It would be nice if there was more discussion of real world applications. For example, a computer model used to simulate a power law network is called the sand pile model. Sand drips onto the pile at a constant rate, and avalanches are measured that are small and frequent, or rare and huge. The power law tells us that rare and huge is not that rare, and if the small avalanches are inhibited, then the rare and huge will be even more massive. The most important real world example is wars. Many global interventions such as nuclear weapons, alliances, etc. inhibit small avalanches (wars). However, if there is an input process that causes the avalanches, then these inhibitions will result in a massive avalanche at some point (nuclear war) that is not random & may be predictable. For example, the interval between the last two periods of world wars if WWI / WWII is lumped into one big avalanche is 109 years onset to onset with an intensity increase of a factor of 20. So 109 years after 1914 is 2023. That means that the world could or should be close to nuclear war with an estimated casualty level of 20x WWI / WWII = 2 billion casualties. That is bad. The DD Clock is the closest setting to MN in history and the sand pile model confirms the setting of the Clock. So what can be done about it? One author did a simulation where he reduced the input process into the sand pile by 40% and found that huge avalanches disappeared from the simulation. In the real world that means no more world wars. Also, in the real world, a system where a variable accumulates leading to catastrophe has been defused to the point where catastrophe is extremely rare by reducing the input process and by spreading a small number of "antidotes" or best practices that seem to have a powerful stabilizing effect. Thus, the long & short of this theoretical discussion is that in the real world, nuclear war is not far off, but could be prevented if what has worked in other social systems of reducing the input process, and spreading a small number of antidotes is applied. This means that the strategy of simple deterrence is not enough and will only lead to a bigger war that could exceed 2b casualties if a defusing strategy is not employed. Thus, we need a multi-disciplinary dialogue on the subject that brings together not just people that understand the math, but people that have insights on human behavior from diplomats, mental health types, & experts on external influences on behavior and those that study real world complex systems.
I really enjoyed your comment, and even took a screenshot. I would be very interested in the paper you mentioned regarding the effects of reducing input process by 40%. If you are curious about even larger time intervals, you should look into Joseph Tainter's work. While his work isn't mathematical, he came to a lot of related conclusions when viewing the collapse of human societies throughout history. On a human level regarding the increasing consequences of war, social decay, etc., it seems human's constant pursuit for comfort simply stacks the required complexity until it's too expensive to protect and maintain, resulting in its collapse (reorganization) into simpler parts that have naturally reduced input processes. If humans learned to only operate along their regional trade routes (in effect, reducing their input processes), I agree things would be very improved. However, seeing how humans simply keep expanding their control of trade routes since arguably humans left Africa, it seems this will continue until humans ruin their ability to do so ever again. It's even impressive to consider how the Ottoman Empire were one of the first well known examples of expanding trade routes and early forms of colonization, only for the Europeans to accelerate this, then for America accelerating this even further. Maybe BRICs wises up and doesn't do what the Ottomans, Europeans, and Americans are doing? Hard to say considering China is massively expanding the manufacturing capacity of the Global South in ways that will dwarf what the West has done throughout its history.
@@somjrgebn Thx. The article is in a box in VA & I am in Denver haha. I remember the author was Gregory Brunk. It might have been "Why Societies Collapse" in 2022. Or it could be one he wrote in 2000. The 2022 article discusses several possible input processes & I may review it myself again. I recall Brunk is concerned w/ environmental causes, but he goes into a lot of issues. My own concern is issues specifically related to violence as issues like abuse were associated w/ Hitler & Stalin. However, forest fires follow power laws and the myriad of plants all dry to become fuel. So there could be more than one input process.
@@lloydf1879 Interesting, I haven't heard of him yet. It seems many minds are slowly converging on this topic. Have you read some of Nassim Taleb's work? He goes over more practical aspects of risk related to system complexity.
It would be nice if there was more discussion of real world applications. For example, a computer model used to simulate a power law network is called the sand pile model. Sand drips onto the pile at a constant rate, and avalanches are measured that are small and frequent, or rare and huge. The power law tells us that rare and huge is not that rare, and if the small avalanches are inhibited, then the rare and huge will be even more massive.
The most important real world example is wars. Many global interventions such as nuclear weapons, alliances, etc. inhibit small avalanches (wars). However, if there is an input process that causes the avalanches, then these inhibitions will result in a massive avalanche at some point (nuclear war) that is not random & may be predictable.
For example, the interval between the last two periods of world wars if WWI / WWII is lumped into one big avalanche is 109 years onset to onset with an intensity increase of a factor of 20. So 109 years after 1914 is 2023. That means that the world could or should be close to nuclear war with an estimated casualty level of 20x WWI / WWII = 2 billion casualties. That is bad. The DD Clock is the closest setting to MN in history and the sand pile model confirms the setting of the Clock.
So what can be done about it? One author did a simulation where he reduced the input process into the sand pile by 40% and found that huge avalanches disappeared from the simulation. In the real world that means no more world wars.
Also, in the real world, a system where a variable accumulates leading to catastrophe has been defused to the point where catastrophe is extremely rare by reducing the input process and by spreading a small number of "antidotes" or best practices that seem to have a powerful stabilizing effect.
Thus, the long & short of this theoretical discussion is that in the real world, nuclear war is not far off, but could be prevented if what has worked in other social systems of reducing the input process, and spreading a small number of antidotes is applied. This means that the strategy of simple deterrence is not enough and will only lead to a bigger war that could exceed 2b casualties if a defusing strategy is not employed.
Thus, we need a multi-disciplinary dialogue on the subject that brings together not just people that understand the math, but people that have insights on human behavior from diplomats, mental health types, & experts on external influences on behavior and those that study real world complex systems.
I really enjoyed your comment, and even took a screenshot. I would be very interested in the paper you mentioned regarding the effects of reducing input process by 40%. If you are curious about even larger time intervals, you should look into Joseph Tainter's work. While his work isn't mathematical, he came to a lot of related conclusions when viewing the collapse of human societies throughout history.
On a human level regarding the increasing consequences of war, social decay, etc., it seems human's constant pursuit for comfort simply stacks the required complexity until it's too expensive to protect and maintain, resulting in its collapse (reorganization) into simpler parts that have naturally reduced input processes.
If humans learned to only operate along their regional trade routes (in effect, reducing their input processes), I agree things would be very improved. However, seeing how humans simply keep expanding their control of trade routes since arguably humans left Africa, it seems this will continue until humans ruin their ability to do so ever again. It's even impressive to consider how the Ottoman Empire were one of the first well known examples of expanding trade routes and early forms of colonization, only for the Europeans to accelerate this, then for America accelerating this even further.
Maybe BRICs wises up and doesn't do what the Ottomans, Europeans, and Americans are doing? Hard to say considering China is massively expanding the manufacturing capacity of the Global South in ways that will dwarf what the West has done throughout its history.
@@somjrgebn Thx. The article is in a box in VA & I am in Denver haha. I remember the author was Gregory Brunk. It might have been "Why Societies Collapse" in 2022. Or it could be one he wrote in 2000. The 2022 article discusses several possible input processes & I may review it myself again.
I recall Brunk is concerned w/ environmental causes, but he goes into a lot of issues. My own concern is issues specifically related to violence as issues like abuse were associated w/ Hitler & Stalin. However, forest fires follow power laws and the myriad of plants all dry to become fuel. So there could be more than one input process.
@@lloydf1879
Interesting, I haven't heard of him yet. It seems many minds are slowly converging on this topic.
Have you read some of Nassim Taleb's work? He goes over more practical aspects of risk related to system complexity.