Life is an Adventure! An agent-based reconciliation of narrative and scientific worldviews



Limitation Principles

Present-day science has long invalidated the basic tenets of the Newtonian/Laplacean
worldview. Most obviously, the twentieth century has produced a raft of “limitation
principles” proving that complete, certain knowledge is impossible—not just in
practice, but in principle [Barrow, 1998]. The most famous ones are:

1) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which shows that the observable
properties of particles are intrinsically indeterminate,

2) the theorem of Godel, which shows that even in pure mathematics we will
never be able to establish with certainty the truth or falsity of certain
propositions,

3) the existence of deterministic chaos, more colloquially known as the “butterfly
effect”, which notes that many physical systems, even when they are in
principle deterministic, are so sensitive to unobservably small fluctuations in
their initial conditions that we will never be able to predict their future
evolution [Prigogine & Stengers, 1984].

As an illustration that this list of limitations on predictability is merely the top of an
iceberg, let me just mention two lesser-known limitations:

4) the halting problem, which shows that even in the completely regulated world
of computer programs, we can in general not predict whether a particular
program will come to some conclusion or continue to run indefinitely;

5) the finiteness of the speed of light, which implies that in whatever way we get
information about remote parts of the universe this information will be
inaccurate when we get it, because the situation will have changed in the time
that the information needed to travel to us.

The conclusion is that the demon of Laplace will not only be unable to get all the
information he needs, but unable to calculate future trajectories based on that
information, partly because of intrinsic limitations on computability, partly because
the trajectories are fundamentally indeterminate and chaotic.

This means that uncertainty, and therefore surprise, has to be a part of the
scientific worldview. Prigogine [1997] has explored some of the philosophical
implications of this “end of certainty”, arguing that it opens the way to reconnect
science with the humanities by allowing for the appearance of novelty [Prigogine &
Stengers, 1984]. However, merely acknowledging uncertainty’s role in science is
hardly sufficient to unify scientific and narrative modes of thought.

Complex Adaptive Systems

More important even than the theoretical limitations on predictability are the practical
constraints [Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 1996]. Complete, accurate and reliable
predictions are in practice only possible for simple, isolated, “clockwork-like”



More intriguing information

1. ENERGY-RELATED INPUT DEMAND BY CROP PRODUCERS
2. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
3. Dynamic Explanations of Industry Structure and Performance
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. The value-added of primary schools: what is it really measuring?
7. Developmental changes in the theta response system: a single sweep analysis
8. THE INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK FOR U.S. TOBACCO
9. The name is absent
10. CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE ROLE OF ACCOUNTING AS INFORMATIONAL SYSTEM AND ASSISTANCE OF DECISION
11. Gender and aquaculture: sharing the benefits equitably
12. The name is absent
13. Putting Globalization and Concentration in the Agri-food Sector into Context
14. The Advantage of Cooperatives under Asymmetric Cost Information
15. The name is absent
16. Text of a letter
17. Determinants of Household Health Expenditure: Case of Urban Orissa
18. Using Surveys Effectively: What are Impact Surveys?
19. Regional dynamics in mountain areas and the need for integrated policies
20. CGE modelling of the resources boom in Indonesia and Australia using TERM