likely of the four, leads us to debate whether it's harder to subjugate the world than it used to be—Schwartz believes it is, as there are "more people with military competence spread across the world." That's followed by a discussion of the best method to exercise dominion over the globe. "I think the way you conquer the world these days is from space," he says. "You can put weapons up there and shut down the world."

As a study of the future the survey was flawed, but nevertheless produced some interesting results. In setting up the survey, Levin writes, “If and when America expires, we probably won't agree on the cause of death. For proof that autopsies of empires are inconclusive, consider the case of Alexander Demandt, the German historian who set out in the 1980s to collect every theory ever given for why Rome fell. The final tally: 210, including attacks by nomads on horseback, blood poisoning, decline of Nordic character, homosexuality, outflow of gold, and vaingloriousness.

In tribute to Demandt, I've gone looking for every possible reason why America could fall. I've paged through the work of scholars who have studied the characteristics of declining and failed societies. I also collected theories from futurists, doomsayers, separatists, economists, political scientists, national security experts, climatologists, geologists, astronomers, and a few miscellaneous crazy people. The result: a collection of 144 potential causes of America's future death.”

The survey itself took advantage of web site capabilities. The 144 scenarios were each assigned an icon and the icons were arranged in a dense 12 by 12 matrix. (I’m not sure why, but the popular song of the 1970s by Paul Simon popped into my head as I read these scenarios – There Are 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover.)Mousing over the icon produced the name of the scenario and its brief description. When you found one of your top five, you could either drag the icon to a vote box, or click on a link to cast your vote.

Over 60,000 people participated, many from outside the US. Even though this is a large number of people, the results may not be statistically significant. The problem with an opt in survey of this type is that is is difficult to know whether the respondents are representative or not. It certainly isn’t representative of the US as over 15% of the responses came from Russia alone among other countries. And, we don’t know if this type of survey attracts people who are interested in apocalyptic scenarios. Moreover, it certainly eliminates people who would never take surveys over the Internet and those incapable of comprehending 144 different scenarios and comparing and contrasting them in their minds. I don’t remember reading anywhere that the order of the icons in the matrix were randomly scrambled for each participant to reduce any bias due to order. Also, the scenarios were not distinctly different. There were many overlaps, and sometimes the description of the scenario could bias the response.

The real puzzle for me was trying to interpret the results. On its face, it can’t be interpreted as a futures study. The question presupposed an apocalyptic end. (It’s like the proverbial “When did you stop beating your wife?”) My key to understanding the results was the realization that what the survey elicited was a reflection of the respondents fears, if the respondent was American, and perhaps hopes if an enemy of America.

In attempting to understand potential futures of a system, there are at least four questions that must be answered:

1. What are the present strengths and weaknesses of the system’s capabilities?
2. What are the opportunities and threats faced by the system over the time frame?
3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the system’s capacity to change over the time frame?
4. What are the hopes and fears of stakeholders of the system?

This survey addressed partially half of the fourth question. However, if we assume that the results of the survey are not biased too badly by respondents who are stakeholders but outside of the US, that we can interpret the results as a mirror of our fears.

The top five scenarios were:

1. Loose Nukes: Taliban fighters wrest nuclear weapons from a destabilized Pakistan. Or al-Qaida acquires a small arsenal of nukes from a disintegrating Russia. The nonstate actors launch against the United States in an attack exponentially worse than 9/11.

2. Peak Oil: Petroleum production reaches terminal decline. Oil becomes too expensive to extract, and alternative energies can't maintain our fossil-fuel-dependent lifestyle. The developed world goes kaput, with gas-happy America leading the way to the gutter.

3. Antibiotic Resistance: As a result of factory farming and spiking sales of antibacterial hand soap, superstrains of bacteria develop that are resistant to medicine. Public health officials can do nothing but throw up their hands.

4. China Unloads U.S. Treasurys: Unwilling to finance any more of America's debt, China dumps its investment in American Treasury securities and buys up gold. With America a lousy investment, there aren't any other buyers out there. The country goes bankrupt.

5. Israel-Arab War: All-out mayhem in the Middle East as Egypt, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and more go to war. The United States moves to protect Israel and gets sucked into a generation-long conflict that saps the national will and treasury.

The most interesting analysis the author did was to create a network map of the 82 scenarios that were chosen together with at least one other scenario. The network map is shown below: