“These API’s represent a new indirect economy where business is conducted through interconnected services.  Ramji:

“I believe that we’re going through such a surge right now as the early versions of the web – designed for people using browsers – gives way to the next version: using APIs to design the web for people using applications that communicate on their behalf in complex ways to the services that make up the world’s businesses.”

Ramji is planning to do a voice over for his slides. But I think you will get the picture once you go through his deck.

We are just at the beginning of this wave. Ramji puts the issues in perspective to form a context for the importance of API’s and why they so well represent cloud computing and its importance in the shaping of a new economy.”

Excellent slides here: http://networkedblogs.com/3IdTn

No related posts.

Proof: our mind sets out to modify our environment in particular ways (i.e. set goals); then we act in ways consistent with that intention; more often than chance, our environment changes in those intended ways (i.e. goals are achieved).

This is a form of entanglement — spooky action at a distance — between our minds and the environment (which includes other minds), but we usually dismiss this as trivial, not very spooky. On the other hand, we know that quantum entanglement exists and it seems spooky to us because we have no mechanism to explain it.

We also observe that there are quantum effects in the basic architecture of the brain (nanotubules) and wonder if these are somehow the “ghost in the machine” of consciousness. But this could be just a red herring. Perhaps quantum effects matter to consciousness, perhaps they don’t. Still quantum effects are part of the human experience in some sense — and so are biological, chemical, social, psychodynamic, etc. Each of these realms involve entanglement of their own variety. Chemically, there are bonds. Biologically there is autopoiesis and function. Psychodynamically, there is empathy. Socially, there is community. And so on.

In our quest to limit explanations to single realms, perhaps we are ignoring Einstein’s advice about simplifying as much as possible, but no simpler.  What if more than one — maybe even all? — realms (levels) of a system are required to fully explain the phenomena we wonder about….

Related posts:

1. The Process
2. The Conflict Between Complex Systems and Reductionism
3. Teaching Metacognition to 7th Graders

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research

Global Consciousness Project

Related posts:

1. Entanglement

…[Can] we make probability statements about the evolution of the biosphere? No. Consider flipping a coin 10,000 times. It will come up heads about 5,000 times with a binomial distribution. But, critically, note that we knew beforehand all the possible outcomes, all heads, all tails, all 2 to the 10,000 possibilities. Thus we knew what statisticians call “the sample space” of the process, so could construct a probability measure.

Can we construct a probability measure for the evolution of the biosphere into its Adjacent Possible? No. We do not know the sample space!

I won’t belabor the point except to say that I view the increasing irrelevance and danger of statistical reasoning as the essential argument of The Black Swan, the fundamental reason why the global financial crisis occurred, and one of the main things we humans need to understand better if we are going to solve the problems facing the world.

Related posts:

1. The Safety Net

What’s interesting about possibility-space is that tomorrow’s Adjacent Possible depends on the actions and choices we make today; it’s not symmetric and it’s nonlinear.  Certain actions generate more future possibilities than others.  In my experience, those actions tend to be the cooperative ones, ones that produce network effects: financial, social and otherwise.

Due to our evolutionary heritage, having come from a resource-constrained world, we may be predisposed to see the more competitive actions which tend to shrink the Adjacent Possible.  Whether or not this is a bias or an actual state of affairs, much of our thinking is based on scarcity, so we are drawn to actions that become self-limiting.

Here’s how I visualize the Adjacent Possible, and it has profound consequences for how I think and live my own life:

Related posts:

1. Troubling Statistics
2. Coherence
3. The Process

TED Feb 2010 – Live Labs Pivot demo

and the world beyond facebook:

One way to put it, is to say that Live Labs Pivot is “smarter” than a Firefox, but guns don’t shoot people… (unless of course there’s an accident) :)

No related posts.

Now lets assume there is some process for picking out universes from the multiverse.  Since there’s no time in the multiverse, the process has no beginning and no end.  It’s like a computer program, but it’s infinitely complex.  Let’s call it The Process.

If The Process is infinitely complex and has no beginning and no end, what can we know about it?  We know that it picks some universes but not others, which effectively creates an “in group” (all those that are picked) and an “out group” (all those that are not).  Of course, both sets are infinite and still have no structure.  But note that all the universes in one group or the other now stand in relation to one another.  That is, they share the property of “in-ness” or “out-ness”, and between the two groups there’s the relationship of “different”.

The Process further divides these sub-multiverses in unknown ways, and this sorting creates other relationships between universes.  You can visualize a network of universes with the connections representing these relationships.  The network is infinite, and if you consider any subset of the network, it’s also infinite.  But these subnetworks are no longer arbitrary, they are networks themselves and networks have structure.  And since a subnetwork by definition shares the same connection relationships as the original network it is a “sub” of, the subnetwork is structurally similar to the network itself.  That is, the network is self-similar, which in mathematical terms means it’s fractal.  Of course this fractal we are talking about is infinite, and so wherever you start, it’s turtles all the way down, and all the way up.

Notice that the process of identifying subnetworks does something interesting, it creates an asymmetry that wasn’t distinguishable before.  For any network N, if you choose a subnetwork, n, then N “contains” n but not vice versa.  This containment relationship can viewed as a network where the connections are arrows, meaning they have directionality, N –> n.  You may have noticed that we just went from talking about a network of universes to a network of networks (of universes), but that’s okay.  Remember the multiverse is infinitely infinite, and we’re just chatting about some arbitrary aspects of it.  There’s lots of other aspects we could talk about instead, but it’s starting to get interesting here, so let’s continue….

Somewhere in the fractal multiverse network of networks described by The Process there is a subnetwork (actually an infinite number of them) where the structure is like this: each universe is connected to by only one other universe but connects to an infinite number.  Let’s call this structure, Time, and note that there are an infinity of subnetworks of the network which have this Time structure.  Unless stated otherwise, I’ll be talking from now on about networks with Time structure.

Remember though, the multiverse itself has no structure; The Process overlays structure on top of it and thereby allows us to know about things like Time.

Now let’s start using the words network, system, particle, entity, agent and universe interchangeably, so we can say things like “time network”, “temporal system”, “particles over time”, and “A causes B” to refer to roughly the same thing.  I realize that by overloading these terms I’m jacking into (and hopefully hijacking) your intuition about what these words mean, but that’s my intent.  Hopefully you’ll continue playing along by my rules and try not to project what you already know onto this alternative cosmology.

When we use the words network, system, particle, entity and agent, you might wonder whether we are talking about a universe or a multiverse.  The answer is Yes.   Remember, the multiverse is infinitely infinite and self-similar, so in some sense we can say it contains itself.  We have a hard time with infinity so this concept is mind-boggling, but if you follow the logic, hopefully you’ll accept this paradox as true.  So lets just use the word universe from now on and forget about multiverses.  And to not get confused, let’s refer to what we used to think of as the Universe as the known universe instead.  The known universe is where you live (or more precisely where you think you live) along with everyone and everything you know about or can imagine.

The known universe is expanding the more you learn about it.  The known universe is temporal.  And as we know from Einstein, it must therefore also be spatial — remember it’s not space and time but rather the spacetime continuum.  The known universe consists of particles (i.e. matter) and therefore — also thanks to Einstein — it consists of energy.  Time, space, matter and energy here may or may not be totally in sync with our intuitions of them, but just suppose they are the same thing and that our intuition is slightly biased by our particular experiences in life and could use adjustment.

We haven’t really talked explicitly about laws of nature, fundamental constants, invariant equations or even mathematics.  And I kinda jumped the gun when bringing Einstein into the equation (so to speak).  But it’s really hard to follow a line of thought without some sort of logical paradigm, some structure of thought.  In the end it doesn’t really matter what I’m saying, what you’re hearing, or whether any of this is “true”.  I’m just telling you a story, and hopefully it’s amusing enough for you to finish reading.

Originally we talked about The Process, which is infinitely complex and which describes all sorts of possible realities.  The known universe is one of those possibilities, one in which we see structure and patterns, order and complexity all around us.  Somewhere “out there” there may be portions of the multiverse (whoops, I said I wasn’t going to use that term anymore, sorry) where it’s still appears, unstructured and thus unknowable.  But let’s come back to the known universe and the “knowable” universe.

Because of the fact that we are here in the known universe thinking and talking about it, and not in some unknown or unknowable part, the non-random patterns that we see may look to us like universal laws (E=mc^2, the second law of thermodynamics, etc.)  Well, we know that even these laws are not truly universal, they apply to only certain scopes.   For example, “relativistic but not classical or quantum realms”, or “closed systems but not open systems.”  String theorists are looking for universal laws, but so far none have been found.  But let’s just grant them that they will eventually find some (or one).  How would we be able to distinguish between a true Law and just a pattern that is very very persistent over all known scopes?

How about we stop using the word “law” and instead replace it with the word “principle” to suggest that it may really just be a pattern that we see in the known universe.  And as the known universe expands via our increase in knowledge/understanding/awareness, we might find exceptions to the pattern.  After all, that’s what’s happened to every “law” ever considered in the history of science so far, and why should that pattern stop?  (Sorry, my paradox detector just went off, let me reset it….)

Coming back to principles, there’s one that emerged from the last few paragraphs, did you notice it?  Cosmologists call it the Anthropic Principle, which is the notion that the universe appears ordered in the particular way that it does with these nifty laws and constants because of the very cosmic coincidence that we are here observing it!  In other words, we live (and can only live) in the known universe, by definition.  And we wouldn’t be “here” and able to “notice” anything if we were in some unknowable part.  That’s a pretty trippy concept, but one that many physicists take very seriously.  It’s the same kind of argument as for why we haven’t been contacted by aliens yet: there’s a decent chance we are the most advanced intelligence out there and we’ll have to wait for others to catch up so we can communicate.  It’s also the reason that your keys are always in the last place you look.

Remember the Anthropic Principle because it’s really useful.  It has the same logical structure as Darwinian evolution and other “emergent” phenomena.  Is this Generalized Anthropic Principal (GAP) a universal/fundamental one?  Who knows.  Probably not.  We anthropic agents are so self-absorbed.

Another principle that emerges from our cosmology is Coherence.  Because of The Process, birds of a feather flock together.  Actually, The Process defines which birds are of which feather, so this is a tautology, though it’s fun to think of it as “like attracts like”.  But we know that really it’s just co-incidence: the birds exist at the same Time.  Using the analogy of birds, we can ask whether these coincident birds are different birds or the same bird.  But it’s a silly question because the answer is Yes.  Think of quantum coherence, if you like.

Now let’s say we are talking about particles and not birds, and instead of Coherence we’ll say Gravity.  Isn’t it the same thing?  We talk about stars and planets and other astral bodies as if they were coherent entities, but If there were no gravity, would those entities exist?  Or let’s talk about the Cooperation of the cells in your body; without it, would you exist?  We’ve all heard about the “law of attraction” from The Secret, isn’t it the same thing?  You imagine the future you want, and that acts as a beacon guiding you in every decision you make, every micro-decision, every unconscious action until at some point you find yourself living in the future you imagined.  Coherence, cooperation, attraction, unity.  Same thing.

Here’s a secret: there is no Process.  Or if you prefer, The Process is completely random.  Yet that doesn’t change anything I’ve said above.  Think of it this way: in an infinite series of random numbers, all patterns appear eventually, right?  So “somewhere” in the infinite randomness, The Process “produces” the structure I’ve been talking about.  Or maybe the fact that we’re anthropically talking about it produces the structure.  We are The Process.  Or more generally, we humans are part of The Process.  The Process is the universe.

Related posts:

1. Why Falsifiability is Insufficient for Scientific Reasoning
2. Notes from TED
3. Synthesis of Complexity Theory

In thinking about this I am reminded about a duet of innovators who spoke at the Pop!Tech conference last year about scaling.  Both Bunker Roy and Paul Polack have some profound lessons to teach us about scalability.  You will learn these lessons by watching Roy talk about Barefoot College and by watching Polack talk about his Out of Poverty approach (also see BarefootCollege.org and PaulPolack.com).  But despite all of the incredible wisdom to be gleaned from observing how Roy and Polack achieve scale, I’ve been wondering about how their success can be translated to other realms.

Replicators

In creating a general theory of scalability, I think there is a key conceptual anchor from Susan Backmore’s TED talk on the third replicator.  Now, I have to pause here because as simple and great as the universal Darwinism principle is, I know from conversations that many people have a really hard viewing evolution in non-biological systems as anything more than a good metaphor.  It’s hard for most people to see that “true evolution” — the kind that Darwin was talking about — is actually what is happening in these non-biological systems.  I will address this in detail in a later post, but ask that you indulge me for the time being so that we can talk about replicators.

When we talk about scaling sociotechnical systems, really we’re talking about one of two things: either growing the original system to handle “more”, or replicating the original system (or enabling it to replicate itself) with appropriate variation for the new context.  Growth models are the more familiar and comforting to governments and policy makers for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has noticed how scared these types get when faced with systems that scale via replicators.  Formal organizations (corporations, non-profits, governments, anything with a legal structure or formal set of rules) are growers; networks of cooperating agents (open source software, social change movements, revolutionaries, anything that is formed in a grass-roots / bottom-up manner) are replicators.

I am not here to argue that either type of system is dispensable, indeed they are both essential.  I will leave it as an unproven conjecture that we are at a point in history wherein the ecology of sociotechnical systems is dominated by growers that are straining and stretching to the edges of their dynamic range.  Societal edifices are crumbling under their own weight, and are thus vulnerable to subversion by an algal bloom of replicators in their midst.  For those that want the argument and evidence, go read The Chaos Point by the grandfather of complex systems theory, Ervin László.

And I will leave alone in this theory of scalability the entire grower side of the equation.  It’s been systematized and refined since at least the days of Machiavelli;  we know it today as management science.  Instead I want to suggest that there is lacking an entire half of the formalization project for a unified theory of scale, and that’s a formal model for scaling via replication.  The reason this formalism has eluded us for so long is the same reason Darwinian evolution is so hotly contested: it requires a fundamentally different way of thinking than the Western analytic tradition is based on.  That’s not to say that the complex systems paradigm is not scientific, just that the scientific method as it exists today has not yet incorporated the bottom-up, emergent calculus required to be complete.

The first question we must ask is what exactly is being replicated, and only then we can ask how that replication is achieved.  Blackmore names three classes of replicators which I would like to refine by pointing out (as she does) that these are really self-replicators.  In her TED talk she observes that biological self-replicators exist (i.e. what we normally refer to as “life”), that mental self-replicators do indeed exist (though most people don’t take this notion seriously enough yet), and that technological self-replicators are in the process of being born.  If we think about it though, it is easy to see that certain forms of this third replicator already exist: computer viruses, bot nets (e.g. as are used in DDoS attacks), digital agents in artificial life simulations and genetic algorithm systems, and others.  What Blackmore was hinting at with the her more restrictive definition of technological self-replicator is one in which the artifact being replicated has a physical form (as opposed to digital information form).

I must digress here for a moment to point out that it is a red herring to try to neatly circumscribe the system being replicated (the “artifact” or agent) from its environment.  In reality there is no such thing as a true self-replicator; there are always some resources or information that is outside the self-replicator that is required for replication to occur.  Neither the chicken nor the egg can recreate itself.  And if you (rightly) view the chicken/egg system as the thing self-replicating, you only need observe that food is also essential (as are many other things) for replication to occur.  Given this truth in the realm of biology, is it really so far fetched to view digital cameras self-replicating technological agents, that is replicators of the third kind?  Sure they require humans, manufacturing processes and other technology from their environment to replicate, but I’ll reiterate that there are no biological life forms either that are entirely self-replicating.  (This blog post puts an even finer point on it all, if you are still not convinced).

Principles

The scaling brilliance of Bunker Roy and Paul Polack was hard-won, after many years of solving specific problems at the bottom.  It was only after gaining a deep understanding all of the interacting subsystems was it possible for each of them to engineer an overall system that was scalable via replication.  Looking at various attempts to scale sociotechnical systems, both successful and unsuccessful, a pattern starts to emerge of the key principles and dynamics.  Here are a few:

• Counterintuitive: Brilliant solutions are only obvious in retrospect.  Crazy. Crazy. Crazy. Obvious.
• Self-Replicators: It is important to identify the parts of the system that are — or that can be made to be — self-replicating.
• Fecundity: Digital information replicators are more easily replicable than mental constructs (i.e. memes), which are in turn more easily replicable than organizations of humans.
• Mutation: The more fecund the replicator, the easier it is to co-opt for ulterior motives, and the more likely it is that random variation will throw the overall system off course.
• Environment: It is easy to mistakenly believe that a prospective environment is suitable for replication when it’s not.
• Side-effects: With any complex dynamic process there are always side-effects. If ignored, this usually leads to collateral damage, but on the flip side there is usually an opportunity to accomplish other goals and turn side-effects into new benefits.

In thinking about how to engineer a system to bring solar electric installations to rural villages around the world, it is counterintuitive to think that poor, illiterate grandmothers (with no formal education and very little social standing in their village) could learn to be solar engineers.  To further think that they could be taught by illiterate trainers (who don’t speak the same language) is crazy.  Until Bunker Roy proved it was possible.

Microcredit was crazy too, until Muhammad Yunus proved that it wasn’t, and then it was obvious.  So obvious in fact that it became a viral meme and has spread all over the world.  The concept of microcredit is a very fecund self-replicator.  Unfortunately, the practice of microcredit in many places has ignored the nuances of different environmental contexts and unintended side-effects.  Add to that a high mutation rate: the model being tweaked to confer greater benefit to lenders (at the expense of borrowers); the introduction of middlemen who screw up the incentive structure and unwritten social contracts; etc.  The net effect has been that in some areas microcredit has been a net negative to the economy, and especially negative to the borrowers, whom the model was originally designed to help most.

Polack’s franchise model (an indeed all franchise models) are inherently replicators.  They are also good self-replicators because customers and other locals get exposure to the idea of becoming an entrepreneur themselves. And some of them end up as franchisees.  That is replication.  But to move from solving one problem (e.g. clean drinking water) to solving a very different one (e.g. locally available energy), new technologies that are also “radically affordable” have to be created on a regular basis.  And this type of innovation does not self-replicate.  So Polack created an entirely separate institution, the non-profit R&D lab, specifically to tackle the problem of replicating franchises (i.e. going from an electrochlorinator franchise to a solar concentrator franchise).

Applications

With this nascent framework in mind, I’d like to invite you to evaluate some of the social ventures that I encountered at The Feast (and a few of my favorites from Pop!Tech last year) and see if you can predict how scalable their model will be based on the replicator principles above.  And in cases where they have achieved some amount of scale (like charity: water and frontlineSMS), can you explain their success using the theory?

• SHE (Feast talk Session #3 starting 0:46:30)
• charity: water (Feast talk Session #4 starting 0:01:30)
• frontlineSMS (Feast talk Session #3 starting 0:25:45)
• Yellow Brick Road (Feast talk Session #1 0:31:37)
• 9th Ward Field of Dreams (Feast talk Session #4 starting 0:59:20)
• Change.org (Kitchen)
• International Transparency Solutions (Kitchen)
• Madecasse (Kitchen)
• Parent Earth (Kitchen)
• Srina (Kitchen)
• TrustArt (Kitchen)
• VotaVox (Kitchen)
• Global Citizen Year (Pop!Tech)
• Vittana (Pop!Tech)

I would love to hear your thoughts, both on the specifics of these ventures, and on the theory of scaling through replication.

Related posts:

1. Alfred Hubler on Stabilizing CAS
2. Autocatalytic Systems
3. Daniel Nocera’s Gift

A theme that ran through was how the security and utility of the internet is threatened by the complete lack of built-in trust mechanisms.  How do you know you can trust who you are dealing with online?  How do you know what information to believe that you read online?  How do you know your online accounts are not completely compromised by hackers right now, and that your bank account isn’t being drained as you read this?

Many people rightly fear that legislating or enforcing new internet protocols to address these issues would lead us down a slippery slope, trample our basic rights of free speech and freedom of assembly, and would ultimately toss us out of the frying pan, into the fire.  I agree.

But that’s not to say that we are doomed to having a virus-infested, yellow journalism-promoting, predator-harboring wild west (if you will allow that we’re not quite there yet already).  Rather, the solution is an organically expanding and heterogeneous set of discretionary (as in opt-in) technologies that sits on top of the existing infrastructure and gives us assurances that we can trust people and sources of information.   Once all well-intending individuals rely upon these for most of their online interactions, the nefarious remainder will stick out like so many sore thumbs and can easily be avoided.

What am I talking about?  Consider for example what happens when someone wants to connect with you on Facebook.  First you must accept their request which says that you trust them to a certain degree already (whether you know them or not).  If you don’t know them, Facebook provides you with various clues as to their trustworthiness, such as telling them how many Friends you have in common and who exactly those people are.  If you have any doubts about someone you can ask your Mutual Friends to vouch for them before you let them into your circle of trust.  One of the main reasons (I would argue) that Facebook trounced MySpace was that they required users to list their real name instead of a screen name.  While it is possible to lie about your real name just as easily as with a screen name, the fact that a real name should correspond to an offline identity — a known or at least knowable quantity — leads people to lie very infrequently; they know that once they are found out for a fraud they will be ostracized and have to start over to build any sort of trust with the cohort they are trying to engage.

Facebook is just one minor example of the technologies that sit on top of the “naked” internet that help bring us out of the wild west scenario.  It’s discretionary in that you don’t have to be on Facebook.  But at this point wouldn’t you be suspicious of someone who told you they weren’t on Facebook?  Maybe they don’t intend you any harm, but if not then at the very least you know they are a complete n00b, not to be trusted with your email address.  (If you don’t believe me, see how long it takes before they send you a Snopes-debunked urban legend while revealing the identities and emails of all 150 of their online acquaintances in the CC: field).

One of the NPR segments addressed the issue that everyone depends on Google to locate information but that Google does nothing to help you discern the trustworthiness of the information contained on the pages it returns in its searches.  This leads to a situation where it’s fairly easy to destroy someone’s hard-earned reputation with whole-cloth fiction and half-truths, but impossible to defend yourself it it happens to you.

I have proposed one type of technological addition to the “trust ecology” called Truth Markets.  Basically it’s a financial market where instead of trading shares of a company or commodities like gold,  you trade in the “truthiness” of public statements (such as web pages) and trustworthiness of the people who make them.  One could imagine a set of Truth Markets for every website (or at least ones that get a threshold amount of traffic), and a trustworthiness rating for every individual that contributes to the site in some way.

But Google could in fact obviate the need for such heavy lifting if it wanted to.  The key is their all-powerful algorithm, PageRank, which is what allows them to serve up such relevant results in response to the keywords you type in.  PageRank was designed to suss out relevance, but this is simply a variable that can be swapped out for other values, such as humor, aesthetics, and yes, truthiness.  So imagine that when you type in a job candidate’s name into Google to do some research on them you not only get all of the web pages that match sorted by relevance, but you also have the option to sort by truth value.  Then, just because a salacious piece of gossip pops up on the front page of a search result doesn’t mean that it will show up on the front page if you sort by truth.

And imagine if Google were to decide to change their default search results so that they are based on a blend of RageRank and “TruthRank”.  Wouldn’t this be better than learning that Ann Coulter’s puppy mills actually supplied Michael Vick with his best fighting dogs?  (It’s true, I swear!)

Related posts:

1. Alfred Hubler on Stabilizing CAS
2. Too Big to Fail = Too Big to Exist?
3. Crowdsourcing Truthiness

[The incident] is an extraordinary example of what happens when you get… a dozen people with an average IQ of 160… working in a field in which they collectively have 250 years of experience… employing a ton of leverage.

It’s hard to overstate the significance of a [government-led] rescues of a private [corporation].  If a [company], however large was too big to fail, then what large [company] would ever be allowed to collapse?  The government risked becoming the margin of safety.  No serious consequences had come about in the end from the… near-meltdown.

Was the incident:

a) The savings and loan scandal

b) The collapse of Enron

c) The sub-prime mortgage meltdown

d) none of the above

First correct answer gets to invest in an exciting new bridge project I’m involved with in New York!

Related posts:

1. Must Read Article on the Financial Meltdown
2. Chasing the Dragon
3. The Good, The Bad & The Ugly