The Break Outs: Roots of Growth & Unlimited Creativities

 

The Break Outs:  Roots of Growth & Unlimited Creativities
.
By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014
Copyright © 2019
.
“Almost anything which jogs us out of our current abstractions, is a good Thing.” –Alfred Whitehead
.
“Any society (or groups) which cannot break out of its current abstractions, After a limited period of growth, is doomed to stagnation.” (The verbal description of the S-curve of growth and development)” –Alfred Whitehead
.
“I hold that a little rebellion now and then to be a good thing. ”  —Thomas Jefferson
.
“If we are to do good physics, we must put the Personal (viz., emotions), aside.”  –Dr. Albert Einstein
.
Essentially, it all comes down to the mind traps which humans fall into. Those are created by the stabilities of brain hard wiring and egosyntonic, dopamine rewards, PLUS the stabilities of efficient ways of doing things.
.
.
What happens is best described by the implicit mathematics and physics of the S-curve of growth seen in Whitehead’s wise insight, above. Innovation, creativities, and related events are driven by thermodynamics processes of growth and developments. They then become stable as more efficient methods ARE stable. This is both a blessing and a curse. Because it’s more efficient, it promotes stabilities and better methods of doing things by savings of time, costs, materials, the whole rich panoply of the “Complex System of the 2nd Law”, QV . But on the other hand, it can block in many ways the development of better and better techniques, skill sets, approaches, methods, etc.
.
We see this routinely in economic performances, as well. The Bessemer steel furnace was a very large improvement (as was Watt’s steam engine over Newcomen’s) which gave more for less. Less cost, time, and higher quality steel. It drove the markets in England, and then Andrew Carnegie brought it over to the US where it transformed steel making. & he continued to improve it, as well, please note. There was substantial growth, and it took over the fields of iron and steel factories. It grew quickly as it Was more efficient in many ways than any of the previous methods. It was creative. And thus, it worked.
.
But the downside is as Whitehead so astutely stated. Every method, tool, techniques and technologies have their capabilities, AND their limits. And the downside is their limits, which slows down the growth at the point of diminishing returns on the S-curve, until finally, it runs up against its exponential/asymptotic limits of the growth S- curve. Then the growth slows down. & even stops.
.
We see vast, unlimited numbers of examples of this, for instance. For Apple, they had enormous growth with their mouse, computer, touch screens, and other innovations, due mainly to the Steves Jobs &  Wozniak. But inevitably, the growth slowed, others caught up, and IBM’s PC’s overwhelmed them, because it was open architecture, and it could adapt faster and better. Anyone could write programs or add new cards to it, because the PC was “open architecture”.
.
Jobs then left Apple, worked on the NEXT, the next major innovation, but it didn’t sell it had the vaster capacities, but the ease of use and expense likely limited it. But Jobs learned. See the outstanding bio of Steve Jobs as an insert in Steve Forbe’s magazine, published a bit after his death in Oct. 2011.
.
Then he brought out the newer, more efficient technologies, which resulted in a vast growth in Apple, IBM hit the limits of their growth curve, and began to decline. so much so, how the mighty have fallen applies. Even selling off their PC section!!!
.
Then Jobs brought out the newer I-series of technologies, which created the largest growth, S-curve ever seen, with the I-phone dominating at the last, the entire world market, Apple becoming the biggest computer company, and indeed the largest, richest of all of them, as well. Finally, in the last stages, after creating over 1 Billions and more devices in operation, the diminishing returns hit (top of the S-curve). Apple’s growth slowed down, due to those. The S-curve once again. and their profits and sales began to decline, along that very clear, predicted, predestined S-curve of growth of Whitehead.
.
The same occurred with the Japanese economy, which was very quickly grew to the second largest in the world, and then hit the S-curve limits. The same more recently with Chinese economy, which became the world’s 2nd largest economy (at least), and which is now at the top of their growth/S-curve, with declining growth rates, way down from the heady days of the 1980-’90’s of 20-25%/year. & now down to 6% and still falling. With serious banking, structural and other problems. Again, capabilities which drive the exponential S-curve growth and at the last, the diminishing returns as the curve flattens out at the top into an exponential barrier.
.
This is nearly universally seen in technologies, and growth systems of all kinds and can be easily fitted onto a mathematical form of growth, S-curves. Indeed, it’s so universally seen, that it can be used, when properly developed to predict how much a system will grow, and when it will slow down and then when, & thus be predictive of how much each new idea is worth, too. This is deep & important idea enough to be developed into an entire article, coming later.
.
As Steve Jobs so well knew, a new growth curve set needed to be created & sold. The S-curve of Whitehead is a nearly universally applicable process to most all growing, Complex systems, as well, and is seen & confirmed almost universally with growth of most all types. The value of Whitehead’s insight becomes remarkably apt in these days of techno innovation & change and changing markets.
.
But that is a piece of it, but not all. When we consider personally, how new methods which we use every day in our personalities, ALSO do the same, then the real day to day effects on our very lives, for each of us, becomes much more clearly seen. Each of us have a series of skills sets which we have developed over the years by the universal methods of Trial & Error and sorting. This is true of the professionals, especially. Their methods are highly efficient in terms of least energy methods of costs, energy, time savings, better outcomes of goods and services, & so forth. &  nearly universally ALSO explains the differences among the professionals in most every field, high efficiency methods and work, versus by comparison processing, the outputs of amateurs. Thus, the differences among each of the Professionals in nearly every field, can be cast in term of Least Energy efficiencies, versus those of the amateurs. A unique set of skills, which differ from professional to professional, yet use many similar methods in each distinct field, AND least energy vocabularies (That’s WHY, least energy efficiencies, the professionals develop, esp. in medicine, their highly professional words, phrases and descriptive methods.). And this can be studied, developed and shown to be the case in nearly EVERY field. Least energy rules the professions. That is Expert systems in other applications, too.
.
.
But we need to look at the far, far larger picture which Whitehead stated, the complex system of events. Every skill set of every professional has its growth potential, but ALSO the exponential, asymptotic average set of the S-curves. Their very success makes them good at what they do. But each of those methods used reaches yet another  S-curve of diminishing returns. & so the fields, altho more efficient than those previous, ALSO reach stagnation, and stabilities. This stability is a thermodynamic quality, as well. The more efficient, stable, durable & useful a method/technique or technology/device, the more it’s Least energy.
.;
This is what’s going on with our personalities too.. Each of us have those skills sets of the boundless ways of doing things each day. If those are driven by least energy recognitions, then they grow and develop without limits. If not, then they stagnate. Dopamine and the emotions are also good drivers, as using the emotions properly as did Einstein, Jobs and most all of our creative people do. But those can create fads & fashions and those fail if not least energy efficient. This effectively and succinctly models real & valued methods and shows the impermanence and transient nature of many social movements. Festinger, in his “social Comparison model” one of the best social models ever found and used practically, has discussed this as well.
.
BUT, and this the caveat here, in time the growth becomes a facilitated, habituation of cortically stabilized by long term memory(LTM) proteins & synaptic lay downs. So we do the same things over and over again. The memory traces reach stabilities. THAT is the mind trap in many cases. In order to advance & progress, even survive, we MUST break out as persons, as societies, & as groups OUT of our current abstractions and sort out, find and explore MORE  & better ways to meet our needs.
.
Whitehead shows us how to do this. His kind of process thinking, introduced and then ignored, nearly 100 years ago, of visualizing solutions, is The Key to how our brains work best and most comprehensively, as well, to find and plan ahead practical creative solutions to problems of most all sorts. The “thought experiments” which Sagan’s “Cosmos” so brilliantly touches upon with Einstein, are yet other examples of the mechanical engineers and indeed most creative person’s abilities to  “see the answers.” AI can’t do that very well, for obvious reasons. When it passes that kind of “Turing test” of visual, process thinking, which requires huge amounts of processing power, Then it will become in part, more human.
.
.
We can tie in this very well with Thomas Kuhn’s, “The Structure…” Where he showed how the solar system model was successively improved over time, using creative, information additions, until we have a very, very good model now. But not quite. Where the ancients used the planar circles, Kepler & Newton used the ellipses of orbits, which were also planar, 2D. It was next realized that the orbits were NOT 2D but THREE D, and that led to the current “elements of orbits”, which are more accurate in predictions, but which, however, are not complete, either. In time, the complex system orbits of each planetary system become in time less and less predictable.
.
This was all driven by least energy methods, which described more with less. & in a very real sense, also became complex system(Cx Sys) beliefs, as we see with the probabilities of QM. Wherever we have a Cx Sys, mostly likely, the uncertainties we find with those probabilistic methods, be it with a simple Cx Sys of dice throwing, or a more Cx Sys with the weather, and genetics. When we see probabilities, we deal more & more with the uncertainties of the incompleteness of Cx Sys understanding. &  thus our knowledges have also, the very same huge problem of “incompleteness”.
.
Because most all of our models are NOT complete, for one simple reason, The thermodynamics bases, Shannon’s model, is that there is NO completely efficient heat engine, we see at once the consonance with the facts that our ideas do NOT very completely compare to events in existence. What we expect even in our best theories, is not usually what we find with more and more observations. Those Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonances, the observed, comparison process created disparity between what we expect, personally, professionally and scientifically which what instead very likely happens, is the Case. From those come the new models, which those attempt to solve that Paradigm problem, of “it doesn’t work that well”, or as Kepler stated, except for that ” 8 minutes arc error in Circular orbits, I’d have accepted Copernicus’ model”. We see, broadly the case that Kuhn had it right. Deeply we see. Incompleteness is inefficiency, and thermodynamically a quality of the same ignorance.
.
What we expect is NOT what we find. And that, be it the neutrinos problem of the absent 2/3 solar neutrons. which revolutionized the physics model of neutrino mass and types; of the failures of growth in all other respects, is what drives growth and development.
.
It doesn’t work very well, there, we too often see. The comparison process drives Festinger’s Cognitive dissonance, driven by the same, is almost universally the case.
.
So we, when we want to figure out what’s going on, MUST rise above, Break out, get jogged out of our “current abstractions” & find newer & better ones, which do more with less, efficiently and describe, predict & model more with less, too.
.
This is what’s going on personally, as well. Too often we fall into the “ruts” of our mind traps of brain hard wiring. It’s a facilitated, habituated, LTM situation. It’s easy to do the same more or less efficient ways over and over again. But if we try to change, it’s hard. & almost anything which breaks us out of our current abstractions, is thus a good thing & a good way to more growth.
.
This then is the key to growth without limit. because the universe is so huge with Cx Sys’ totally beyond our control, prediction or understanding. & yet our brains are set up & can be trained up further to penetrate those mysteries, those cognitive failures, do better. & without limits, too, as our brains are so tiny in comparison to the events in existence of our universe.
.
This has largely been written about in La Chanson, of all the myriads of Cx Sys ways we use, & why we use them. The field of medicine uses, as does biology, Cx Sys methods all the time, descriptively, but we haven’t realized that, generally.
.
.
The S-curves of growth, without limits, show us HOW we succeed, and then why we fail, reaching the “limits of growth”, a la Herman Kahn, we should add.
.
Thus we see the much larger picture. The next, likely and largely confirmed paradigm of our understanding. Perfection and the absolutes are mostly artifacts of our brains & are likely unreal. The exponential barriers of the tops of the S curves show this. To escape those we must go OUTSIDE of the current abstractions to create more growth.
.
.
It’s very, very hard to understand logic, religions, maths, & many other systems WITHIN those systems. We cannot usually understand our own home town, unless we visit OTHER cities and see how those work, &  then compare those facts & information to what we see in our own. In order to be linguists we must speak and understand a number of languages. We must Escape the mind traps of our habituated, stable, facilitated, hardwired beliefs and ways of doing things. This is why travel and peripatetics work so well to teach us new things, too. This is why “never stop learning” is also critical to personal, social &  scientific growth and development.
.
Thus, we find, use and develop more ways, the means to Break OUT of our current abstractions, do we not?
.
& it’s very clear as well that in our beliefs of all sorts, we are given benefits by those, creatively, but not absolutely, Either. There is NO absolute space and time. Our measurements cannot be final, nor complete, as Einstein and physics has shown. & similarly our descriptive, verbal methods are Also epistemological restrained by the same Einsteinian rules.. Those also arise by comparison processing of verbal, relatively fixed stable standards, as in “How Physicians…”  Description by creating efficient methods is the case. But even those have their serious limits, too. The S-curves of growth AND their very serious limits.
.
.
The nearly Universal processes of Comparison Processes(CP), which can create and discover the Least Energy (LE) solutions to problems by T&E and other sorting means, creates the necessarily creativity to Understand understanding. & uses those means to find and with structure/function (S/F) relationships within this Universe of events. & casting that within a Cx Sys model, can create a nearly universal Model of Everything(MOE). This is what Einstein was searching for, to simplify our understandings of most everything. But when, while he had the thermodynamics right, didn’t realize that it was a big part of that nearly universal processor, LE. And we have yet found another example again within, very unexpectedly, the Hubble/Hummason data. It’s Einstein’s work, the bending of photon paths by large gravitational fields, Universally in all spaces & times those Einsteinian Arcs &  crosses, witnessed & observed by the scores in each image, without limits. & thus confirmed by the Hubble Telescope.
.

That was what the great Steven Hawking attempted in his lovely “The Grand Design”. But by adding Cx Sys thinking, LE, CP, and S/F relationships we can get there, into the Undiscovered Country of a Unified Model. That was what he missed. & it’s simple, easy to correct, use and apply without limits.

.
“Depths Within Depths” shows this: & it can be developed far, far more without limits in terms of confirming events/relationships.
.
.
& then this gives us the ” Promised Land of the Undiscovered Country” of the Cx Sys model which can not only describe very much better  that which is going on within us, but that outside of us, too. A nearly universal Model of Everything, created by those found, nearly universal processors of most all events, very likely.
.

.

The MOE themes and discoveries will soon be published here, to show how that can be done, confirmably.

Rev. 9 Jul. 2019.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s