在空间隐喻社会系统的注意事项

距离隐喻是对社会现象的任何谈话自然。我们谈论治理制度和治理,游击运动和东道国人民,穷人和富人,中国和美国,红色和蓝色之间的距离。

Kevin Simler’s最近的客座文章made use of the standard geometric-metaphoric scheme, the Hofstede文化维度模型, to talk about startup cultures. The model also forms the basis for the analysis of globalization in Pankaj Ghemawat’sWorld 3.0, whichI reviewed last year。因此,距离隐喻是在广泛的社会现象非常稳健,从小公司到整个地球。

拓扑 - 一个空间的预几何结构的研究,比如是否是定向与否,甜甜圈形或球形的,等等 - 是不是天然的或容易申请,但也是有用的,如果你可以把它off, as Drew Austin’s recent post on theHoley Planedemonstrated.

当你为社会做系统拓扑和几何语无伦次,你会得到令人沮丧的书如弗里德曼世界是平的

但更仔细的方法并不安全的要么。特别是,我越去想Hofstede的模型,更不满我得到。有没有更好的办法?我一直在玩弄一些很初步的想法,我想我会分享,过早。

The recent guest posts (plus another one I’ve been promised by迈克·斯格特)已经得到了我的思维真的很难仔细考虑做拓扑和几何的社会制度。

I seem to make heavy use of geometry/topology metaphors, so this is sort of overdue due diligence on my own thinking.

我最喜欢的简单模型,我可能过度使用:为了解进展情况/下降/关闭/奇点类型参数的二维时间/熵模型。我用它在Tempoand have also used it in many recent posts:Hackstability,Baroque UnconsciousandFuture Nauseaposts among them.

It seems increasingly insufficient. I’ve been developing the core ideas for my下一本书on top of this two-dimensional model, but now I think I need a more complex one.

Hofstede’s Model

Hofstede is a natural starting point for something better, but there is something worryingly just-so/Ptolemaic/epicyclic about it. Here is the basic outline, perWikipedia:

The original theory proposed four dimensions along which cultural values could be analyzed: individualism-collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; power distance (strength of social hierarchy) and masculinity-femininity (task orientation versus person-orientation). Independent research in Hong Kong led Hofstede to add a fifth dimension, long-term orientation, to cover aspects of values not discussed in the original paradigm.

Or to summarize:

  1. 个人主义 - 集体主义
  2. Uncertainty avoidance
  3. 权力距离
  4. 女性气质的阳刚之气
  5. 长期/短期方向

这已经是在空间隐喻的随机使用了明显的改善。它立即指出,例如,“权力距离”是经济平等/机会恰当的比喻,你立刻发现一个明显的方法来攻击弗里德曼的“世界是平的”的假说。这就是为什么格玛沃特的书,差不多长度弗里德曼,挂起一起好了很多。

与Hofstede的模型问题

But Hofstede’s model has limitations too. It seems like the sort of thing you’d come up with if you just backed out a multiple regression model from survey data, based on unreconstructed use of common language concepts. It lumps together binary and continuous variables, variables with relatively obvious measures (such as 5) and variables where models would be very contentious (2 and 3), and includes variables that are hard to measure at all (1).

More problematic is the fact that there is no inclusion of physical reality (except very indirectly), either natural or artificial, in the scheme. Some of the problems that emerge:

  • 将上一个群岛捕鱼社会具有相同的社会几何/拓扑结构为解决大陆的社会?
  • Is a society with strongly legalist institutions that codify certain power distances different from one that has similar power distances, but within kinship-based institutions?
  • 是一个科技发达的社会与非人类人工现实(如谷歌的例如搜索机器人)“内部”的社会制度和它的边界条件的机构潜伏?难道我们居住的技术我们居住空间的方式,或做技术的聚居空间和我们一起?

现在它,因为它是某种形式的概念“距离”是不是实际上是“测量”的东西简单地重要。但要有效地与隐喻的距离工作,你至少需要一个原则性的想法你如何威力measure it. Otherwise even the simplest speculative comparisons become hard.

社会科学家们有理由对可疑排序的第一原理/公理化方法常见于数学或逻辑(毕竟,我们are谈论一个凌乱的极大数维现象在这里,没有欧几里得Elements), but一些试图以引进更多的连贯性似乎号召。

I don’t want to get into a detailed critique of Hofstede, or explain how I got somewhere else starting from his model, but here is where I’ve gotten so far (I am far from done here; this is very much a beta post).

原子能机构空间的四个维度

我想出了一个模型,我认为这是一个很好的协议更连贯,更简单的,至少对我来说。

之前,你甚至定义了一个空间,你要描述在其中一个“点”的想法。在几何,我们认为一个“点”为在该措施零沿所有尺寸单位空间的束缚位置。

在社会制度,我想对应的概念是不可减少的(点)位点机构。可容纳信仰的原子实体,欲望和意图,并不能进一步降低到简单的代理。我怀疑是原子剂成瘾或厌恶的很简单行为的循环,但从来没有介意。

I won’t say more about this basic assumption that “atomic agency loci are points in social space,” since the guest post in the queue explores agency in much greater depth, but this is enough for this post. Suffice it to say that agents can be added, subtracted, overlapped, separated, broken down, built up, and so forth, just like geometric objects more complex than a point have a whole calculus associated with them.

So here are my four candidates for basic dimensions of social systems.

文化距离

The degree to which two agents can assume each other’s point of view (or仿真each other computationally). The objective measure is distance between mental models. The subjective measure isempathy。请注意,这并不局限于两个人或分立/分离剂。一种人可以有“同情”为他在那里居住兼职例如一个“城市”。

权力距离

粗略地说,在“高度”分隔两个代理商。这主要对应于Hofestede的概念。客观地说,这是在层次结构的概念图的垂直高度。主观上,这是相关的像敬畏,恐惧,同情的情绪,等等。

I have this flagged as a potentially dependent dimension that can be constructed out of the other three.

Fabricatory深度

这是一个非常微妙的想法,由于戈登·鲁格,基本上指的是从它试图生活在自然环境中分离的代理组件技术链的最小的“长度”,你可以把它看作长度技术作为哑杆(忽略技术作为代理的方面)。当你过的生活具有非常高的fabricatory深度,你在技术上“先进”,并从自然疏远的感觉。这是马修·克劳福德在获得店铺等级为Soulcraft:

在工具使用的下跌似乎预示在我们居住的世界模式的转变:更加被动和更加依赖。事实上,也有那种意气的被唤起,当我们拿东西在手为我们自己,是否修复他们或让他们少的场合。常人一旦做出,他们购买的;而他们一旦确定了自己,他们完全替代或聘请专家来修复,其修复专家往往涉及到安装预制的更换部件。

当你面对更高fabricatory深度比你习惯了,好像魔术,每亚瑟·C·克拉克报价。这是从被面临着高功率的距离敬畏不同。

推理距离

There are probably several versions/originators of this idea (there is one within Rugg’s fabricatory depth model above that I hadn’t seen before), but I first saw it referred to as “inferential distance” in aLessWrong线一些one pointed me to. It is basically the cognitive analogue of fabricatory depth: the distance between a mental model and a new idea. Zero inferential distance is when something is a trivially obvious conclusion from things you already know or believe. High inferential distance is when you need years of education (including possibly unlearning) just to acquire the vocabulary needed to state an idea, let alone assess its validity.

Subjectively, high inferential distance turns into confusion/incomprehension/suspicion/distrust.

推理距离也配备了“最短路径”的意义上的有用概念Kolmogorov complexity(能够产生一定的结果,这是在一定意义上同样的事情最短算法)。

推理和fabricatory距离互动,效果显着。但具体细节尚不清楚给我。当你开发一个技术现实的“升值”,您使用的推理距离取消与高fabricatory深度相关的情绪,而不一定能够减少fabricatory深度本身。

手法(器乐)的知识,这有可能会应该有一个独立的维度状态,让你减轻高fabricatory深度的影响。

附加评论

You’ll note that I’ve dropped four of Hofstede’s five dimensions (individualism, gender, time, uncertainty) as well as both of mine (time, entropy). Here’s why:

  • 个人主义/集体主义是不是根本。它可以更根本理解为聚合剂和相对更雾化剂之间的文化距离。这实际上是更好,因为它推广到亚组(分裂派别,流亡社区,散居等)。
  • 男性气质/女性气质(task/people orientation) is a derived notion that belongs in a larger, more diverse universe of agency patterns, not all of which readily admit to characterization via gender. Neither human males/females, nor metaphorically gendered larger aggregates, are atomic. I believe this trait, if it is meaningful, will turn out to be a function of patterns in the five-dimensional space (possibly males generally have higher fabricatory depth in their patterns of agency). While I am somewhat comfortable with ideas like specific religious institutions being male/female, it is much harder to justify maleness/femaleness attributes to things like (say) Google’s search robot. It would be a stretch, and a pretty pointless one at that.
  • 长期/短期有趣的是。像我自己的模式(时间/熵),它依赖于时间。认真考虑之后,我的结论是,由于时间关系,belong among the intrinsic dimensions of social systems. Rather, along with space, it belongs in a sort of external “embedding space.”
  • , similarly, is not fundamental in this scheme of things. It is better understood as geometric alignment (or lack thereof) in the patterns of agency in a social system. High alignment (low cultural distance would probably be a component) would correspond to low entropy, and more coherence of the aggregate agent represented by the grouping. And vice-versa. There are tradeoffs due to boundary conditions here (so for instance, given two agents of similar “size”, higher fabricatory depth will probably lead to lower entropy, since mental models can be built out of more platonic abstractions, leading to lower cultural distances).
  • Uncertainty avoidance其实不是从时间和熵,但是这两个变量的函数不同。我将跳过虽然解释。这在一定程度上参与,而如果你已经远远跟上这个,你也许可以解决它自己。

嵌入的社会空间在物理空间

申请社会几何和拓扑结构,你必须在物理空间中嵌入的社会空间:空间和时间。您还可以在机构和杠杆(权力距离和深度fabricatory)能量的物理概念的意义相关联的抽象能力。它是通过嵌入,社会距离和形状的变化。

Time is easiest to understand: distant ancestors and descendants (genetic or memetic) may be very close in terms of social and power distances, but influence is limited to weak, one-way efforts.

最好的例子嵌入空间很大,modern, highly diverse cities. They are the equivalent of social singularities (in the sense that black holes do curious things to physical space time, cities do curious things to social dimensions). Schelling’s famous sorting arguments and the patterns of expansion and separation that characterize suburban/exurban development illustrate some of the rich dynamics that result when you scrunch up a complex social system into a small physical-temporal box.

最后,能量可能是最理解物理变量。当身体能量越来越便宜(因为它没有,例如,当煤电和油动力释放从肌肉劳累许多人),fabricatory深度和距离推断全线上升。低能量社会也全面低抽象的社会。

嵌入也是几何形状如何获得社会识别拓扑结构,如在多孔平面。在多孔飞机本身过于复杂,进入在这个岗位,但考虑到自行车车手和汽车司机的交叉,合作广泛,但弱相互作用“城市”。他们可能是密切在空间和时间,但在文化距离,权力距离,fabricatory深度甚至推断距离方面被严格分开的(汽车司机不能下意识地,本能地预测一个骑自行车的行为:两个都加载不同的思维模式用于车辆控制)。

Sometimes embeddings are chosen by architects and urban planners to reflect cultural and power distances, where there is enough design room to do so. In buildings, people with more power are typically on higher floors. Fascist societies create formal ghettos to codify cultural distances in physical geometry. Social justice minded designers adopt the reverse philosophy: using design to mangle power and cultural distances (such as mixed-income housing).

One obvious challenge in embedding is dealing with virtual reality. Clearly, my social graph “neighborhood” involves distances of some sort. It also seems to me that the distances are distances in the embedding space (i.e., like space, time or energy distances) rather than intrinsic social distances. So perhaps social-graph distance should be added to the physical dimensions. I am not entirely satisfied with my approach here.

有些应用程序

心理学

心理学naturally falls into this model. When you think of individual humans as aggregate agents (the standard view in most schools of psychology, though they differ in the constructs disaggregated out of “human”), and the ideas of “integrative” psychology as closing internal distances, you don’t need additional concepts to handle most ideas in psychology. So mindfulness becomes equivalent to expanding internal social distances while reducing internal entropy and overall fabricatory depth. Introversion is trading external cultural distance for internal.

治理

其中最有趣的书我一直在阅读最近是迈克尔·林德Land of Promise,where he argues that the Right/Left divide in America has historically been less consequential than one he calls Jeffersonian/Hamiltonian (after Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton).

杰斐逊是可疑的大机构(国家或企业),而汉密尔顿认为它们是必不可少的民主获得经济体规模的杠杆作用。我将有更多的说这个想法在未来的职位,但在社会制度几何方面,你可以说杰斐逊producerists赞成低fabricatory深度,以此来降低功耗的距离。因此,无论右翼民兵和嬉皮生态村共享使用一个最小的技术集作为对庞大而复杂的系统的危险保险的一种形式的设计原则。

This incidentally, also gives us a very visual metaphor for “big government” or “big corporations” as geometric-topological objects that span large volumes of space within a given social system. So the idea of DARPA as a “big government” for R&D takes on a very literal image: it is a geometric object spanning a large range of fabricatory depths, cultural distances and power distances.

“平台”传达“平整度”的图像,因为它们使用人工代理的高fabricatory深度层以创建相对相等(低功率距离)人类社会的高高原平坦表面。因此,“互联网”概念是一个相对平坦的台地是高于工业时代的技术很不平衡“地板”。

杰斐逊是恐高的。但是,他们往往是没有意识到这一点高(许多DIY无人机制造商正在劳动错误的低fabricatory深度的幻觉下:他们可能是“建设”的事情,但不同的是新石器时代的农民,他们靠暗箱哈密顿技术,如Arduino的控制板和几十年的政府资助的研究到无人机)。

You could state the Jeffersonian position as “most tall social systems are peaky mountains” and the Hamilitonian one as “peaky mountains can be reshaped into mesas.”

技术

我并不完全确信的是如何做到这一点,但我认为一个制造领域的正常的想法是一个非常几何拓扑的方式来理解技术 - 社会“系统”。

特别是该应用中,具有一个非平凡拓扑组分(像在多孔平面),因为它涉及的孔,断开片等等。

克里斯托弗·海斯Twillight的精英的(另一个刺激的书,我刚刚完成)采用“社会距离”的粗糙和准备的概念谈“精英”(在恐慌引号的问题,因为这本书的目的是问题化的想法,唯才是举的措施任何类似于“好处”)。

在我们的投机几何参数可以表述为:低cultural精英和它们的圈养机构(视为人工剂)之间的距离,加上相对高fabricatory深度compared to lower classes, leads to various pathologies.

这篇文章确实需要大量的图片,但我没有时间来重绘清晰数字格式的所有我的笔和纸的图纸。

商业

除了明显的应用程序(层次结构,网络),企业也提出了有趣的几何/拓扑挑战。举例来说,我觉得普及幻想的想法,我公司推出了一段时间后,其推广的“三个贴近,三个媒体”的理念,在销售方面,是(媒体)和文化距离,轮流退化的几何形状为fabricatory深度之间的有趣的互动非退化的人(的方式,如果他们不共线的三个点只有真正形成一个三角形,所以这三个触点/三媒体规则成为“画在文化距离/ fabricatory - 深度平面适当三角” -几乎毫无意义的抽象的,在某些方面,但在其他方面非常有用)。

You can also frame Geoffrey West’s work on superlinearity, immortal cities and mortal corporations using social system geometry/topology. You are effectively trying to lower the overall (four-dimensional) distance between a corporation and its host city in a controlled way.

Where to Now?

I rarely share ideas at such an early stage of development, but since so many people have helped me get this far, I figured this is a release-early-and-often kind of idea. My immediate objective is to come up with a geometry and topology that will help me writeGame of Pickaxes。I am mainly aiming to come up with a scaffolding that will be just enough for that project (and mostly invisible/transparent within it, since this sort of back-end intellectual drudgery doesn’t interest most people), but maybe if it ends up solid enough, I’ll write it up more carefully and explicitly for the tiny group of people that might care.

There’s a lot more to be said/done here.

  • 我没有说太多关于这里的拓扑结构件,主要是因为这是一个很大很难讲。
  • 也有数学家所说的“度量化”(相加的措施和距离的概念,以非公制结构)蠕虫的一个整体可以。
  • It would also probably be valuable to reflexively apply these ideas to this post itself (it is at a very low inferential distance from the rest of my writing, so easy for long-time readers to get, but probably impossibly far for many new readers, since it is at quite a large inferential distance from all the nearby conceptual continents — it is something like an island in the Pacific). Rather satisfyingly, one of the best uses of this model of social systems is to critique this blog.
  • 这整个的思想的混乱,似乎停留在以某种方式信息论。我想在一个社会系统的“信息含量”的一些概念到地这种模式。

And so on. Anyway, a big to-do list here. I’ll lazily/sloppily work through it as and when I find time.

Besides Drew, Kevin and Mike, I should mention readers jld, Jordan Peacock, Alec Resnick, Greg Rader, Jane Huang, Kartik Agaram and Nick Pinkston among several others, for helping me think through some of this stuff. Should also credit readers Goblin and Kay, for debating the former’s notion of “blue collar intellectualism” vigorously in the comments section of previous posts.

Let’s see where this gets us.

感恩节快乐向所有在美国上市。

获取Ribetway客户端bbonfarm在收件箱中

Get new post updates by email

新的更新后发送出去每周一次

关于文卡塔斯betway365饶

Venkatis the founder and editor-in-chief of ribbonfarm. Follow him在Twitter上

Comments

  1. _Topology - 的空间的预几何结构的研究,例如它是否是平坦curved_

    Topology doesn’t care whether something’s flat or curved. For an easy example, the line y=0 and the curve y=sin(x) are topologically the same.

    For a trickier example, consider the space that an Asteroids (1979) player is living in. “A rectangle” is the wrong answer, since the left and right edges are the same (if you fly off one, you come back on the other). If you roll things up to connect them, you get a cylinder. But the top and bottom edges are the same too; the correct answer is a hollow doughnut. Which you might think of as curved, but the Asteroids player has no need of your curved mental image of a doughnut — her world is flat.

  2. 亚历克斯Ragus says

    Fabricatory深度is a great concept! You could invert it to ask: how large a group is needed to make all the things I use? Or all the things I need (as militias and eco-villages try to)?

    I can see how this evolved from your hackstability metaphor: the drone builders take Radio-Shacks as a given in their environment. When is that appropriate, vs viewing only trees, rocks, dirt, etc as “natural” substances for fabrication? And you could compare to third-world landfill-pickers, who view metal scraps & wires, plastic bottles, styrofoam sheets, etc as the most abundant and useful materials in their environment.

    I also like the bikes and cars interacting as traffic metaphor. Interesting how groups don’t always need close inferential distance to interact smoothly with each other. In fact, more could even be a hindrance (people may prefer poles, being uncomfortable in the middle ranges).

    You might find this model interesting. It’s less complex than yours, but captures some subtle distinctions in technology use by individuals vs societies:

    http://ranprieur.com/tech.html

    • 事实上,我有兴趣fabricatory深度因你指出的方面:反转导致询问如何需要大社区等等,等等,但最终证明是有限的价值的运动,因为它很快就证明,即使是非常温和的事情的人的子集决定他们想要以某种民兵/生态家园上下文结束长达需要整个当前全球fabricatory能力。因此,在世界3.0一个例子表明,试图使“本地”,”西装还结束了8级%的部件采购的非本地和幅度更节省成本的订单。

      Local and low-depth are distinct of course, but correlated. In general, I think making self-sustaining communities of smaller than global size, but comparable standards of living (i.e., not back to stone age) require rethinking entire lifestyle models. Why would you want a “suit” anyway in a small/local environment without the huge impersonal institutions that gave rise to things like suits?

  3. 爱它...地址我挂优雅与UPS Hofstede的模型。这是一个零值评论,但我想你可以使用一个空洞的,“谢谢!”,每过一段时间。

  4. 当你面对更高fabricatory深度比你习惯了,好像魔术

    这有一个奇怪的环我,我不知道确切原因。我说,这在某种意义上说,工业工程师,基础设施朝圣者,和/或机械 - “蓝领” - 在我心中有一个更大的推理深度,当涉及到fabricatory深度的“升值”。我想,我的人文批判,放置在你的条件,至少围绕着一个事实,即一些教授说,有一个“在台农场。”致力于他们已经培养有什么想法,因为你看到很多人不知道或照顾“他们是在”。

    I think the odd ring I get from this post revolves around the fact in academic terms, there is never the exactly, “right” tool for the “job.” Usually it is a matter of degrees and at times it may be many many degrees off.

    如果你面对它时没有发生过那么多的技术“改变”,当谈到日常生活,凡俗到。措辞另一种方式的蓝领工作,世界并没有发生太大的变化随着时间的推移,现在的汽车都没有“”现在很多不同的,那么他们是那么。机械原理保持不变。

    这一切都导致了现代工业社会的赞赏,因为它代表今天也不是没有可能的目标导向的社团将永远不可能。

    我不知道在哪里扳手会窝在图表,但因为它是一个简单的工具本身它的目的是严格上具有更大的fabricatory深度工具进行维护,可能是有趣的,使用它作为一个案例研究。那么这是什么意思?是嵌套附带(固有)概念的工具?

    如果他们是我不知道这可能有什么影响的模型作为一个整体。查询线路很容易退化为一个“什么是椅子?”主题。我想,这里的大多数读者都足够聪明,我们不必关于担心。我的观点是,蓝领工,那么据我了解这个岗位,是“魔术师”的模式:他们维护的机器,操作机器,修理机器,生产出的产品与机器,然后推动这些产品推向市场,并在这个意义上,他们可能不会遭受的令人眩晕的效果等较城市中居住的人可能相同种类和数量。

    There’s less “magic” for these folks and perhaps that’s why such folks are famously “rough around the edges.” Sometimes good is good enough…

    So yeah, I’m not sure if this line of thought has any use… but there it is….

    • 亚历克斯Ragus says

      机械师和工程师相较于“魔术师”似乎危险的我,因为我们一个魔术师的刻板印象是一个人有很多隐性的知识。

      但正如你指出,其实在我们的社会什么样的工程师是赞赏整个高原多么复杂和相互依存的是 - 他们的专业多么渺小是在对事物的计划。

      在这个意义上,它可能是更准确的呼叫目标导向的社团魔术师。令人不安的是,蓝领工人,包括策划工程师,真的不控制魔法,他们只维护它,让它茁壮成长。

      • 嗯...,真的很要紧谁是或不是隐喻魔法师了:“本身的过程”或谁物理颁布过程?这是非常狭隘的区别;然而,我不同意在这个意义上,“定向社团的目标”本身不能在其真正意义上的,可在瞬间实现的推广。这是一个历史的结构。

        通过将负担工人本身你允许:本地,具体的,每时每刻的情绪,时刻条件。而在现实蓝领做工本身是目标导向的社团之外。Venkant自己探索了一些工艺,行业协会等的其他渠道和他们对这个博客的历史贡献。(就像他对德鲁克的石匠的故事评论)

        In all honestly my perception is that Venkants has a dismal view of modern craftsmanship. An economist’s view as it were, and that what drew me into the blog in the first place.

        This discussion is an example the sort of ill-defined turn that metaphorical calculus can take if the parties lack relative inferential depth to others applying those same metaphors. (it may be even worse given the sort of inferential-nightmare-triangle we seem caught in: or at least that I feel I am in).

        我想我开始明白先前Venkant意思时,他说,我是把他太当回事。我没能在时间来推断它是这样,但我想我现在明白了。

  5. Hmm… a new version of Actors Network Theory.

    I wonder if each author who goes towards “fundamental sociology” will create one sooner or later which fits him or her intuition but doesn’t get advanced beyond some point. This may be a symptom for the peculiar fact that “actor” and “agency” are not well defined ( anything and nothing ) and that an “actor calculus” will produce artifacts, which do not represent anything which has a place in a realist sociology. In turn ANTs become descriptive jargon for symbolic machines which don’t work.

    承认自己的ANT处于非常早期的阶段是公平的,但不知何故,我有直觉,这几乎是它的最后阶段。但是,这可能是一厢情愿的想法并没有对系统/那一转的思维你的即兴风格融入了特立独行,有自己的学校和学生等活动颇有心得,这将是一个可悲的下降框架内的车程。否则,这可能是写一本书,这是十余个系列博客文章的只是压力?

    • I tend not to be interested in frameworks per se, only in the useful/surprising/interesting conclusions they lead to. Where possibly I usually throw away the scaffolding later, unless they provide unavoidable vocabulary or end up being surprising/interesting in their own right.

      所以如果这个框架或不会打扰我implicit conceptualization of agency is very limited, so long as it gets me somewhere interesting. And yes, book projects require more scaffolding than blog posts. I had the same experience with Tempo, where there was a lot of discarded scaffolding.

  6. 嗨Venkat,

    有趣的东西按照往常一样,谢谢。我最近碰到此位跑从费曼并认为这可能对你的“信息论”查询的一些影响。见下文。

    On a related note, I’m wondering how “computation” as both metaphor and as a biological “reality”, fit into your ideas?

    “它一直困扰我的是,根据我们的理解法律
    他们在今天,它需要计算机无限多
    logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny
    a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can
    all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an
    infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tin piece of space/
    时间怎么办?所以,我经常做的假设
    ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that
    到底机械将揭晓,法律将轮到
    简单,像其所有表观复杂棋盘“。
    Richard Feynman in The Character of Physical Law

    最好,
    J.P

  7. 其中一个这样的地理空间模型的问题,适用于文化是影响文化可以对模型。

    我的一个在我如何看待这样的事情主要来源是已故的爱德华·T·霍尔。霍尔是在新墨西哥大学的人类学家,做的比较文化研究。其中之一,他和他的研究伙伴,乔治Trager,发现的一件事是,他们必须创造文化的综合理论,正确地描述和分类他们为了进行有意义的比较是比较。

    Hall’s theory is described in his books _The Silent Language_, _The Hidden Dimension,_ _Beyond Culture,_ and _The Dance of Time._ His model is rooted in biology, and his concept is that culture is communication. The critical bit is that most of culture operates on an unconscious level, and is handled by reflex. As an example, consider “personal space”. I live in North America, and in my culture, the appropriate social distance between people who are not family or close friends is about 3′, and assuming space to do so exists, people will arrange themselves to maintain that distance. No one ever explicitly tells you “Stand three feet away from strangers/casual acquaintances”. You learn it starting in infancy watching the behavior of the adults around you. By the time you’re an adult, it’s reflex and you aren’t even consciously aware you’re doing it. Take someone from my culture and drop them down in the Mediterranean, where proper social distance may be half that, and watch the fun.

    也看到大厅的“低语境”概念和“高context” cultures.

    I’d be curious to see how Hall’s theories affect the sort of geospatial culture mapping you’re working on.
    _____
    丹尼斯

  8. >Low-energy societies are also low-abstraction societies overall.

    India contributed zero to the field of mathematics.

    ;-)