A mathematical model of innovation
The article describes a new mathematical model of innovation patterns. The model accounts for unexpected breakthroughs as well as anticipated developments, a feature not seen in previous ones.
This model ties in with the Objectivist view of conceptualizing, which Ayn Rand describes as “an actively sustained process of identifying one’s impressions in conceptual terms, of integrating every event and every observation into a conceptual context, of grasping relationships, differences, similarities in one’s perceptual material and of abstracting them into new concepts, of drawing inferences, of making deductions, of reaching conclusions, of asking new questions and discovering new answers and expanding one’s knowledge into an ever-growing sum.” –Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics.
According to the authors, their model applies both to novelties - “they are new to an individual” – and to innovations - “they are new to the world.” Conceptualizing can lead to either outcome. The model builds on an earlier theory of the “adjacent possible”, defined in the article as “all those things—ideas, words, songs, molecules, genomes, technologies and so on—that are one step away from what actually exists.” This ties in with the Objectivist view that integration of existing conceptual and perceptual data occurs in discrete steps.
Although this model neither contradicts nor extends the Objectivist theory of concept formation, it sheds light on the actual process by which new concepts and ideas originate and propagate within a society or culture.
This model ties in with the Objectivist view of conceptualizing, which Ayn Rand describes as “an actively sustained process of identifying one’s impressions in conceptual terms, of integrating every event and every observation into a conceptual context, of grasping relationships, differences, similarities in one’s perceptual material and of abstracting them into new concepts, of drawing inferences, of making deductions, of reaching conclusions, of asking new questions and discovering new answers and expanding one’s knowledge into an ever-growing sum.” –Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics.
According to the authors, their model applies both to novelties - “they are new to an individual” – and to innovations - “they are new to the world.” Conceptualizing can lead to either outcome. The model builds on an earlier theory of the “adjacent possible”, defined in the article as “all those things—ideas, words, songs, molecules, genomes, technologies and so on—that are one step away from what actually exists.” This ties in with the Objectivist view that integration of existing conceptual and perceptual data occurs in discrete steps.
Although this model neither contradicts nor extends the Objectivist theory of concept formation, it sheds light on the actual process by which new concepts and ideas originate and propagate within a society or culture.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I may have a partial answer to your question "why are some innovations suppressed..." I think it lies in the concept of "conditioning." That is probably also a partial answer to the next question: "Can novelties become commonplace through means of deception?"
I am not a mathematician, do not fully understand the given formula, and I am very interested in this concept from a non-math perspective.
When I took logic and scientific method, we studied creativity. A little of it, anyway. Kekule, Darwin, Einstein. What I remember is that in most cases, each scientist studied a problem, then underwent a period of "relaxation" of getting away from the problem. They then found that the solution seemed to come a later time; Kekule as he was staring at his hearthfire, saw the molecules of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen form themselves into a ring.
Darwin was riding in a carriage when the "solution" of natural selection came to him.
Einstein has said, when he was an adolescent, he imagined riding on a photon and wondered what that would be like.
I had a calculus professor tell me once not to work on a problem for longer than 20 minutes. If you haven't solved it in that time, let it go, try a different problem, and let your subconscious work on the original problem. And who knows what goes on in your subconscious.
Innovation is a LEAP. Perhaps without prior "knowledge" one could not make another leap, but it is a risk, first and foremost.
Newton did say he "stood on the shoulders of giants." He also said he wasn't any smarter than others, he just thought about things more.
And it is that leap that is the risk.
Remember what I said about the early Gothic cathedrals in Europe? Guess that was on a different forum.
Anyway, I said I wonder how many cathedrals actually collapsed before they got that flying buttress idea down right.
How many years did it take Reardon to fashion his metal, once he got the idea? Ten, I think.
Failure is as important as success. Risk takers are not afraid to fail. As I said, human nature.
I was thinking of Archimedes and Galileo. They didn't, as far as I know, come up with ideas (notions) in the same way as the later Europeans or others, but they did take a risk in that they chose to think "differently" than others of their time. Galileo for sure.
Your statements will carry more weight if you give examples.
You are using a definition based on a philosophical considerations.
And the definition of idea is?
Nobody really knows.
You are talking apples; I am talking oranges.
The primitive African cultures were very un-innovative. It has to do with their avoidance of risk-taking behaviors. As is their continued matriarchal cultural habits.
It is precisely for actions such as the Leyden scientists that give ME some hope for mankind.
How is it possible to come up with an idea without the building blocks of previous concepts and perceptions? And for anyone seriously interested in philosophy, how can the study of the source and characteristics of ideas be a waste of time?
But they didn't stop there. Then they "got the idea" to have an entire line of scientists holding hands, and then the initial man stuck his hand in the charged-up water.
And voila! The study of electricity was begun!
It had nothing to do with concept formation. I give you Benjamin Franklin as another example of getting an idea. Or Newton sticking his finger in his eye to see how much of man's perception of light was internally generated.
Europeans are risk-takers. Not good at introspection, but definitely risk-takers. And sometimes fatally so.
I always laugh when I think of that initial Leyden Jar. I got an idea!
Albert Einstein. QED.
Load more comments...