A mathematical model of innovation
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.
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.
"One of these is Heaps’ law, which states that the number of new things increases at a rate that is sublinear"
-This is clearly wrong when it comes to inventions. First of all the rate is not constant through out history. Second the rate of potential inventions grows combinatorially with respect to new inventions.
Heap's and Zipf’s law are about words not new technologies and I think they are stretching to suggest that they apply outside of language.
"he model accurately predicts how edit events occur on Wikipedia pages, the emergence of tags in social annotation systems, the sequence of words in texts, and how humans discover new songs in online music catalogues"
-what does this have to do with innovation? Another poor use of language. People love to throw around the word innovation, but, as this article shows, it has become almost meaningless. Discovering new songs in online music catalogs is innovation??????
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.00994.pdf
The actual title of the paper described in the article is Dynamics on expanding spaces: modeling the emergence of novelties. The authors use the terms “novelty” and “innovation” somewhat interchangeably, and in a manner that encompasses more than technological breakthroughs and inventions. “Innovations occur throughout social, biological and technological systems and, though we perceive them as a very natural ingredient of our human experience, little is known about the processes determining their emergence. Still the statistical occurrence of innovations shows striking regularities that represent a starting point to get a deeper insight in the whole phenomenology. This paper represents a small step in that direction . . . “
The reason this is valuable is that once a solution is developed, it is optimized by the industry. As the optimal solution is developed, narrower and narrower views are taken and the risk is driven out of that local minima solution to minimize cost, a process capitalistic industry is excellent at. People fail to look at alternates because it is disruptive, just like people never look up when walking around.
An interesting company tried to develop a semantic engine and logical process to reduce the basic process being worked to the fundamentals, and then match it against wide ranging alternatives. Goldfire Innovator by Invention Machines did this. I thought it was great, but we did not invest in it (boo hoo). It also contained an excellent natural language interface around this semantic engine that could search in a contextually relevant manner (vs keywords). For example it could distinguish between a hydrogen environment for annealing and hydrogen in an annealing process. Very powerful. I forget who bought these guys, but they did good work.
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.
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?"
Are you one of the MIT professors who developed the model?
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.
And if you do that, you would need to add Edison, who was simply an inventor, more than a thinker. He had a sign in his lab: "There's a better way; find it!!"
But his research went way beyond what has found its way into everyday use. He is the recognized inventor of the brushless AC induction motor, radio, remote control by radio, super-conductivity, fluorescent lighting, the bladeless turbine engine and pump, the capacitor discharge ignition system for automobile engines, the mechanical oscillator, and dozens of other inventions. But he also discovered that useful energy could be extracted from the heat of the ambient air, and that electric power in the form of Radiant Energy could be broadcast to everyone in the world through the ground.
Like I said, I'm more concerned with Insull and pyramidazition, the early power companies, and control without ownership.
If someone disagrees with me, that's fine, he/she can always post his criticism. If he/she disagrees with SCIENCE, that would make it very hard to refute my comments. Another thing altogether.
Looks like Dobrein did too before someone else came along.
Funny you should bring that up.
Your statements will carry more weight if you give examples.
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.
It is precisely for actions such as the Leyden scientists that give ME some hope for mankind.
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!
Albert Einstein. QED.
I got an idea!
Or: I just want to see what would happen!
Why waste time on how and why? I don't believe it can be taught. It is however, directly related to risk-taking behavior, more than any type of conceptual reasoning.
Also, don't forget, the study of psychology, neurology and motivation has come a long way since Rand's philosophical exegesis of the subject and topic of "concept". I doubt that the concept of concept is even similar to what it once was.
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?
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.
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.
You are using a definition based on a philosophical considerations.
And the definition of idea is?
Nobody really knows.
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.