EPISTEMOLOGY AT CIVILIZATIONAL SCALE James Augustus Berens —“The relationship

EPISTEMOLOGY AT CIVILIZATIONAL SCALE

James Augustus Berens

—“The relationship between investment and return on exploration is non-linear (negative-convexity/concavity): we see increases in our ROI up to the vertex of our function, where additional investment begins to yield diminishing returns.

I was thinking about non-linearities in information, exploration and discovery a few weeks ago:

1) “During the Age of Discovery, the acquisition of knowledge and territory produced high return to investment ratios. However, given the limits of human perception and cognition and available territory, we’ve observed diminishing returns.

It is now costly, and highly unlikely, though not impossible, that we can make consequential scientific discoveries that produce the returns observed in the early scientific period. Similarly, humans have populated all habitable areas of planet earth, so territorial expansion is costly and rarely pursued.

With these two changes we observe a corresponding shift from ‘discovery,’ the low-cost identification and capitalization of opportunities, to scientific criticism (high-cost identification + optimal calculation via negativa) of available, and known choices/opportunities.”***

And

2) “Testimonialism, Truth & Uncertainty

Negative Convexity of Information:

Dependent variable (y): consequential knowledge

Input (x): information

Function (f): human cognition

Justificationism and rationalism only hold when (a) the relationship between (y) and (x) is linear, and (b) when assume the correspondence of (y).

But, f(x) is nonlinear [negative convexity]: an increase in the input (x) will yield more of (y) until the the limits of the function are approached; after which an increase in the input (x) will yield diminishing returns to scale.

Because of uncertainty, we cannot identify the optimal input of (x) for the given function. However, we can test* (y) [via negativa] and conclude with a higher degree of certainty if the output is non-correspondent.

Testing (y) allows us to calibrate our inputs and function to yield higher returns (optimal computation via algorithm).

Testimonialism—as performed warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deception and fraud—increases the objectivity of (y) through the reduction of subjective inputs (cognitive bias).

*Tests (criticism)

i. identity (category)

ii. internal consistency (logic)

iii. external correspondence (explanatory power)

iv. existential possibility (existence proof)

v. limits (falsification) (parsimony)

vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)

vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers)

Ultimately, we can never be fully certain of truth. We can, however, prove possibility (truth candidacy) and incrementally decrease the probability of speaking/testifying falsely.

That is, we advance knowledge through subtraction (via negativa)—not justification (via positiva).”—