Stability does not come from control…

by | February 7, 2017

Misconceptions about the nature of stable systems.

Chaos / Blogs / Stability does not come from control…

Stability does not come from control…

by | February 7, 2017

Misconceptions about the nature of stable systems.

Chaos / Blogs / Stability does not come from control…

One of the most fundamental faults in human understanding throughout history is the belief that the best way to control systems is to simplify them, organize them, and put as much power into constraining them in order to maintain stability. Pretty much every ideological and authoritarian system is constructed based on this fallacy.

When you start to understand the nature of complexity in natural systems you start seeing that reducing complexity is exactly the thing that increases instability. Highly dynamic systems are stable because they are complex and out of control.

The more power humans have gained access to, the more they have attempted to impose control on greater and greater systems in the efforts to create stability. This comes from an instinctive drive for predictability, and ultimately security, as a function of increasing survival probability. This drive however, was designed to work on small scales where the greater system could absorb the efforts.

The 20th century, with the advent of industrialization and high technology, created a phase transition in the global system that acted to reduce complexity on a global scale. And while it may seem counterintuitive to most, accelerationism itself drives the system into lower and lower levels of complexity, making the system less robust and more vulnerable to singular forces that the system would have otherwise absorbed and redistributed the energy of throughout the system, ensuring only parts of the system were disrupted and not the whole.

Simple systems, while having a kind of apparent elegance about them, are only stable in isolation, and only appear elegant because we can directly observe the causal forces and incorrectly deduce this means things are inherently controllable. However, as soon as you introduce even minor variations in the system, it breaks down almost immediately.

Complex systems are on the other hand far more realistically elegant in that their messiness is the root of their stability. The interplay of multiple levels of disequilibrium acting together, create a larger equilibrium.

Life itself is the result of interdependent disequilibrium, where order necessarily exists because of chaotic interplay.
Everything about the human focus on control, is exactly what drives systems toward chaotic phase transitions that cause massive destabilization and destruction. The irony is that the more we strive to use power to make systems stable and controlled, the less stable they become.

This understanding alone gives enough of a pragmatic reason to consider every dogma and ideology the antithesis of its intent. And in another irony, this effort forces the change we were trying to avoid going through except in a much harsher way than necessary.

One way or another, change is inevitable. The question is, when will we decide to embrace the change and be a part of the flow in relative stability where there is no massively abrupt destabilization? At this point we either do, or we dig in even harder and wreck the whole place.

About the author:

Glen Allan is a ridiculous person with thoughts and ideas which fly in the face of normal convention and challenge many assumptions about what people generally think of as reality.

He recognizes that many people will either disagree or claim the ideas to be founded in delusion, and only has to say that he'd like it if you could try to realize the world might not be what you think it is.













The concepts of both 'Good' and 'Evil' are merely subjective associations in relation to a conditioned reaction to pain and pleasure.