Bringing the House Down

Although I am not a mathematical expert, I have advocated the chaotic interpretation of history for a long time. This does not mean that events are random, or the future unpredictable, at least not locally; even if, on the grand scale, everything is just a matter of probability.¹ It does mean that, at bottom, in the long run, things don't happen in a "regular," "cause and effect" way, even if they appear to do so in the short run. The further consequence is that people betting on this or that outcome are more likely to win or lose than a simple calculation of probability suggests.

In a chaotic Universe, things can sustain a pattern for long periods of time. Then, suddenly, the pattern can change. How long the new pattern holds is entirely unpredictable. Here are some well known examples of chaotic behavior:
 

Upon reflection, lots of things will be seen to have happened in a sudden change of state. First and usually this, then that; but we prefer not to see it that way most of the time. It is so much more reassuring to get into the car, turn the key, and drive to the store on streets that do not shake, rattle and roll. Despite that desire, at least here in California, one has to reckon the possibility of getting trapped on the Bay Bridge during an Earthquake, or falling into a sudden sinkhole depression (a recent one in Arizona was 400 feet deep). Most people simply do not want to consider the possibility of sudden and dramatic change. They prefer to lead their regular lives based on habit. For some, it is emotionally overwhelming to consider and re-consider their decisions over and over, just because some "unlikely" event will befall them someday.

Resistance to change takes many forms. People don't like their government, but won't rebel. They don't like their relatives, but won't get a divorce or lock the door to them. People are unhappy with their jobs, but won't seek another. They are unhappy with their clothes, their weight, their car and lots of other things, but do little or nothing about it. What is done is almost always temporizing, chipping away at the margins, and at the least possible cost. In general, people do not take hold of a problem, manage it, or fix it unless they are pushed, pulled or forced into doing so.

Some cancers are classical stories of resistance to change. Despite increasing knowledge of the causes of cancer, and how to avoid it, most people do very little about it. Changing around one's life to suit the prophesies of the medics is hard; placating them or doing nothing is much easier and less expensive. When, eventually the cancer does come, it strikes and kills rapidly. For those (about 2/3 of the population) who never get a cancer, indolence was justified. They can blame the cancer victims for their stupidity, their genes or whatever else might have "caused" the disease. All of these are rationalizations for doing little or nothing in the face of chaos. Because most people, most of the time, do nothing about the chaotic nature of life, they are subjected to whatever happens. From the top to the bottom of human societies, especially in "capitalist" countries, it is 'que sera, sera' even if it seems doing otherwise would be a better policy.

Houses of Cards

"If it's not broke, don't fix it," is a frequent and seemingly convincing American argument against change, especially something expensive. This saying is most often applied to proposals that would cost the taxpayer something in order to do something for the poor, the disabled , the under-employed and those less well-off; in other words, the other guy. It is amazing how often variants of this argument succeed, but it does succeed most of the time. Most people are selfish most of the time, and refuse to be good Samaritans if any opportunity to avoid service (without loss of face) is offered. The "not broke" argument allows those susceptible to "get off the hook," because nothing is required to be done.

In recent times, many people, perhaps a majority, are influenced by that sort of argument. A half century ago, most people were less inclined to be selfish; there was a greater sense of community. In part, that was the result of the great calamities of the first half of the 20^th century: two World Wars and the Great Depression. In those desperate times, it paid to have friends and family, to be part of a community. Being part of something was often the best chance one had to survive in the face of implacable enemies. In those days, if something was not broke, but might break, people were inclined to fix it. Then current stories were the example of the boy who prevented the Dutch dikes from breaking, and "a stitch in time saves nine." Those were different times, a different culture. Now they are gone.

In the face of overwhelming forces, it doesn't matter much whether you are individualistic or socialistic; all gets washed away. But, in other cases, does it matter which attitude one holds? At first glance, it would seem community orientation is stronger than the individual. After all, it takes less to overcome the resistance of a single individual than a group 'standing as one man.' Common experience suggests that cities (such as San Francisco) that allow greater freedom of personal expression are more likely to change with the times than places with a cohesive, rigid culture. In those places, it is often argued that "bending with the wind" is a stronger resistance to the forces of change than stolid refusal. "Bending" implies that what is bent is rooted somewhere, in something, which proves to be a stronger "glue" than a specific shape or structure of things. So, preliminary arguments are inconclusive, or maybe we are analyzing the wrong sorts of things.

Like buildings, communities can appear to be resilient, even if made of weak members. So, in rough times, the community might survive even though some individuals are destroyed. This is the strength of an ant colony. On the other hand, a sufficiently strong attack on the community will ruin it and most of its members. Even in case of a strong attack, some individuals usually do survive. If it could be established that there is some individual characteristic which enhanced survival, that would encourage the idea that individual strength is more important than community cohesiveness. However, all the disaster stories I have heard seem to indicate that survivors were just lucky. I don't know of any common characters that improved survivability.

We may ask: is a "community" of selfish individuals more survivable? This is indeed a question, because it is not clear whether a collection of anti-social or uninvolved individuals is a "community." It is not clear what it is that survives and persists if the "community" amounts to a bunch of creatures who happen to be in the neighborhood. The principle of survival in such a place is 'every man for himself,' which appears to deny the very idea of community. Nonetheless, we can ask the question, whether a more or less randomly aggregated collection of individuals has greater survivability than an affinity community?

Related to the previous question, is there some way in which exceptional individuals make communities more viable? It could be that individualism improves the survivability of communities on account of individuals with unusual abilities. This is the argument that excellence should be promoted, because it makes a community stronger. This is probably true, if the excellent individuals are also willing participants and supporters of the community. On the other hand, if they are not - for example, if they live in walled compounds totally separated from the rest of the community - does it make any difference whether such individuals live where they do?

A priori, I don't know the answers to any of these questions. I also don't believe the matter has been thoroughly and conclusively investigated. A priori, I would think the answer is circumstantial. I would distrust definitive, absolutist answers.

But, for the moment, the question that interests me is whether survival is even possible in the face of non-deterministic (unpredictable) forces. It almost doesn't matter what you do when confronted with an asteroid impact, or large scale nuclear war. But, are lesser insults survivable?
 

Bringing It On

Lately, the United States seems to have leaders determined to tempt fate. They think themselves stronger and more able than the challenges they invite. But are they?

In this article, I am raising questions, not answering them. The critical question is this: in a chaotic world, how can we predict the events for which we desire to be prepared? Prediction assumes events have some logical structure. In the Newtonian world, predictability is built-in by "cause and effect." But, that world disappeared with Einstein and relativity. It was utterly dispersed with the discovery of Quantum Mechanics (QM) (to which even Einstein objected).

Nonetheless, QM is the loophole, because out of chaos, disorder and mere probability has come sufficient order to create our modern, electronic world. How do we transfer that sort of knowledge to human affairs?

1. Benoit Mandelbrot has published a new book, "The (mis)Behavior of Markets," which explains this in a chapter or two. I will be reviewing the book in the near future.