Call for a new notation

Cover Page

Uploaded June 19, 2011

Call for a New Notation

Author: Jeffrey G. Long ([email protected])

Date: June 30, 1993

Forum: Talk presented at the World Future Society Seventh General Assembly, sponsored by the World Future Society.

Contents

Page 1: Proposal and Bio

Pages 3‐22: Slides intermixed with text for presentation

License

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial

3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative

Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

Submitted for the World Future Society

Seventh General Assembly June 1993


Jeffrey G. Long

133-1/2 11th Street, S.E. Washington, DC 20003

(202) 547-0268 This 20-minute presentation will be followed by a 10-minute audience question-and-answer period. The presentation will discuss the nature of notation in general, and revolutionary notations in particular, through analysis of the progress of three major notational systems: the switch from pictograms to phonograms to alphabetic notation the switch from tallies to Roman numerals to Arabic numerals the switch from neumatic musical notation to staff musical notation From this historical data the presentation will offer several hypotheses regarding the nature of notational systems and their evolution in general, including: the distinction between notational evolution and revolution the nature of notation revolution: "ontological invention" the nature of the "complexity barrier" that eventually forces creation of

new notations necessary and sufficient characteristics for a new notation. Key conclusions of the talk will include the following: notational systems do not merely represent certain abstractions, they

invent them; notational systems are intellectual toolsets that society creates to empower it in dealing with increasingly complex entities

we declare the existence of letter, number, note, and money as a result

of notational revolutions that are really intellectual revolutions with broad social consequences.

our society must develop a revolutionary new notational system,

probably focused on representing complex "rules", if it is ever to

comprehend and control complex systems such as medicine, economics, ecology, and big business.

Key questions the listener might consider in advance include: what do I think of the importance of notation? in what sense do letters, numbers, musical notes, and dollars "exist"? does society already have all the notations it needs for science, or might

new ones be necessary?

Brief Biography: Jeffrey G. Long

Jeff Long graduated with an honors A.B. degree in psychology from U.C. Berkeley in 1973, after 1 year. While writing his honors thesis on neural networks he concluded that there was no adequate analytical tool available to ever understand complex systems such as the brain. In 1975 Jeff founded the Institute for Advanced Systems Research, a non-profit organization. Unable to secure adequate funding, he worked for several large firms as a software systems designer, ending up here in Washington DC with Booz, Allen & Hamilton, consulting for the Air Force and Department of Energy. In 1980 Jeff started a for-profit corporation, called Intellinomics Corporation, to pursue complex systems research. He is now winding up that business in order to spend full time on research and writing here in Washington at the Library of Congress. Jeff has been working for a number of years on a book describing the history and philosophy of ten major notational systems; proposing a philosophy of notational technology; describing his proposed new notation for representing the thousands of complex rules of complex systems; and on applying that notation to ten different types of complex system. His work can be summed up in his motto, "The notation is the limitation".

letter: 133-1/2 11th Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20003 e-mail: [email protected]

voice: (202) 547-0268


Creating the Future through New Ways of Seeing

Jeffrey G. Long

voice: (202) 547-0268 e-mail: [email protected]

letter: POB 15577, Washington, DC 20003-0577

Presented to the World Futue Society

Seventh General Assembly June 30, 1993

World Future Society Congress [30 June 1993]


Page 4 of 22

Slide 1: Cover Page I appreciate this chance to share some ideas with you. I've been interested for 20 years now in developing a new way to understand complex systems, because I think mathematics and our other primary notational systems have severe fundamental limitations in what they can represent. I've concluded from my work to date that the NOTATION we use is the limitation on our ability to understand the world around us. This evening I hope to demonstrate WHY I believe that, through two examples that contrast notational EVOLUTION with notational REVOLUTION. I would then like to sketch a new way of looking at complex systems, and a new notation I've been working on. I'm not saying that this is THE RIGHT approach, but it is ONE approach. I understand that most people think notation is irrelevant. Looking at the dictionary definition, it's easy to see why they feel this way. ONE dictionary defines notation as "The use of a system of signs or symbols to represent words, phrases, numbers, quantities, etc." Notation is thus mere ABBREVIATION; key concepts exist OUTSIDE the notation, in LANGUAGE. I hope to persuade you to consider the possibility that notation is very different than language, and that it can express concepts that are INEFFABLE in common language. The notation is the limitation. This is work-in-progress, not final conclusions. I still have a long way to go. If want to talk more, please contact me as shown on the slide.



Page 5 of 22

written word:spoken word:

MAN

(Ideogram)

(Phonogram)

"M - A - N"

New Ontological Invention: Letters



Page 6 of 22

Slide 2: Letters The things that are in the "real world" are shown without boxes, while the ONTOLOGICAL INVENTIONS (i.e. NOTATIONS) are in rounded-edge boxes. We could spend a lot of time debating dates, but the dates are not as important as the precedence sequence 1. In writing, there's something in the "real world" that we want to represent, such as this man. 2. First generation was PICTOGRAMS that represented by ANALOGY (circa 3400 BC). 3. These evolved to be able to represent ideas and actions through the use of IDEOGRAMS (where ideas are communicated through clever combinations of symbols) and PHONOGRAMS (where concepts are hinted at by symbols that represent something that evokes a particular sound) (circa 2800 BC). 4. This worked pretty well in ancient society, but eventually they hit the COMPLEXITY BARRIER: several thousand symbols are needed to convey the concepts of even an ancient culture. 5. Continuing on that path of adding new symbols or simplifying existing symbols would have been fruitless: you can imagine what a Shakespeare play might be like if every symbol was subject to personal interpretation. Further, the printing press, originally invented by the Chinese long before the western world had it, was useless when there were thousands of symbols to deal with and low print volumes were required. 6. The Revolution occurred when someone noticed that there were a limited number of SOUNDS we make in human speech, and they designed SYMBOLS to represent those SOUNDS (first alphabet, circa 1500 BC). 7. With this new approach, and after the invention of vowels by the Greeks (circa 776 BC), we were able to represent the >50,000 words known by the average adult with only 26 letters.



Page 7 of 22

8. Thus the SCOPE of what could be represented was greatly increased, while the NUMBER of SYMBOLS greatly decreased. This is a classic notational revolution. 9. But it required that we create a new entity in the world: LETTERS. WRITING is a notational SYSTEM built upon LETTERS as NOTATIONS, and it defines a number of RULES regarding the proper use of this notation. 10. As the result of this ontological invention, society was able to create a collective memory that superseded the fragile memory of the oral tradition that preceded it. This was, literally, the beginning of "history".



Page 8 of 22

Twenty

Dollars

Pay to the order of:

companionship

food

Salt

ATTRIBUTES:

(value)

$20

New Ontological Invention: Dollars



Page 9 of 22

Slide 3: Dollars 1. This is a little different slide, showing the PRE-NOTATIONAL situation at the top. If you want to trade your duck for my cat, we may agree on a BARTER arrangement. A duck and a cat are roughly commensurable, partly because they're both animals and they both have some real and obvious values to somebody; so it is fairly easy to make that trade. But as you offer things that are less and less commensurable, it gets harder to make a trade. 2. The first generation of notation was COMMODITY MONEY that represented a certain REAL (i.e. practical) VALUE by ANALOGY. Examples include cattle and salt. 3. Like all notations, commodity money evolved over time. 4. But eventually it hit a COMPLEXITY BARRIER: these items were awkward to divide and/or measure, perishable, and inconvenient logistically. Sometimes one had to trade with a third person to make a deal happen (explain). Commerce was still very difficult, and the more complex an economy got the more problems were caused by commodity money. 5. Continuing on that path would have been fruitless: we can hardly imagine what the New York Stock Exchange or our economy in general might be like if every transaction was paid for by weighing salt or some other physical commodity. 6. The Revolution occurred when someone noticed that VALUE could exist INDEPENDENTLY of any object, by COMMON CONSENT. They set out to designate arbitrary objects as commonly accepted SYMBOLS of DECLARED VALUE. The intrinsic PRACTICAL VALUE of these objects was nowhere near their DECLARED VALUE, and was often basically zero. Examples include cowrie seashells, wampum beads, gold and silver. The only criteria for symbols was that the objects be: A. known to many people B. recognizable in value



Page 10 of 22

C. scarce D. portable (at least not too bulky) E. physically stable over time (preferably imperishable) F. easily sub-divided. 7. Eventually, precious metals won this contest. But those tokens of value were subject to dilution, counterfeiting, unfair scales, and other problems, so they evolved into other equally value-less forms. TRANSFERRABLE RECEIPTS were used in the Middle Ages, and then FIDUCIARY MONEY was used in the West circa 1676. From 1825 through 1875 in the United States there was a major political debate between the "paper money men" and the "gold bugs" about how abstract value should be represented in America. America ended up being the birthplace of widespread use of paper money in the Western world. This paper money was backed by gold, an equally worthless commodity. Eventually we ended up with FIAT MONEY (circa 1934), not based on the gold standard, to enable governments to print money as desired, independently of their actual gold reserves. and thereby control aspects of their economy through monetary policy. 8. Thus VALUE-IN-THE-ABSTRACT came to be REAL, and could be traded like a real duck for my cat. Since in principle anything could be traded for this symbol, the BREADTH of what could be readily traded was greatly increased, and this EASE OF USE encouraged more commercial activity. Once governments understood the power of this notation, they regulated it and then completely took it over so THEY could control its abuse. 9. Again we created a new entity in the world: DOLLARS (or their equivalent). ACCOUNTING, the notational SYSTEM built upon DOLLARS as notations, provides rules for the proper use of this notation. 10. As the result of this ontological invention, society was able to divide work more readily into specialized categories, for there was now a common



Page 11 of 22

denominator that could be used in any commercial activity. This was the beginning of "commerce" as we know it today.



Page 12 of 22

o Represent a New Ontological Invention o Far Richer Capacity to Represent or Express Ideas o Reasonable Ease of Learning & Use (years okay) o Better Utilize a New Medium: Computers o Permit a More Powerful Calculus Desiderata for a New Notation



Page 13 of 22

Slide 4: Desiderata for a New Notation If we were to try to deliberately create a notational revolution -- let's say to issue an RFP -- what criteria might we use? 1. The FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT of a revolutionary notation is that it represent something different and more BASIC about the subject domain than the existing notations it is designed to supersede. 2. Obviously the new notation must represent a superset, not a subset, of the target domain of the existing notation, 3. There has to be reasonable ease of learning and using the notation, although a lengthy "literacy" curve would not be at all unreasonable. 4. We might also want to re-examine the media available to us, to see whether a new notation could utilize a new medium. 5. Finally, if it is a domain where computations would be useful (such as complex systems theory), we will want a greatly extended computational ability as the result of a new notation.



Page 14 of 22

Behavior

Rules

Ruleforms

Surface Structure

Middle Structure

Deep Structure

Animation Procedures

& Structure

The World as Process



Page 15 of 22

Slide 5: The World as Process So how can we look differently at the world, and in particular at COMPLEX SYSTEMS? I suggest that what we see is simply the appearance of systems... In other words, we can define the world as a PROCESS having different ontological LEVELS: First, there is the structure, appearance and behavior of a system, that we will call SURFACE STRUCTURE. Next, the essence of this complexity can be captured by RULES having an IF...THEN format. Defining phenomena in a compressed manner via RULES is the principal activity of science, developed by the Greeks. This activity will result in tens of thousands of seemingly varied rules, called the MIDDLE STRUCTURE. These can be grouped by format into ruleFORMS, the collection of which is called DEEP STRUCTURE. Thus the DEEP STRUCTURE of any system will be a set of 10-50 ruleforms will represent any particular complex system. By representing these ruleforms as TABLES in a relational database, and the rules as RECORDS in the tables, we can implement complex system models in a very concise manner.



Page 16 of 22

Complex

System Complex Behavior

Rules Ruleforms

d = 1/2 g t

& Structures

2

New Ontological Invention: Ruleforms



Page 17 of 22

Slide 6: New Ontological Invention: Ruleforms 1. So let's look at our basic model of notational evolution. Again, there's something in the "real world" that we want to represent, namely a complex system (e.g. an ecosystem). The pre-notational situation was that we could describe the structure, behavior, inputs or outputs of a complex system in NATURAL LANGUAGE. 2. The first generation of notation was graphical and quantitative, e.g. E-R DIAGRAMS or MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS. These represented by ANALOGY the OUTPUT of the system. 3. These evolved, but eventually hit a COMPLEXITY BARRIER: somehow, pressure/temperature functions or economic elasticity curves have failed to describe the behavior of weather and economies. I suggest that this is because they focus upon and represent the wrong ASPECT of systems, primarily their BEHAVIOR. They are DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE, in nature. 5. Continuing on that path, we could enhance our ability to describe system outputs and behaviors by getting bigger computers and more facts. But some theorists have postulated that many systems are UNKNOWABLE due to either: o sensitive dependency on initial conditions, o the existence of free will in systems involving humans, or o intrinsic quantum randomness at the lowest levels of physical systems. 6. If there is to be a revolution in this area, it will require that we represent some OTHER aspect of complex systems than their input, processes and output; namely RULES. Currently we can represent "rules" as: o procedural computer code o symbolic logic statements o English statements (e.g. law) o mathematical formulas. But that still leaves us with too much complexity to really understand the systems we are dealing with. Simply representing RULES is not ENOUGH.



Page 18 of 22

To abstract to a higher level, we must focus on RULES, but notice that there are COMMONALITIES in the FORMAT of the rules in complex systems. Thus many instances of rules may have the same form but different content. Each such "set of all rules having the same form" can be represented by a simple relational table. Thus the next level of abstraction is the idea of RULEFORMS, wherein all rules having the same FORMAT are grouped together. 7. With this focus on ruleFORMS rather than mere RULES, we may be able to represent seemingly complex systems, with tens of thousands of rules, using just a few basic relational database tables. These will be implemented on that wonderful new N-dimensional MEDIUM called the COMPUTER. 8. Thus we can SPECIFY rules better (more explicitly and rigorously), and also perform sophisticated COMPUTATIONS easily, using a common ruleform notation for any kind of complex system. 9. But this will require that we deal with a new entity in the world: RULEFORMS. ULTRA-STRUCTURE is a notational SYSTEM built upon RULEFORMS, and it defines a number of conventions regarding the proper use of this ontological invention.



Page 19 of 22

The perceived structures and behaviors of any system are artifacts of "animation procedures" executing "operating rules." These operating rules can be grouped into a small number of classes whose format is described by "ruleforms". While the operating rules of a system may change over time, the ruleforms are constant. Ruleforms anticipate all logically possible operating rules that might apply to a subject domain and constitute the deep structure of that domain.

The Ruleform Hypothesis



Page 20 of 22

Slide 7: The Ruleform Hypothesis Another way to state this is what I call the RULEFORM HYPOTHESIS: "The perceived STRUCTURES and BEHAVIOR of any system are ARTIFACTS of 'animation procedures' executing 'operating rules'. These operating rules can be grouped into a small number of classes whose format is described by 'ruleforms'. While the operating RULES of a system may CHANGE over time, the RULEFORMS are CONSTANT. Ruleforms anticipate all logically possible operating rules that might apply to the system and constitute the deep structure of a system."



Page 21 of 22

Summary 1. There are limitations to what any notation can express, based on what

domain that notation was designed to represent and consequently what abstractions it embodies. This is true even for the "Language of Science", mathematics. A key factor in the evolution of society is the introduction and fulfillment of revolutionary new notational systems such as the calendar, writing, mathematics, and money.

2 Our society currently faces a complexity barrier in dealing with

complex systems such as medicine, ecology, economics, and public policy. But complexity is in the eye of the beholder and can be eliminated by an appropriate notation based upon a new ontological invention. Larger computers, more data, and more money will not overcome this complexity barrier. We need a new way of seeing complexity.

3. We need to develop at least one wholly new notation, using distinctions

far beyond fractals or other fundamentally quantitative constructs. Ultra-Structure is one example of a new notation (but not the only one or even the best one) which would permit a new science to study rules per se, compressing them into simple common forms to permit a deeper understanding of the ontology of various complex systems domains.

For further information or discussion, please contact Jeff Long at (202) 547-0268,

or via Internet: [email protected].



Page 22 of 22

Slide 8: Summary 1. Limitations of notations. 2. Complexity barrier exists now. 3. Need a new notation for rules OR some other basic new abstraction.

Thank you for your attention. My card is available up here on the table. Are there any questions or comments?

Technology

Call for a new notation