KISS EVERYTHING

/about

if knowledge were simpler, we would all be wiser

Hello SOS,

I’ve spent much of the last six weeks iterating over an email to Michael Wood, the author of several articles and papers on the subject of “the simplification of knowledge”. I’ll refer to the articles and papers as “simpler & wiser (et al)”.

“Simpler & wiser (et al)”:-

  • “If knowledge were simpler, we would all be wiser”
  • “Maths Should Not Be Hard: The Case for Making Academic Knowledge More Palatable”
  • (Plus other papers and articles on the same theme of “simplification”)

I first contacted Michael at the end of last year (shortly before contacting yourselves!), to suggest an overlap between “the simplicity sought by simpler & wiser (et al)” and my work re-examining (what we think we know of) our universe through the “lens of simplicity” honed by "(software) engineering’s KISS (et al)".

“KISS (et al)”:-

  • Engineering’s pursuit of “simplicity”, including the “KISS principle”, plus almost every other software-engineering guiding principle and best-practice
  • As well as science’s “Occam’s Razor”

Michael was interested to find out more (super!). And so I got to work…

…Six weeks (of wrangling, reconsolidation and restarts) later, I finally responded (albeit “part 1”…), to introduce and illuminate a “fairly straight-forward” premise of “the simplification of scientific-knowledge”, through the lens of “engineering’s KISS (et al)”.

Now, I have no awareness (nor expectations) of Michael’s time and availability — (and after all, it’s taken me six weeks to respond to Michael!) — so I thought while I wait, I might float some of those same ideas to SOS, to get some idea of response, understanding, feedback, etc.

And here we are.

“the hook”

if knowledge were simpler, we would all be wiser

—did you consider, or imagine, just how much wiser?

Ok.

Let’s dive in…

overview

“if knowledge were simpler, we would all be wiser”

Toward “the simplification of scientific-knowledge”.

engineering (all kinds) optimises for simplicity; science doesn’t (in the same way), but it ought to

objectives

For context, some words from “simpler & wiser”:-

"—how could we get hard evidence that simplifications are beneficial?"

…continuing: “What was needed was research on simplifying knowledge which might, or might not, have confirmed my hypotheses: ideally a trial to see if a simpler version of something really was better than the standard version, along the lines of clinical trials to evaluate new medical treatments. But the problems of organising such a trial are obviously massive”

— Michael Wood

And some words from my first email:-

… I would like to know if you are interested in discussing some (fairly) concrete examples of what “simplified knowledge” might (must?) look like; and some actionable steps to realisation?

My objectives then, are to provide:-

  1. practical evidence of (the need for, character and benefits of) “simplification”, and;
  2. practical examples of what “simplified knowledge” might (must?) look like
    1. including “approach and methods” necessary for analysis/ interpretation of practical examples, and;
  3. actionable steps (to the realisation of “simplified knowledge”, for science)
    1. including discussion and steps on “what must be undone” for science to understand simplification, in addition to “what must be done” to transform scientific-knowledge (discussed next)

I realised that part of the challenge, was that there were two distinct conversations :

  1. a discussion of the “simplicity” of both “simpler & wiser (et al)” & “KISS (et al)”, in a way which makes their equivalence unambiguous (and quite uncontroversial)
    1. including practical evidence, and subsequently, a discussion of the “bigger picture” of “simplicity, as applied to, (or within), the context of knowledge of our universe” — and there are some truly remarkable surprises! (see “primary headline” below)
  2. the second conversation is perhaps more sensitive, in that it involves tackling fundamental differences, incompatibilities and obstacles, between science & engineering, and therefore between “the simplicity sought by simpler & wiser (et al)” & science itself — (the scientific endeavour writ large, including academia)

And an the last point: my problem is that i’m not sure to what extent I must cover the second, for the first to be understood — which is further complicated by the fact that I don’t know “to what degree I must convince a scientist, that the insights & opinions of engineering/ an engineer, are relevant to science!”.

Ok.

1. practical evidence

engineering (all kinds) optimises for simplicity; science doesn’t (in the same way), but it ought to

Headlines (to be expanded below, see: basic premise):-

  1. the simplicity you are looking for in “simpler & wiser (et al)” and that of “engineering’s KISS (et al)” are “effectively the same thing”; and as such, i submit “all of engineering” as practical evidence of the need, character and benefits of simplification
  2. further, i suggest that software’s “clean-code” is a direct application of “KISS (et al)” to the conceptual-domains of code (as opposed to other physical-domains of engineering), which (when generalised) relate directly to the conceptual-domains of scientific-knowledge; and as such, i submit “all of software” as practical evidence of the need, character and benefits of simplification to conceptual domains

A summarised preview of actionable steps:-

  1. isolate principles of “conceptual cleanliness” from software’s “clean-code”
  2. iterate principles toward compatability-with/ applicability-to scientific-knowledge
  3. apply generalised principles from clean-code, to transform legacy scientific-knowledge to “clean-knowledge”

“clean-code” -> “cleanliness” -> “clean-knowledge”

In this way:-

“if knowledge were clean, we all be wiser”

(obligatory:) —did you consider, or imagine, just how much wiser? :)

(see “primary headline” below for an answer)

2. practical examples

we cannot understand the complexities of our universe, until we understand the simplicities of our universe; (and crucially), how the two relate

Fundamentally, the basis for all practical examples will be software’s “clean-code”:-

  1. well, “because it exists”, and;
  2. because software development/engineering is an established, and diverse, industry to reference

I’ll augment this “established evidence” with insights and outcomes from my own work, which explores an understanding of our universe through the same lens of “simplicity” as engineering’s KISS (et al) — technically a generalised version of the simplicity of engineering’s KISS (et al), that is to say “simpler”; because that’s what i’ve been doing for the last several years, and there is much to say, and because I believe it’s what you’re looking for…

3. actionable steps

engineering (all kinds) optimises for simplicity; science doesn’t (in the same way), but it ought to

Once you’ve read the next section “basic premise”, you’ll understand why I suggested “a solid understanding of differences between science & engineering is foundational to your aspirations of simplified scientific-knowledge”.

For now, (as mentioned in the overview), it’s difficult to talk about “actionable steps” toward “the simplification of scientific-knowledge” (the simplicity conversation) without knowing more about your understanding of differences, incompatibilities and obstacles (perceptive and methodological) between science & engineering, and therefore between “the simplicity sought by simpler & wiser (et al)” and “science itself”.

For some detail (i believe it to be the case that):-

  1. the simplification you aspire to in “simpler & wiser” (et al) is incompatible (with some aspects of) modern science and academia
  2. at present, science (the scientific endeavour writ large) is characterised by distinction, and divisive false dichotomies, and the mutually-irreconcilable paradigms and artificial phenomenal-boundaries, of isolated scientific disciplines, are the inevitable (yet entirely avoidable) result
  3. in nature, nothing exists alone — rachel carson, silent spring; and in a relative universe, no phenomenon is absolutely (completely) different from all others
  4. a shift in emphasis to “what is common throughout (across and between) universal phenomena” (and therefore presently isolated disciplinary accounts), and subsequent realignment of “what is distinct” relative to “what is common”, would better represent the (observable/ measurable/ testable/ predictable) structural and behavioural characteristics of our relative universe
  5. really, learning how to perceive “commonality first” as opposed to “distinction first” is a pre-requisite to understanding “the simplicity sought by simpler & wiser (et al)”

the reason will become explicit in “primary headline”, below

conversations

headlines for some of these sections will be included below

Outline for the conversation on “simplicity”:-

  • alignment
  • kinds
  • simplification analogies/ synonymities
    • cleanliness
    • accessibility
    • complexity
    • commonality {generality; analogy/ synonymity; metaphor; etc}
    • objectivity
    • applicability
    • unity
  • thought experiment
  • the side-effect
  • the shape of knowledge

Outline for the conversation on “science & engineering”:-

  • context
  • relativity
  • ideal
  • credibility
  • artefacts
  • staging/ environments
  • authority
  • objective objectivity
  • reason
  • review: principals, principles, approach, and methods

room elephants

if science were business, the analysts would be called in, resistive old-guard fired, and the entire enterprise reconciled and restructured, from product to organisational hierarchy, to address blatant, pervasive, almost pathological incoherence, across and within factionally isolated self-aggrandising departments of artificially distinct concern

—why (the actual fuck) does some non-scientist (and “it’s always engineers”, right?!) think they have anything valuable to say about science, that scientists and “all of science throughout history” might have missed?

I’ll refer to the above reference to business-analysts — who are external-parties employed precisely because they lack sentimentality and biases of those who know the legacy landscape and history intimately.

Certainly, being on the other side of “a stranger, who can’t possibly know, telling them that the shit they thought was crucial to the business, just ain’t” is emotional — (and of course, I expect similar response and resistance here!) — regardless, however emotional and difficult to comprehend “from inside the legacy system”, the point that I aim to make, is that this particular dimension to “what i’m doing here” is not without very established precedent (however unfamiliar to science).

Often, it is easier to find new and novel ways of doing a thing, before we have learned, (let alone conditioned!), to some other established way.

“normies hate this one neat trick”

Science really doesn’t help itself in this regard though. We can talk about “the iron law of institutions” and other academic discussions of academic blindness, but it all boils down to the way a system, institution interprets and responds to someone saying “fuck that, i’ll find a better way!”.

basic premise

engineering (all kinds) optimises for simplicity; science doesn’t (in the same way), but it ought to

overview

provide:-

  1. practical evidence of (the need for, character and benefits of) “simplification”, and;
  2. practical examples of what “simplified knowledge” might (must?) look like, and;
  3. actionable steps (to the realisation of “simplified knowledge”, for science)

I suggest that the “simplification” aspired to by simpler & wiser (et al), and the “simplicity” of engineering’s KISS (et al) are fundamentally the same thing (that is to say, “generally equivalent”); and therefore, practical evidence (of the need, character and benefits of simplification, as sought by simpler & wiser et al) already exists — firmly established in the principles, practices, and results, of engineering (of all kinds: physical and conceptual), the world over.

Further, to make explicit the relevance of KISS (et al) to the conceptual domain of scientific-knowledge (and ideas, more generally):-

  1. I submit software-engineering’s “clean-code” as a special-case of “the simplicity of KISS (et al)” applied to the conceptual domain of code, and subsequently;
  2. I suggest “clean-code” as a model/ template to approach “the simplification of scientific-knowledge”, such that we might describe the objective of “simplified scientific-knowledge” to be “clean-knowledge” — (and i’ll go on to describe several mappings between “code” and “knowledge”, clean or otherwise), and finally;
  3. as a “source of evidence”, of the need, character and benefits of simplification (implicit KISS et all), to ideas, as well as stuff — (to conceptual domains, as well as physical domains) — I submit the entire history of software development/ engineering

Summary of actionable steps :

  1. isolate principles of “conceptual cleanliness” from software’s “clean-code”
  2. iterate principles toward compatability-with/ applicability-to scientific-knowledge
  3. apply generalised principles from clean-code, to transform legacy scientific-knowledge to “clean-knowledge”

(such that “if knowledge were clean, we all be wiser”)

basic premise review

engineering (all kinds) optimises for simplicity, though science doesn’t (in the same way), but it ought to

  1. engineering (all kinds) optimises for simplicity
  2. science doesn’t (in the same way)
  3. — but it ought to

Questions:-

  1. —why does engineering (all kinds) optimise for simplicity?
  2. —why doesn’t science optimise for simplicity in the same way?
  3. —ought science optimise for simplicity for the same reasons, and in the same way, as engineering?
  4. —how ought we interpret (and understand) this difference between science and engineering?
  5. —is the case that science understands engineering’s pursuit of simplicity, but dismisses it, as perhaps irrelevant?
  6. —is it possible that science does not understand engineering’s pursuit of simplicity?
    1. —why has engineerings pursuit of simplicity not piqued the curiosity of sufficient scientists, over say “the history of science”?
    2. "—is engineering considered too different to science by scientists?"
  7. —is it possible that science cannot understand engineering’s pursuit of simplicity without a fundamental revision to the approach and methods of science itself?
  8. —has science failed to sufficiently study engineering (and itself)?
  9. —does science need new tools for thought?
  10. —what are we all missing?
  11. —what’s the big picture here?

“if knowledge were clean, we would all be wiser”

Questions:-

  1. —what does “clean” mean here?
  2. —in practical terms, how might we make knowledge “clean”?
  3. —what might “clean-knowledge” look like?
  4. —how does cleanliness relate to simplicity?

preview

of working, headlines, outlines and outcomes, etc

This is a very scrappy collection of “headlines” / summarisation, etc — which I hope is enough to prompt further questions and conversation, by sufficiently illuminating “the simplification of scientific-knowledge”.

But, so very draft… Apologies…

primary headline

if knowledge were simpler, we would all be wiser

—did you consider, or imagine, just how much wiser?

Engineering (all kinds) optimises for simplicity; science doesn’t (in the same way), but it ought to.

—why ought science optimise for simplicity in the way engineering does?

If science were to “simplify scientific-knowledge” in the way engineering (physical and conceptual) — “simplifies the arbitrary-complexities of form, by recomposition (of arbitrary-complexity) from simpler standardised-parts, recursive” — the “almost unintentional side-effect” of that process, would be the unification of science.

To be absolutely explicit:-

the side-effect of “simplification by deduplication of commonality”, is unification

note that “unification by deduplication of commonality” is consistent with:-

  • Kuhn’s common measures, and;
  • Hofstadter’s set-of-all-essences (Essences and Surfaces);
  • the same “redundantly duplicated entities” warned against by both Occam’s Razor (“entities must not be duplicated beyond necessity”) and software’s DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself), and;
  • etc
  • #tbc

secondary headline

*notes on:-

  • illuminating “the universal relative-general-domain”
  • “domain-translation”*

if science were to “simplify scientific-knowledge” in the way engineering (physical and conceptual) — “simplifies the arbitrary-complexities of form, by recomposition (of arbitrary-complexity) from simpler standardised-parts, recursive” — the “almost unintentional side-effect” of that process, would be the unification of science

Deduplication of characteristics common between phenomena, requires first recognising that “sets of characteristics common between phenomena, are distinct phenomena in their own right”.

Consider software:-

to simplify poorly-formed code project, software engineers refactor the project code by recomposing arbitrary-complexity from simpler standardised parts — standard library, and modules (surfaces), and common-design pattern and conventions (essences)

note that abstract essences permeate throughout every surface: through primitives and intermediates of libraries and modules; to classes and program as a whole

In this way, we might think of the standardised-parts (of libraries and modules) as the general-domain from which all special-domain classes (including the program as a whole) are composed: technically, each class “captures” a subset of the general-domain, which might therefore appear different, from the perspective of each class; and in this way the general-domain is most often invoked relative to some special/ derived context.

We can simplify the notion of “recomposing arbitrary-complexity from simpler standardised parts”, as domain-translation: specifically translating from a special-domain to a general-domain.

The important note, is that post-translation:-

  • The general-domain (of commonality) is common between all special-domains
  • The general-domain offers a “single, coherent general-perspective, of all special-domain composition/ form”

Consider this within the context of our primary headline: the side-effect of “simplification by deduplication of commonality”, is unification.

—how applicable is this premise?

Consider “accessibility”.

software code is more accessible than science-writing, because software standardises across domains — software has a “well-defined general-domain” which helps standardise the composition of special-domain concepts

Therefore consider “the simplification of scientific-knowledge” in the context of “accessibility”, in terms of “domain-translation”.

To make scientific-knowledge accessible, we translate concepts from each special-domain, to an implicit general-domain, such that special-concepts are recomposed from more general-concepts, then re-described in corresponding terms.

for brevity, assume: a sufficiently well-defined (and pre-synchronised) general-domain, of concepts and corresponding terms; whereby primitives are relative geometric measures concepts and terms (including relative proximity, continuity, discontinuity, of characteristics etc), sufficient to form/ describe relative structures, and variations (behaviour), and correspondence of participation with peers

In this way:— the side-effect of “simplification by domain-translation, to a well-formed general-domain”, is unification.

note: consider the intellectual development of humans, learning relative geometric notions before objects (implicit: “with which to compose objects”), and on…

Additional technical points the relative general-domain :

  • All (effectively all) universal phenomena are composed & composable (simplicity and commonality included) — there’s a whole conversation on a universal model of composition, and what I refer to as “stack analysis”, (which is a way of making coherent sense of supervenience, entailment, physicalism, etc)
  • I think we might eventually consider all “well-formed simplicity” to be equivalent to composed commonalities (in some manner), at which point the unification (of scientific-knowledge) by deduplication of commonality, would equate not just to the “simplification”, but “radical simplification”, of present-day scientific-knowledge (albeit for corresponding territory)
  • Which I think is a point worth pondering: it means, unambiguously, that — our universe is simpler than is possible to understand, by the mutually-irreconcilable accounts, of isolated scientific-disciplines, of an ununified scientific endeavour
  • Consider: there will likely be commonality within what is distinct

Between phenomena, constituents which are distinct are composed; therefore will likely contain common constituents (to some degree) — in which case, all that is distinct, of remainders, might be compositional signatures.

Ironically, from “things being perceived as distinct”, “having been identified by distinct characteristics”, we end up with “things are almost entirely commonality”, “with a residual-set of more-is-different’s more’s difference”, of compositional (structural) signatures.

  • For now, this premise is not dependent upon proving “all simplicity is analogous to commonality (/ composition thereof)”
    • Already at this point, “the set-of-all generalities, analogies and metaphors” (even held abstractly, without detail) demonstrates the presence of “a (relative) general phenomenal domain of universal commonalities”, of sufficient phenomenal plurality and diversity as to be considered representative of all universal phenomena — (including: the set-of-all essences (essences & surfaces); the set-of-all common measurables (Kuhn’s common measures); etc)
    • And if we think in terms of “the way Kuhn’s paradigms render a phenomenally-scoped puzzle-space”, this “relative general phenomenal domain” of all universal commonality then, renders a “universal puzzle-space” — by virtue of the universe necessarily being coherent/ consistent at the scope of all, a puzzle-space for which remaining phenomena must necessarily align — essentially a “fractal-(tiling/ graph/ etc) problem”

a brief introduction to “cleanliness”

if knowledge were clean, we would all be wiser

“clean-code” -> “cleanliness” -> “clean-knowledge”

—but what is meant by “cleanliness” here?

a collection of musings to introduce “cleanliness”

Cleaning, is an act of situational reorganisation, including :

  1. qualitative classification/ identification
  2. the (relative/ structural) rearrangement of constituent elements (or groupings thereof), plus;
  3. the removal of undesired (or “circumstantially redundant”) elements

For our needs, “cleanliness” is synonymous with both “simplicity” and “accessibility” — however, “cleanliness” cuts through common semantic (or pedantic!) objections to that of “simplified knowledge” as being permissive or suggestive of “over simplification”, and of accessible knowledge as “dumbing down”.

In this way “clean-knowledge” is a less objectionable premise than “simplified or accessible knowledge”.

“Clean” limits the scope of (permitted or implied) simplifications, by introducing a qualitative dimension to the process — (to distinguish kinds, both desired and undesired; good - bad, right - wrong, etc).

Successful cleaning does not destroy, nor render unfit for purpose.

After all, “cleanliness, is a mark of professionals”.

Engineers know that when we simplify well *(when the expressions of our intent are clean)* :

  1. we better understand the fundamental nature of our problem, but also;
  2. when engineered things are clean, they just work better

and i think this point is worth repeating to make explicit:-

the primary reason that engineers pursue simplicity, is not some self-indulgent human sense of aesthetic — engineers pursue simplicity, because the universe, our objective reality (within which engineered-things must work and survive), demands it

Cleanliness, is the language through which we disambiguate the intent of our expressions of form: a language understood by humans, and the universe, alike.

cleanliness, is the language through which we disambiguate the intent of our expressions of form: a language understood by humans — and the universe — alike

cleanliness review

if knowledge were clean, we would all be wiser

—why does engineering (all kinds: physical and conceptual; stuff and ideas) optimise for simplicity (of the kind which intersects cleanliness)?

the universe, our objective reality, demands it!

Remembering: 1) engineering (all kinds) optimises for simplicity; 2) science doesn’t (in the same way); 3) but it ought to.

And that.

When engineers simplify well (when the expressions of our intent are clean): 1) we better understand the fundamental nature of our problem, but also; 2) when engineered things are clean, they just work better…

Then we might then surmise, that:-

If scientists learn to simplify well (when the expressed intent of representation are clean): 1) scientists will better understand the fundamental nature of our universe, because; 2) when scientific-knowledge is clean, it will work better.

when scientific-knowledge is clean, it will work better

mathematical intuition

Whether or not “simplicity <==> (deduplication of commonality) ==> unity” is intuitive, likely depends upon whether or not a person perceives “the unification of scientific-knowledge” in terms of “set-theoretic union” or “set-theoretic intersect” — which is to say “the union or the intersect of presently isolated sets-of-artefacts of isolated scientific disciplines”.

For a basic mathematical expression of this premise, consider :

$B \cap C = A \;,\; B \cup C = D \colon\; |A \;+\; B \setminus A \;+\; C \setminus A| < |D|$

In this way $[\; A + B \setminus A + C \setminus A \;]$, is the “deduplicated form” of $D$

note: this difference between $D$ and $[ \; A + B \setminus A + C \setminus A \;]$, is the same “redundantly duplicated complexity” which both Occam’s Razor (“entities must not be duplicated beyond necessity”) and software’s DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) warn against

  • Consider a set-theoretic intersect between any two paradigms as representing respective common measures: whether or not any are formally defined, respective territory will always contain common characteristics
  • Consider the general-perspective/ relative general domain of a unified understanding as mapping out across the set of all phenomenal intersect (measures/ characteristics)
  • #tbc

visual intuition

but the universe is complex dammit!

—if something is complex AND simple, why not just do stuff the simple way?!

Here’s a funky picture of a funky premise: “the pattern”.

#fig “the pattern” name

headline digest

we cannot understand the complexities of our universe, until we understand the simplicities of our universe; (and crucially), how the two relate

The pursuit of “simplicity” does not mean “the abolishment of all complexity”. The question is not whether our universe is complex OR simple:— our universe is complex AND simple.

if our universe is complex AND simple:-

—why do we spend so much effort, time and resources, trying to do things the complicated way?

—ought we not pay more attention to doing things the simple way?

general headlines

  1. the “simplicity sought by simpler & wiser (et al)” is generally equivalent to “the simplicity of engineering’s KISS (et al)”
  2. engineering (all kinds) optimises for simplicity; science doesn’t (in the same way), but it ought to
  3. we cannot understand the complexities of our universe, until we understand the simplicities of our universe; (and crucially), how the two relate
  4. one common obstacle to productive discussion about “the simplification of scientific-knowledge” is that ““simplification”” is often misunderstood (or misrepresented) as suggestive or permissive of “over-simplification”, sometimes to absurdity
  5. it’s important to remember that: “the excesses of imagined complexities” are often as absurd as “the shortcomings of over-simplifications” — and without doubt, we suffer the consequences of both
  6. there are several ways to address this kind of misunderstanding. some are purely mathematical (for another time); and others can be described more accessibly
  7. in the case of both the “simplicity sought by simpler & wiser (et al)” and “the simplicity of engineering’s KISS (et al)”, not all simplicity is equal — indeed, for both science & engineering, not all complexity is equal, either
  8. in both cases, what we want is “the Right Kind of Simplicity”, and “the Right Kind of Complexity”
  9. one curious thing about “simplicity”, is that as this “characteristic of form” trends from “arbitrary simplicity” towards “the Right Kind of Simplicity”, it becomes “increasingly equivalent” to “the Right Kind of Complexity”, plus several other characteristic-classifications
  10. “simplicity” (“the Right Kind of Simplicity”) is analogous with/ maps to: accessibility; cleanliness (of clean-code); commonality {generality; analogical & metaphorical; essence/ surface; etc}; complexity (“the Right Kind of Complexity”); applicability; unity
  11. simplicity doesn’t replace complexity: “the Right Kind of Complexity” is composed of “the Right Kind of Simplicity”; the mapping between simplicity and complexity is many-to-many, but the outcome is that simplicities (“the Right Kind of”) are common between arbitrarily-plural complexities (“the Right Kind of”)
  12. consider: software engineers recompose software complexity from the primitives and intermediate forms of “standard libraries and modules” (“surfaces”), but also “common design patterns” and other standardised abstractions (“essences”) — (which are common throughout all scales and scopes of code (surface) implementation)
  13. the effect of recomposing all special-domain concepts from the standardised-parts (essences and surfaces) of a “relative general-domain”, is a single coherent “general perspective, of all complexity/ form”
  14. given that simplicity & complexity, special & general, are all relative terms, we can generalise analytic and synthetic processes of {simplicity; accessibility; cleanliness; commonality} to “domain translation”
  15. in this way: software code is more accessible than science writing because software has a well-defined general-domain, to standardise special-domain composition; and science does not (but ought to)

simplicity

  1. the simplicity sought in simpler & wiser (et al) already exists — and is firmly established in the principles and practices of engineering (of all kinds), the world over
  2. engineering (all kinds) optimises for simplicity; science doesn’t (in the same way), but it ought to

cleanliness

  1. software’s “clean-code” is an ideal model for “the simplifications of engineering” applied to conceptual domains; and therefore for the “simplification of scientific-knowledge” for science
  2. cleanliness, is the language through which we disambiguate the intent of our expressions of form: a language understood by humans, and the universe, alike
  3. engineers know that when we simplify well — when the expressions of our intent are clean — we better understand the fundamental nature of our problem, but also that — clean things just work better

science & engineering

  1. the simplification you aspire to in “simpler & wiser” (et al) is incompatible (with some aspects of) modern science and academia
  2. to understand our universe, we must shift our focus from “what is different between universal phenomena”, to “what is common throughout (across and between) universal phenomena” — at which point, our understanding of the universe will be transformed in a way which is difficult to imagine for those entrenched by the artificial boundaries and contrived dichotomies of isolated scientific-disciplines
  3. to understand the simplicities of our universe, we must learn to think across and between (traditionally isolated) conceptual/ phenomenal domains
  4. thinking across and between conceptual-domains is antithetical to modern science and most scientists: but a simple fact remains — the universe works in only finite ways, and all special-domains merely recontextualise the same set of essential forms (structures and respective behaviours) of an implicit universal general-domain
  5. we need a new science, which emphasises phenomenal relation and commonality over abrupt and-or absolute phenomenal distinctions: our universe is not complex OR simple — it is complex AND simple

conventional wisdom

  1. conventional wisdom holds that we look to science for knowledge of our universe, whereas; we look to engineering to invent, make and maintain stuff – (structures, mechanisms, machines, etc)
  2. whatever the ideal of science, the present implementation of science does not maintain the same conversational relationship with our universe as engineering must, and as a consequence, science has lost it’s way; consumed by the whim and ego of peers, and the eternal allure of complexity and satiation thereof
  3. perhaps rather than worry about whether it’s science or engineering which is right, the better question might be: —what does the universe say? and on that, the universe is unambiguous

credibility

  1. the difference between “credibility in practice” of engineered-things working “for real”, and the “credibility in principle” of peer-review, is that in the case of the former, the universe awards credibility, when and only when the expressions of our intent are appropriately simplified and clean
  2. peers on the other hand, tend to award complexity

measures

  1. in our universe, there is a consequence to the presence of all form (territory and map): all form is liability, only some form is asset; therefore quantity is analogous with liability, and quality corresponds with asset
  2. one straight-forward explanation for the present state of science, is that science mistakenly equates quantity with quality; and in many ways, humankind is a reflection of that fundamental category error
  3. we ought not measure scientific progress by the addition of new lines of literature any more that measuring software progress by lines of code added, or plane building by weight added

unification

  1. whether or not a person imagines the grand unification of the sciences to be “intractably complex”, or otherwise, likely depends upon whether they imagine the process of unification to involve “keeping what we have, and joining it all together”, or “keeping only what reconciles with a unified perspective, accordingly rearranged and re-presented, and discarding the rest”
  2. one of these approaches will radically simplify our understanding of the universe; and the former is impossible, because “distinction is an unfit basis for a single coherent understanding of a relative universe”
  3. unification of the sciences must appear inconceivable to those entrenched in the divisiveness of the present day scientific endeavour
  4. —just how straight-forward might unification of the sciences be?

Consider:-

  • The side-effect of “simplification by deduplication of commonality”, is unification
  • The side-effect of “simplification by domain-translation, to a well-formed general-domain”, is unification
  • The side-effect of simplifying scientific-knowledge (to clean-knowledge), would be to disambiguate the intent of our expressions of form via the unified language of our universe; and correspondingly unify scientific-knowledge (and therefore science, the entire scientific endeavour, itself)

universal form

  1. in our universe, all complexity bows to simplicity, which is why when it comes to understanding our universe, simplicity keeps complexity honest
  2. in our universe not all form is stable
  3. the evolution of all form is a story told in the material recontextualisation of the same finite set of essential stable forms, a set made more finite by given causal compositional constraints of environmental materials, and the natural evolutionary order of stability — by substrate and scaffold: no abrupt form #rewrite
  4. there is a characteristic shape to the evolution of all form (and therefore complexity) in our universe: a shape mirrored throughout every practical domain of concern (of our species; albeit with the exception of scientific output)
  5. all complexity is composed of simpler forms
  6. #type/rethink

We cannot understand the complexities of our universe, until we understand the simplicities of our universe; (and crucially), how the two relate.

conversations

Outline for the conversation on “simplicity”:-

  • alignment
  • kinds
  • simplification analogies/ synonymities
    • cleanliness
    • accessibility
    • complexity
    • commonality
    • objectivity
    • applicability
    • unity
  • thought experiment
  • the side-effect
  • the shape of knowledge

Outline for the conversation on “science & engineering”:-

  • context
  • relativity
  • ideal
  • credibility
  • artefacts
  • staging/ environments
  • authority
  • objective objectivity
  • reason
  • review: principals, principles, approach, and methods

final

update: i stopped with this in this very rough state, to at-least begin this conversation, (without another weekend slipping by); and i’ll update this section over the next week or so

I appreciate that you being a lecturer, this preview is all quite sloppy, as if “rushing a homework project right before the lesson!” — apologies again.

To squeeze all working and conclusions into this short pass has been a challenge, and the “plurality of passes” has left my head spinning somewhat…

I have no doubt that i’ve misspoken/ expressed ambiguously/ etc. Please prompt for me to correct/ qualify, as necessary.

And i’m sure that some of the concepts i’ve opted to drop, will turn out to have been more useful for you than those i’ve kept. Which is to say, this is a vary partial and fragmented slice…

I expect (and hope!) for many questions.

Very pleased to begin this conversation, and very much looking forward any conversations which follow.