![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerThis started off when talking to Mike about his tweaking of the AI in Fable to make it work. I then realised that the principles applied to any system which tried to encapsulate higher order behaviours of complex systems in a simple ruleset. This includes everything from roleplaying systems to legal systems to software and I'm sure many others as well.
All feedback appreciated, as usual (as well as pointers to other things on the same topic).
Andy's first rule of systems: No system works in all situations.
Real life is complex (in the scientific meaning of the word) and fractal. At any level above the quantum, while it can be vaguely approximated by rules, there will always be situations where the results that rules produce aren’t what was originally expected or desired.
Andy's second rule of systems: Adjusting the system will take more time and money than you have.
There are an (effectively) infinite number of possibilities, tweaking the rules to each one in turn will therefore take forever, or until your budget runs out, whichever happens first.
Andy's third rule of systems: The result/effort ration decreases logarithmically as time goes on.
Your first rule will work in 90% of situations. The second one will fix 90% of the remaining solutions (and break 1% of the solutions you had fixed). Each successive rule will fix 90% of the remaining solutions (an ever decreasing amount) and break 1% of the currently fixed ones. It will not take long to reach the point of diminishing returns.
Andy's fourth rule of systems: One man's crust is another's complexity.
Eventually all systems reach the point where their complexity causes people to shudder when they think about changing them. Nobody will be able to understand them apart from a few people who have devoted their lives to them. These people will have almost certainly lost the ability to communicate with people who aren’t also heavily involved with the system (lawyers and computer programmers both fall into this category). However, before ripping it out and replacing it, remember that each of those rules is there because they fixed a problem. Any replacement system will need to cope with all of the situations the old one did. And it almost certainly won't until it reaches a similar state of crustiness (unless the situation the old system was designed to deal with has changed significantly).
All feedback appreciated, as usual (as well as pointers to other things on the same topic).
Andy's first rule of systems: No system works in all situations.
Real life is complex (in the scientific meaning of the word) and fractal. At any level above the quantum, while it can be vaguely approximated by rules, there will always be situations where the results that rules produce aren’t what was originally expected or desired.
Andy's second rule of systems: Adjusting the system will take more time and money than you have.
There are an (effectively) infinite number of possibilities, tweaking the rules to each one in turn will therefore take forever, or until your budget runs out, whichever happens first.
Andy's third rule of systems: The result/effort ration decreases logarithmically as time goes on.
Your first rule will work in 90% of situations. The second one will fix 90% of the remaining solutions (and break 1% of the solutions you had fixed). Each successive rule will fix 90% of the remaining solutions (an ever decreasing amount) and break 1% of the currently fixed ones. It will not take long to reach the point of diminishing returns.
Andy's fourth rule of systems: One man's crust is another's complexity.
Eventually all systems reach the point where their complexity causes people to shudder when they think about changing them. Nobody will be able to understand them apart from a few people who have devoted their lives to them. These people will have almost certainly lost the ability to communicate with people who aren’t also heavily involved with the system (lawyers and computer programmers both fall into this category). However, before ripping it out and replacing it, remember that each of those rules is there because they fixed a problem. Any replacement system will need to cope with all of the situations the old one did. And it almost certainly won't until it reaches a similar state of crustiness (unless the situation the old system was designed to deal with has changed significantly).
no subject
Date: 2003-09-29 02:13 pm (UTC)I am very smart :->
and lots of systemising people don't realise that systems can't cover all eventualities.
A quick read of "Chaos" or something else covering complexity theory would be helpful.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-29 02:29 pm (UTC)I don't need to read Chaos. I am living it. Passim..
(Oh god, awful thought - is this the equivalent of these dreadful people who have mugs saying "You Don't Have To Be Mad To Work here But It Helps"?) Kill me now.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-29 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-09-29 02:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-09-29 02:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-09-29 02:49 pm (UTC)I thought you were opposed to marriage on principle? (Gold stars tho are always welcome..)
no subject
Date: 2003-09-29 02:56 pm (UTC)For some reason, tho, I like the idea of civil partnership.
No, I don't understand either.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-29 03:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-09-29 03:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-09-29 03:13 pm (UTC)And yes, I'm torn apart by my conflicting romantic/sceptic tendencies.
I'd love to believe love is forever, but I can't. And therefore pledging endless love just strikes me as hypocritical.
But saying "When I die I want this person to be looked after, and they should be allowed to visit me in hospital and have access to any kids." strikes me as a very reasonable thing.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-29 04:46 pm (UTC)