A mathematical model of innovation

Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 3 months ago to Science
51 comments | Share | Flag

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.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I had to get B.F.Skinner in there. "Conditioning" and mathematical models of human behavior, and how that induces conformity and stifles creativity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are asking good questions. Asking good questions is the beginning of "innovation". As the saying goes, "To find the answer, ask the question."

    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?"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by andrewtroy 8 years, 2 months ago
    A very interesting article indeed. Thank you. It seems the math calculates the what, and the how, but not the why. Why do some ideas change the world? Why do others lay forgotten on the cutting room floor? Why do some innovations grow into novelties and then grow into commonplace? Can and why are some innovations suppressed for the wrong reasons? 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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That same professor told us that solving integrations and differentiating were completely different. To differentiate, one had only to follow a set of rules. To integrate, one had to employ creativity; all the rules in the world could not always help you solve an integration problem.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago
    Just thought of something else. Hope you don't get too tired of this.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The MIT professors are not interested in philosophy. They are interested in modeling human behavior. A sure road to disaster.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago
    Just thought of something else. Some might say that geometry is a "mathematical model". It is not. It is an abstraction from reality. (I never thought of it as that, though.Just as those lines of force were never abstract to Faraday).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How is it possible? Simply like this: I wonder what would happen if...

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago
    It just occurred to me that risk-taking presupposes the notion of failure. Unless failure is a possible outcome, there is no risk.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, here's an example. One mathematical discipline I love, and am pretty good at and which has somewhat gone out of fashion with the abstracted math of today, is geometry. I will sit and draw circles, sine waves, hyperbolas, etc. And once in a while I'll get an idea, and I'll think: I wonder what would happen if I (for instance) draw circles intersecting hyperbolas. What would the resulting constellation of geometric figures look like, and what could I do with them?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm talking human nature, here. The Leyden scientists were able to understand the "laws of nature" (and by the way, I dislike the term laws used to describe natural phenomena) only after they got a idea..

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Some people are so averse to risk-taking behavior that they refuse to even think in terms different from their peers.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Innovation and scientific advancement require conformity with the laws of nature. Try forecasting the weather or calculating a path to Mars without mathematical modeling.

    Your statements will carry more weight if you give examples.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Idea has more than one conceptual definition.

    You are using a definition based on a philosophical considerations.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Innovation abhors conformity. The very "concept" mathematical model invites conformity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And the definition says nothing about what it is.

    And the definition of idea is?

    Nobody really knows.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps concept formation is only the means of carrying out the risk-taking behavior?

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago
    Trying to mathematically model innovation will only help extinguish it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago
    Along this same line, businessmen are inherently risk-takers. I think it is one reason Rand wished to exalt the human soul.

    It is precisely for actions such as the Leyden scientists that give ME some hope for mankind.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Concept [kon-sept] - an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct. Dictionary . com The definition hasn’t changed since I first read Ayn Rand in the 1960s.

    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?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago
    There were some scientists in Leyden around the 18th century (and I read this in a Physics text) that "got the idea"---the very words used in that text--to see what would happen if they filled a huge glass jar with water, then charged it up and stuck their hand in it. Well you know what happened!
    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!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 8 years, 3 months ago
    “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

    Albert Einstein. QED.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo