|
|
Inventing Unique Artifacts
|
|
|
As we embark on this new period of invention powered by a
new entity - the artifact - and a new kind of fastener - uniqueness -we can
look forward to a time of wonderful and extraordinary change, as well as a
time of some confusion and discomfort. It is always so at the beginning of a
new period.
|
|
How does the unique artifact
produce knowledge? What is its mechanism? I have no answer. I don't believe
there is one.
|
You may find unique artifacts as defined in this theory of
knowledge to be an incomplete explanation. What drives knowledge, what causes
it to transform? It is not easy to move from transformation phase during
which we create strong fastening mechanisms to connections phases in which
our fasteners are weak. Newton faced a similar difficulty with gravity,
eventually proclaiming: "I do not frame hypotheses!" Gravity was
simply the interaction between objects; it did not have a "mechanism.” I
see uniqueness in the same way. I cannot say what drives the development of
new knowledge, what causes knowledge to transform. I do not know what the
mechanism is that makes us construct a new entity artifact or that makes an
inventor move to a new phase. This issue of transformation was at the heart
of the work of Piaget in his last years when he built his theory of
"Genetic Epistemology." I sought such a mechanism for uniqueness
for many years without success, slowly breaking the hold of wholistic transformations
and environment on my thinking. It is an odd thing that we learn to do, for
slowly we will come to no longer ask this kind of question. We will come to
accept the power of this new fastening artifact and no longer require the
strong mechanism. We will be looking to explain why a particular theory
exists and not what caused it to occur.
|
|
There is no mechanism for
the transformation of knowledge. It is all a matter of individual invention.
|
We do have significant historical reason to not frame a
mechanism. When Darwin hypothesized Natural Selection, he did not frame a
mechanism. He could not explain the mechanism of variation, and it was only
when he finally broke ties with object transformations and the search for
such a mechanism that he could complete the On the Origin of Species.
Maxwell spent several years searching for a mechanism; a system, a mechanical
process by which the fields actually "worked." In a 1861 paper he proposed
a medium full of mechanical parts - rollers and balls - to carry and explain
the actions of electric and magnetic forces. The vestige of these ideas
remained in his "aether," adding little value to his theory and engendering
fruitless searches and theoretical confusion until Einstein sent it to its
final rest. As you invent with these new tools, you may want to remember
these hard-fought battles. I doubt that we can construct new knowledge
without such conflict.
|
|
Is there a roadmap to
invention?
|
And how should those of us who seek to create exciting new
inventions in this new period proceed? The Unique Artifacts theory lays out
no path to conceptual invention. We can describe what the tools of invention
are. But as with any extraordinary physical artifact, a powerful conceptual
artifact does not just come from the hands of those who have the proper tools
- or even necessarily from those who are good with the tools - but is rather
a special creative act that remains mysterious and wondrous. The Unique
Artifacts theory may lay out these tools and set up the workbench, but it
cannot produce the unique new knowledge. That is the work of artisans and it
is surely precious.
|
A Personal Look Into the
Future
|
|
|
I imagine that you, like I, are now brimming with curiosity
about what this new knowledge will look like. I have tried to give you a
single example, the Unique Artifacts theory of knowledge. But the other
disciplines - the sciences, the arts - what will these look like? I have
wondered about this. Unfortunately, Unique Artifacts is not a manufacturing
process and I have no great insights into the next great theory of physics or
the next new art form. As I have said before, invention is a creative process
of the imagination, and we shall have to wait for those who have the insight
to actually create the knowledge of the future. But it might be helpful if I
set out a few personal reflections on the nature of this new knowledge.
|
|
Physics
|
In my discipline of physics there are three great theoretical
frameworks that dominate the subject - Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and
conservation/symmetry. The first two are well known and well understood. The
last is a collection of ideas that are sometimes at the center of physics but
often float on the periphery, important to arguments but not explicitly
appearing in the equations. Physicists often talk in terms of both conservation
and symmetry, but neither have significant theoretical foundation. The
conservation laws, as we saw earlier, were derived from Newton's laws. In
1848, they generated new ideas, the laws of thermodynamics - Conservation of
Energy and Entropy. But, while these conservation laws are broadly used, they
do not have an inherent logical basis in our science.
The same is true for symmetry. No idea today has more widespread use in
modern physics, and a number of patterns based on mathematical symmetries
have been successful in predicting sub-atomic particles and even new quarks.
But we have not yet seen a powerful theory based on symmetry. We use symmetry,
but we do not have a fundamental conception of symmetry or its requirement in
the physical world. While both symmetry and conservation have long histories
and a variety of interpretations, they are vital today because they are both
forms of invariance under transformation. The "Standard Model" which
describes the physics of quarks and subatomic particle, is based on such
invariance.
Yet these are powerful artifacts whose uniqueness may be shorn of invariance
under transformation form. Perhaps we can find in the forms of uniqueness,
difference, sameness, and matching, the basis for symmetry and conservation,
just as we did the basis for the elements of knowledge. And that new elements
of physics, either derived from symmetry and conservation or other unique
artifacts, may then become the basis for a new theory and Einstein's dream of
uniting of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
|
|
Evolution and Biology
|
Having a deep love of Darwin, I have naturally played with
the direction of evolutionary theory. In this area, too, I believe that we
can make some great strides, creating superseding theories. Natural Selection
provides us with a wonderful understanding of the origin of the species. It
gives us a deep confidence that we know what and how species change. But
there is a small hole in this great theory, one that I never see discussed,
but that nevertheless troubles me and I would suspect others. For to me the
amazing thing about evolution is that we have species, stable configurations
that last for long periods of time. Evolution is not a continuous thing. It
is not just that it is punctuated. It is that it reaches stability, that
there is something about a species that has evolved to a particular state
that stops that evolution. There is a sense of "perfection." And
once again we see the potential for uniqueness to play a significant
role.
What was it about Triceratops or Homoerectus that established their long
existence and stable configuration? What was it about the evolution of the
horse that produced nearly continuous change until the modern horse
stabilized? It was not just a stable environment, for the environmental
variations existed and continue to exist. I believe that there is something
stable, unique about these forms, totally separate from environment that
represents them as a stable and long existing species. When we understand
this uniqueness, then we shall understand a great deal more about the evolution
of the species.
|
|
Art
|
In the visual arts, it certainly seems as if every possible
visual style that could be done has been done. Modern art runs the entire
gamut from realism to abstractionism. Many artists today are searching for
new styles in new media, believing that painting has come to the end of
possible styles. But again and again in the history of art it seemed as if
the greatest work had already been done. I see no reason why the same is not
true today, and that new styles of both two and three dimensional works will come
in both new media and old.
I do not know where it will be found, but unique artifacts suggests many
artistic possibilities in the exploration of uniqueness. That is the realm of
art, and I am sure that there is great depth to which it can be explored. For
the true aim of art is the representation of uniqueness, and now we will see
what artists do without constraint in such a search. I only wish that my
imagination were good enough to picture such new works.
|
The Future
|
|
Fear not, we still cannot
predict the future with anything but a broad brush.
|
We do not have to be afraid that with such a theory of
knowledge, our future is preordained. We cannot know or invent artifacts
beyond the entity we are in or that we will be moving into. I know of not a
single instance in all of the history of knowledge where an inventor of new knowledge
jumped a phase. Not a single one! That is powerful evidence that we cannot
invent knowledge based on the tools of a future phase. I also have no reason
to believe that, just because we now have a clear understanding of the
sequence of the development of knowledge, we have the ability to change this.
Knowledge is far too difficult to create even with a toolkit we know well,
for any of us to imagine becoming facile with a very advanced set, inventing
the distant future.
|
|
How is it that these
revolutions in the disciplines are clustered so closely together? The answer
lies in the nature of inventors.
|
While I do not frame hypotheses about what drives the change
of these tools and phases of knowledge, I do believe I understand: why major
shifts in the tools produce new knowledges across disciplines; why changes in
fastening artifacts so quickly pervade all of the disciplines; why there are
revolutions in knowledge. Do they just float in the atmosphere? No! I try
hard not to use the environments artifact, though I am not always successful.
The answer is much simpler and much less mystical.
Inventors are people in search of uniqueness. They are always looking for
the connection, the suggestion, the insight, the model that will allow them
to fashion the entities, sites, and fasteners that bring us definition,
pattern, and meaning. These pioneers are constantly searching inside and
outside of their disciplines for new metaphors, new patterns, new links. They
cast their eyes on everything, scrutinizing a wide variety of inventions,
hoping that something or someone will provide a trigger, a clue.
It is frustrating out there as an inventor of fundamentally new artifacts.
It is lonely and difficult. You look everywhere, furtively searching for
artifacts in other disciplines that could be of help. Often there is a
community agitating for invention, pushing its members. The Impressionists
were such a community. In the past, universities have provided such a community.
Sometimes the solitary inventor, like Einstein, sees a flaw, a hole, a
difficulty in their discipline. Einstein's sense of the unity of physics was
bothered by niggling issues that others dismissed. Sometimes, invention comes
from just a feeling that wonderful new works are not being created, that the
theories and arts are stale, and that new ideas and new forms are needed. And
sometimes, there are a few who have accumulated vast knowledges and who find
them difficult to integrate, who search for new containers, and new ways to
simplify.
Within a period or a phase, the tools are well known; the metaphors and
patterns well established, and most new knowledge is just their application,
the fashioning of the right artifacts. Like wonderful physical artifacts,
some new conceptual artifacts are very distinctive and others are just well
constructed. We can see this in the arts; some painters will do fine works
within a well established genre, and some will seek to reframe, to find a new
way of using the tools that they have, to establish a new art form. Within a
phase we all use the same tools. Some of us create works that are very
different, using the tools in a new way, and some of us create works that are
beautiful and well formed, but their use of the tools does not break virgin
soil. When we enter a new phase and even more so when we enter a new period,
we must look for ideas that are really different, that are breakthroughs of
the imagination. So others and I may use this theory of knowledge to
speculate on the future of the disciplines, but our ideas will not be
breakthroughs, they will not have that extraordinary uniqueness that
separates the defining fundamentally new artifacts from the works of good
craftsmanship. And while I may speculate about the Unique Artifacts period of
knowledge, I do not pretend to invent it in other disciplines. I offer my
poor notions only to provide a few signposts to those who will really map the
future.
|
|
Our greatest thrills come
from learning and inventing. Join me as we begin the artifacts period and
reinvent our world.
|
As we venture into the artifacts period, everything will
be new. Inventions made with this unique entity and with these tools, will be
fresh and wonderful. The thrill and excitement of human construction, when
everything is new and open, cannot be matched. It provides the drive and the
courage to venture into uncharted territory. We will need to have some
patience with these inventors, for they may not yet be able to argue with the
conviction and sophistication of those that fish the old waters. New, really
new, ideas take time to develop and a good deal of getting used to. It takes
some practice to understand what new tools can do and what fundamentally new
artifacts mean. I invite you to join me in this wild and thrilling adventure.
For to learn and to invent are the most magical and profound of all human
activities - the greatest soaring of the human spirit.
|
