The limits of reason

Donald Rumsfeld's famous division of unknowns into those that are known and those that aren't continues to be useful, but not sufficient. In itself, it holds out the hope that we can eventually make headway against both categories, as indeed we can in most cases. But there remains another type of unknowns that we both know, and know that we can't overcome. And though we can make progress against the unknown unknowns, the category itself hovers always at the frontiers, as a permanent check on hubristic reason.

The first limitation, the unknowns that we know about but cannot in principle eliminate, recall the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics. In fact, that's a perfect illustration of the general problem -- that our involvement in a process, even just as observers, such as in trying to measure some aspect of it, changes the process, and so limits the accuracy of the measurement. There's an extension of that same problem -- a cultural Uncertainty Principle, in other words -- with respect to any attempt to model and predict human behavior en masse: any effective model of behavior X will change that behavior, limiting the accuracy of the model. That may need to be qualified if it's found that the changes converge on some parameter, but generally any prediction that matters to the individuals involved will itself have an effect on those individuals that is "unintended", or outside the model.

This amounts to a severe constraint on the effectiveness of attempts to engineer human behavior by humans. Aliens, or any agency not in communication with humans, may not be so constrained, at least by this principle, and even human agencies can be less constrained by it if they can reduce their communication with the humans affected (as we know all too well). But in general, this is where technocratic efforts to reform society eventually founder -- with obvious lessons for would-be utopians.

The second limitation can be more daunting still, with its emphasis on the worry that at any point there are always things that we don't even know that we don't know. This can lead to a huddled defensiveness, on the part of individuals and/or whole cultures alike, one sign of which is the instinct to try to second guess that unknown by populating it with monsters -- "Here be dragons", for example. Once, there was the idea of God sitting (or at least existing) outside those frontiers of the known, and that idea was a potent counter to the fears, since God, pretty much by definition, was on our side. Now, lacking that comfort, we have only an uncertain, often nervous confidence in our scientific proficiency. When that wavers, we get the modern world's version of "Here be dragons" -- "Here be an invisible but catastrophic tipping point", e.g., or "What if we're living in a simulation (and it's controlled by malevolent aliens/super AI)?", or any of a number of Lovecraftian horrors.

The better alternative to such night-thought obsessions is just the sane tendency to ignore things we can't control and get on with what parts of life we can. But could we do better still -- could we approach that ineradicable unknown as the inherent Mystery of our condition, and come to accept it, even as the once God-fearing culture accepted that Mystery, with humility and awe, and even a kind of comfort?



Jun 7/20