Foreseeable Future #2
Mar. 20th, 2008 01:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
guppiecatWow, there are so many points to my previous post/poll that I think I need to clarify them in a new post. Sorry if this confuses your threading:
First of all, what I have learned from all your comments is that you lot seem to be more context-driven than I had expected. This may be due to a lack of consensus as to what "foreseeable future" actually means. To clarify, here is how I see things (I REALLY wish that I had time to do 3D renderings to illustrate what I mean. Sorry.)
Assume that for every conscious entity in existence at any given time has a choice. In the classic "constantly bifurcating universe" theory, they have a choice TO DO or NOT TO DO something, resulting in a continual binary split of possibilities (and pretty fractals in my head). My view is a tad more complex, in that each conscious entity has a high (but possibly not infinite) set of choices, to which each has a specified probability (due to free will, the probability is a fuzzy and influenced number (Newton sucks)).
So, if one were to visualize the life of a person, you would have a solid black line stretching into the past, indicating choices made and events that have happened (because time travel is impossible, the proof may come later). If the "present moment" is represented by a point, the future would be a sort of hyberbolic fuzzy cone, which represents the possible paths that "line of one's life" may take from the point of the present moment. (See why I want to render visual aids?) Additionally, the further one gets down the "time" axis, the cone would get fuzzier and more transparent, as not only is the possible placement of the points one's life undetermined, but the existence of one's life becomes less likely as time goes on.
Thus, there are regions where the cone is narrowed, where one can make reasonably accurate predictions of the future. The "fuzziness" hasn't grown past the point of measurability (assuming that we can actually measure anything in this hypothetical model). At some point, the range of uncertainty exceeds the resolution of the measurements, and the future becomes "unforeseeable".
Now, extend the concept to groups of individuals, such as a company. Each person still has their own life path (a subset of which may be considered a career path). However, because a group is working together, the organization as a whole exhibits rudimentary conscious behavior. In effect, things happen due to the influence of the group itself, not as a direct result of conscious choice by the members. We often refer to this as "corporate culture", "entrenchment" and the like. Now, it makes sense that, because organizations as slower to move, the "foreseeable future" might be a bit longer than that of an individual. In fact, it would be reasonable to assume that the larger the company (and therefore the stronger the emergent behavior) the further out that the foreseeable future may be. However, there is an opposing force, usually referred to as "market forces" which can dramatically change the DIRECTION of a company. This can result in layoffs, a refocus of priorities, a change of client base. In other words, while the probability that a company will exist is greater (thereby reducing the fuzziness of that dimension), the direction of the company is more likely to change (thereby increasing the width of the cone). Since the "foreseeable future" is the point beyond which one can no longer accurately make predictions, I suspect that (at least in small business), this point is quite similar to the zone for the individual.
Extending this further to large groups of people (states, nations, ethnic groups, etc), I would say that the "culture" is more deeply defined, and therefore more resistant to change. However, it appears to me that technological changes -- mostly in the form of communication improvements -- are reducing the extent to which individuals identify with these larger groups. So, while the direction of these groups is more defined, their likelihood of existence (and the power they wield) seems to be reducing as they shrink. So, the hyperbolic cone would be narrower, but would also be fuzzier. Thus, there would be a "foreseeable future" for these groups as well.
The question is whether the point beyond which one cannot make predictions is similar in scale (orders of magnitude) for an entity and varying sizes of groups of entities. My gut feeling is that it is, but you all don't seem to agree.
Moving on, there are events that are driven primarily by non-conscious action. The examples given in the comments would include the fate of the earth, the fate of the sun, the fate (in aggregate) of specific species. I was ignoring these views as "out of scope" because they are generally not likely to be altered by human action at the current technology... or through any technology that could be created in the "foreseeable future".
These non-conscious types of events seem to be set. For example, it is VERY likely that the Earth will eventually be swallowed by Sol when it gets to red giant stage. At that point, it no longer matters if humanity has managed to destroy themselves by nuclear war, biological war, environmental degradation, etc. In effect, those possibilities collapse down into the (relative) certainty of the Earth being engulfed. Thus, the "line" for the Earth at that point becomes a line again with relatively little "fuzz" to it.
Going back to the model I was using, the "life lines" of the non-conscious entities in the universe follows a reverse of my earlier image. The possibilities that could occur decrease towards the end of the timeline, culminating in a handful of possibilities (heat death of the universe, collapse and reverse of time's arrow, collapse and re-expansion while maintaining the direction of time). Thus, you have a wide fuzzy hyperbolic cone that shrinks as it goes towards one particular line.
Thus, you have something that looks like this (pardon my ASCII):
Where A-B represents the past, B-C represents the foreseeable future, C-D represents the unknown, E-D represents the likely far future, and E-F represents the known fate.
My suspicion is that, as the rate of change of technological advancement increases, the distance between B-C shortens. Thus, if less and less can be predicted with (relative) accuracy, one would expect to see:
* Greater volatility in the markets
* Reduced rate of "saving for the future"
* Increased priority of short term profits over long term gains
* Less reliance on others (as others would be decreasingly reliable)
* Increased panic over the uncertain future, resulting in a desire to "go back to a simpler time"
* Increased emphasis on controlling what you can, including the choices of others when possible.
* Decreased investment in the long-term viability of goods, because you need them to work for "the foreseeable future"
One might argue that we are seeing this already.
So, that was my intent in asking the question. You all have my apologies if it was unclear, but it's somewhat difficult to be clear when you are discussing that which cannot be foreseen. :)
What are your thoughts now?
First of all, what I have learned from all your comments is that you lot seem to be more context-driven than I had expected. This may be due to a lack of consensus as to what "foreseeable future" actually means. To clarify, here is how I see things (I REALLY wish that I had time to do 3D renderings to illustrate what I mean. Sorry.)
Assume that for every conscious entity in existence at any given time has a choice. In the classic "constantly bifurcating universe" theory, they have a choice TO DO or NOT TO DO something, resulting in a continual binary split of possibilities (and pretty fractals in my head). My view is a tad more complex, in that each conscious entity has a high (but possibly not infinite) set of choices, to which each has a specified probability (due to free will, the probability is a fuzzy and influenced number (Newton sucks)).
So, if one were to visualize the life of a person, you would have a solid black line stretching into the past, indicating choices made and events that have happened (because time travel is impossible, the proof may come later). If the "present moment" is represented by a point, the future would be a sort of hyberbolic fuzzy cone, which represents the possible paths that "line of one's life" may take from the point of the present moment. (See why I want to render visual aids?) Additionally, the further one gets down the "time" axis, the cone would get fuzzier and more transparent, as not only is the possible placement of the points one's life undetermined, but the existence of one's life becomes less likely as time goes on.
Thus, there are regions where the cone is narrowed, where one can make reasonably accurate predictions of the future. The "fuzziness" hasn't grown past the point of measurability (assuming that we can actually measure anything in this hypothetical model). At some point, the range of uncertainty exceeds the resolution of the measurements, and the future becomes "unforeseeable".
Now, extend the concept to groups of individuals, such as a company. Each person still has their own life path (a subset of which may be considered a career path). However, because a group is working together, the organization as a whole exhibits rudimentary conscious behavior. In effect, things happen due to the influence of the group itself, not as a direct result of conscious choice by the members. We often refer to this as "corporate culture", "entrenchment" and the like. Now, it makes sense that, because organizations as slower to move, the "foreseeable future" might be a bit longer than that of an individual. In fact, it would be reasonable to assume that the larger the company (and therefore the stronger the emergent behavior) the further out that the foreseeable future may be. However, there is an opposing force, usually referred to as "market forces" which can dramatically change the DIRECTION of a company. This can result in layoffs, a refocus of priorities, a change of client base. In other words, while the probability that a company will exist is greater (thereby reducing the fuzziness of that dimension), the direction of the company is more likely to change (thereby increasing the width of the cone). Since the "foreseeable future" is the point beyond which one can no longer accurately make predictions, I suspect that (at least in small business), this point is quite similar to the zone for the individual.
Extending this further to large groups of people (states, nations, ethnic groups, etc), I would say that the "culture" is more deeply defined, and therefore more resistant to change. However, it appears to me that technological changes -- mostly in the form of communication improvements -- are reducing the extent to which individuals identify with these larger groups. So, while the direction of these groups is more defined, their likelihood of existence (and the power they wield) seems to be reducing as they shrink. So, the hyperbolic cone would be narrower, but would also be fuzzier. Thus, there would be a "foreseeable future" for these groups as well.
The question is whether the point beyond which one cannot make predictions is similar in scale (orders of magnitude) for an entity and varying sizes of groups of entities. My gut feeling is that it is, but you all don't seem to agree.
Moving on, there are events that are driven primarily by non-conscious action. The examples given in the comments would include the fate of the earth, the fate of the sun, the fate (in aggregate) of specific species. I was ignoring these views as "out of scope" because they are generally not likely to be altered by human action at the current technology... or through any technology that could be created in the "foreseeable future".
These non-conscious types of events seem to be set. For example, it is VERY likely that the Earth will eventually be swallowed by Sol when it gets to red giant stage. At that point, it no longer matters if humanity has managed to destroy themselves by nuclear war, biological war, environmental degradation, etc. In effect, those possibilities collapse down into the (relative) certainty of the Earth being engulfed. Thus, the "line" for the Earth at that point becomes a line again with relatively little "fuzz" to it.
Going back to the model I was using, the "life lines" of the non-conscious entities in the universe follows a reverse of my earlier image. The possibilities that could occur decrease towards the end of the timeline, culminating in a handful of possibilities (heat death of the universe, collapse and reverse of time's arrow, collapse and re-expansion while maintaining the direction of time). Thus, you have a wide fuzzy hyperbolic cone that shrinks as it goes towards one particular line.
Thus, you have something that looks like this (pardon my ASCII):
| |
/ \
/ \
A B / \E F
----------------< C D >--------------------
\ /
\ /
\ /
| |
Where A-B represents the past, B-C represents the foreseeable future, C-D represents the unknown, E-D represents the likely far future, and E-F represents the known fate.
My suspicion is that, as the rate of change of technological advancement increases, the distance between B-C shortens. Thus, if less and less can be predicted with (relative) accuracy, one would expect to see:
* Greater volatility in the markets
* Reduced rate of "saving for the future"
* Increased priority of short term profits over long term gains
* Less reliance on others (as others would be decreasingly reliable)
* Increased panic over the uncertain future, resulting in a desire to "go back to a simpler time"
* Increased emphasis on controlling what you can, including the choices of others when possible.
* Decreased investment in the long-term viability of goods, because you need them to work for "the foreseeable future"
One might argue that we are seeing this already.
So, that was my intent in asking the question. You all have my apologies if it was unclear, but it's somewhat difficult to be clear when you are discussing that which cannot be foreseen. :)
What are your thoughts now?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 06:29 pm (UTC)It was clear to me that computers were a Big Deal when I first got involved with them in 1968, and I in fact have worked in the field constantly since then. It's changed a lot, but not exactly surprisingly -- the bandwidth available to residences is the biggest surprise (and such a nice one). By my standards I haven't had to consider "mid-life retraining" into another career, which many people do (although some people might say that going from assembler and BASIC+ to PHP and C++ constituted a similar level of change).
There's also the question of degree of precision of prediction. "Drastic increase in disk and memory sizes" I would have agreed to all along, but putting numbers and dates to it I probably would have been way off (on the low side). Interestingly, the distinction between "disk" and "memory" means nearly exactly the same thing it did then.
The kind of "forseeing" I'm thinking of means I won't be surprised by the classes of things that happen, but I'm not going to have a good clear idea of which exact things will happen or when. Also, there are outside events intruding. 9/11 may have been such an event. A decent asteroid strike would definitely be such an event. Technological changes can count; solid-state electronics might be such an event. Bio-tech or nano-tech would be such an event; and stuff in those areas could start having a major impact on is sometime in the next hundred years (but could be just 5). The collapse of the Atlantic Conveyor, or whatever they formally call that current system, could be such an event.
I think the future shock will die down again as more post-baby-boomers get into executive positions (possibly by creating companies from scratch). Some of us seem to be a lot more flexible than most of us; or maybe it's that the types that end up at the executive level aren't so flexible.
I think of the "forseeable future" stretching out vaguely 50 years. The edges are very blurry and thing, so if somebody said "30 years" and somebody else said "70 years" I wouldn't feel that they were strongly disagreeing with me.
Interesting to think and ramble on about this, anyway, thanks!
Not much time to ponder this attm...so off the cuff:
Date: 2008-03-20 06:49 pm (UTC)you can aggregate events with a certain loss of resolution, and then foresee the outcomes of the aggregate branches, but you lose precision, of course, so, say, rule of thumb it down to 5 +- 3 of the larger scale events?
It depends on the context of the event whether they can be aggregated w/o a larger scale error creeping in. 10,000 dominoes lined up in a row, pretty high probability that pushing the first decision branch will lead to the events of the 9,000, but if your future in the domino tipping business, or perhaps survivng the rube goldberg international spy death trap, depends on that 10,000 domino the future may not be foreseeable beyond that point to the degree of comfort one might want to ascribe to it.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 06:52 pm (UTC)