I recently read a book called Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking by Daniel C. Dennett. I found it quite thought-provoking. One of the ideas Dennett brings to the fore is joots'ing: jumping out of the system, a phrase coined by Doug Hofstadter (the author of Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid) meaning something like 'going meta': recontextualizing a problem, generating a new perspective.
Let me expand on what I mean by 'the current process'. Let's say you and your friends live on an island. A second island is visible in the distance, but everybody who has tried to swim there has died in the process, and you are ignorant of any other way to navigate in water. Let's say you don't know any better, and just go ahead and assume the second island is unreachable.
There are two systems at play in this scenario. One is real, and the other imagined.
Let's look at the imagined system first. This is the system that is actually at play in your decision making process. Here are the components of this system that are obvious to you:
- humans sink in water if they are not expending energy to stay afloat
- humans have a limited amount of energy
- humans can't breathe water (they die after a while)
- swimming takes energy
This is the system at hand. Using the information available to you in this system, you-the-island-dweller conclude that, because you don't have enough energy to swim to the island, and therefore if you tried, you would sink and die, that you can't get to the island; it is impossible to get to the island.
But, as I'm sure you know if you've ever traversed a body of water by any method of transportation other than swimming, this conclusion is not patently true. It may be the case that it is actually impossible to swim to this island, but that doesn't mean it is impossible to get to the island; there are other ways to cross water.
But this requires a jump outside the system - if those four facts outlined above were the only facts in the universe, then swimming to that second island would be impossible.
But those four facts are not the sum total available facts - they are just the facts you thought of.
Let's add three more points to this system:
- wood floats on water
- there is wood on your island
- things can be put on top of wood
Well, in this system there are several things that can be done that could not be done in the original system - most relevantly: construct a boat.
With a boat, you could cross to the other island. In throughout this process you have jumped out of the system in two ways: first, you have expanded the set of 'facts' in the system, in itself a jump; and second, you have expanded the system of 'things', the second jump.
Conceptualizing the boat is what I will call a downwards jump.
A downwards jump steps back and recontextualizes the system. The consequences of Descartes' evil demon - that 'I' cannot be certain of much beyond the fact that I exist - is a downwards jump. So is Darwin's theory of evolution. A downwards jump need not add a 'thing' to the system - it changes the system the things themselves exist upon.
Creating the boat, on the other hand, is an instance of an upward jump.
An upwards jump can made without knowledge of the system; if you accidently fell onto a piece of wood in the water and floated to the second island, that would still be a jump. Biological evolution makes these kinds of jumps; without comprehension, life jumped out of the aquatic system onto land. An upwards jump adds to the capabilities of the system.
So what makes a jump big?
That's the real question, the interesting one. I'm not certain I have the entire answer, but looking at a couple of big jumps might yield some perspective.
Here are a few big upwards jumps: the discovery of fire, the printing press, and the radio.
And here are big downwards jumps: Copernicus' Heliocentricism, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and Turning's Universal Turing Machine.
I'll briefly address each invention's effect.
Fire:
- Fire effects a lot, but I think the two biggest are: the ability to keep warm somewhat independent of weather and the ability to cook food. Before the discovery of fire, you had to live in places that were habitable in the cold nights, and you had to enter into the infection-lottery of uncooked food. Food and shelter are pretty fundamental; you don't have to dig deep to start seeing the advantages.
The Printing Press:
- Allows copying en masse. No more scribe-scribbling - a single template can create an infinite number of copies. This one piggy-backs on the fundamental importance of language. Widespread dispersal of knowledge enables passing down of information at a much greater rate.
The Radio:
- With it, you can communicate high density information at the speed of light. Like the printing press, this piggy-backs on the importance of communication. The ability to communicate nigh-instantaneously across vast distances changes the game - for many games. War, diplomacy, cultural propogation - everything based around communication undergoes alteration.
These jumps upwards have one thing in common: fundamentality. They are close to the surface, and they have real tangible impact on the conduct of human life. So what makes a big upward jump? I won't take a stab at the sufficient conditions, but I think fundamentality is a necessary one.
Turning to the downwards jumps:
Copernicus' Heliocentricism:
- This idea changes man's place in the universe. No longer centered, humanity exists in some physically explained spot. This forces a change in man's heavenly position, and in the heaven's position. Man is no longer placed Perfectly There, and is rather merely placed Explainably Somewhere.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
- A killing blow to hard determinism. There are some things that are unknowable, and observational physics is unable to completely describe the world.
Turning's Universal Turing Machine:
- A specific program can run any other program. From one idea, an infinity follows. You don't need a computer-shovel and a computer-rake; one suffices for any and every problem.
It's harder to address what these jumps downward change, but each opens the way for new questions and frontiers. They aren't inventions themselves; they clear the field of false obstacles.
Where are the next frontiers, where will we jump from next, and where will that jump take us?
I'll take a guess at where some of the next jumps might occur:
- in the definition of intelligence and the pursuit of artificial intelligence
- in materials production efficiency (3-d printing)
- in information centralization and organization