The Bigger They are

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Sunday, January 1. 2012

The Harder They Fall.

It has been a long standing theory of mine, starting back in the late '90s, that the more complex systems become, the easier they are to break. The complexity creates conditions in which a minor glitch in one system can create havoc in other associated systems all without human interaction. This theory also applies to society as a whole as far as I'm concerned meaning that the more rules, regulations, laws and policies are enacted, the ability to circumvent them becomes easier and easier.

Some other much smarter folks than I am agree.

Posted by Capt. Tom Francis in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 12:23 | Comments (15) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

100% in agreement.

I'm a big fan of simplicity and transparency. The program "Boids" is a classic example of how simple things work best.

#1 Bulldog on 2012-01-01 12:48 (Reply)

I'm not exactly sure that "Boids" is a terrific example of simplicity. The problem with "Boids" is that the individual has to interact with other individuals based on proximity rules and positive/negative feedback to create balance. While this seems ordered in creating the flocking and directional behavior, the reality is that the whole construct is dancing on the tip of a pin - the pin being disorder and chaos.

I'm not at all confident that if Reynolds allowed his simulation to expand beyond the original number of "Boids" that the system would remain rational and ordered. I have a suspicion that if he introduced a randomized introduction of new Boids to the total while allowing some to randomly die off that the system would stay intact.

I do take your point though and it is a good one. Simple systems or simple rules are always the best.

#1.1 Tom Francis on 2012-01-01 21:02 (Reply)

It makes some things simpler though. When we're all criminals there is always cause for arrest.

#2 chuck on 2012-01-01 13:29 (Reply)

& I see even the MSM (in this case MSNBC) noticed we're starting out 2012 with 40,000 new laws going in to effect. Welcome to our new tomorrow -where anything not specifically ordered is forbidden!

#3 Jim in Alaska (Link) on 2012-01-01 14:48 (Reply)

Does anyone beyond the raft of 20-year-old interns ever draft, not to mention READ, this c--p?

#3.1 jma on 2012-01-01 18:30 (Reply)

Of course not - the laws, policies and regulations are written by teams of English majors working for lobbyist firms who run them by staff attorneys to create the legalese and then are presented to the sponsoring legislator. The interns are only there to run interference for the lobbying firms. :>)

#3.1.1 Tom Francis on 2012-01-01 21:17 (Reply)

Even linear systems can exhibit unexpected behavior, so the scary part is that no real world system is linear. Furthermore, complex systems are based on the assumption that almost all the existing subsystems that the designer knows about are stable and well-behaved. The simple model to me is the upside down pyramid. It doesn't take much to change the balance of things in this simple model.

#4 Hrothgar on 2012-01-01 15:32 (Reply)

Another good point. Linear (or binary for that matter) systems can also be complex as they can operate in series or parallel or series/parallel. These are simple concepts, but they can be come very complicated once a load is placed on the system because as soon as you introduce something that doesn't just go on and off, you enter quantum land and chaos rules time and space in that continuum.

#4.1 Tom Francis on 2012-01-01 21:09 (Reply)

Complexity is not inversely correlated with robustness.
Take Homo sapiens (please).
I can think of no single item more complex than the human body, yet it is self-repairing, within limitations, and even self-replicating.
Can't say that about a crystal vase.

#5 PacRim Jim (Link) on 2012-01-01 16:51 (Reply)

Complexity is not inversely correlated with robustness.

Yeppers just as redundancy does not equate with robustness. Once you begin to add redundant or co-equal systems that can be switched in or operate in parallel, you've already created the conditions for failure - by definition, any redundant system has to be identical to the on-line system therefore it will have the same flaws or hidden defects.

#5.1 Tom Francis on 2012-01-01 21:15 (Reply)

A good example of this, as good lawyers know, is that every word in a statute creates two loopholes. The longer the statute, the more loopholes.

The clauses to plug the loopholes create more loopholes, and so ad infinitum to ObamaCare.

#6 Fred Z on 2012-01-01 20:02 (Reply)

With physical systems, resiliency is often dependent on redundancy. Human communication, for example, often repeats to make a point and supplements with gesture and expression. Add in memory, drive to narrative, and understanding of context that each human brings to an exchange, and we see that simultaneous overlap is powerful. Each of these systems is often capable of communicating a great deal with out the others. Words can be merely written; mime can tell stories; hints can activate probable narratives.

Much of programming is intentional redundancy.

We tend to increase our risk precipitously, not when we act on no information, but when we do not notice that the information is not re-supported. Prices are usually the result of multiple mechanisms in the economy acting at once. But when a price is being driven by very few variables we may not notice that, and assume it is as solid a bit of information as the others.

#7 Assistant VIllage Idiot (Link) on 2012-01-01 21:24 (Reply)

I'm going to pretend that I understood what you just wrote. Seriously, I mean no disrespect - none what so ever - but that was, well I don't know what it was, but I didn't understand it.

Admittedly I'm not the brightest bulb in the box.

#7.1 Tom Francis on 2012-01-02 08:47 (Reply)

You are probably right.

Complex systems, such as the human body, or a Walmart distribution center, often need redundancy to survive. Wouldn't six fingers be enough? Why must we have ten? Hell, you can do 90% of stuff with only one hand - the other one is useless. That isn't even counting all the things you can hold temporarily in your teeth, or the crook of your arm. Our bodies have enormous redundancy.

That's why they keep working when things go wrong. We can adjust, because wehave all this stuff that looks inefficient at first glance.

#7.1.1 Assistant VIllage Idiot (Link) on 2012-01-02 08:53 (Reply)

Well why didn't you say that in the first place? :>)

Ok - I get it now. Good point.

#7.1.1.1 Tom Francis on 2012-01-02 15:21 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Sunday, January 1. 2012

The Bigger They are