Understanding complexity in today’s world requires a new perspective. Traditional methods struggle with the deep interconnectedness of modern systems, leading to unpredictable outcomes. Embracing the concept of entanglement helps us navigate these complexities by recognizing the need for adaptive and integrated approaches.
Dave Snowden’s Perspective
Dave Snowden argues that any complex system can be understood as entangled. In his view, entanglement captures the essence of complexity, where everything within a system is deeply interconnected, and the effects of actions or interventions are unpredictable due to the intricate web of relationships among components.
Snowden’s perspective highlights that traditional linear thinking and straightforward cause-and-effect assumptions no longer apply in such systems. Instead, every part of the system influences and is influenced by every other part, making the system inherently unpredictable and resistant to control.
From Enlightenment to Entanglement | Dave SnowdenDanny Hillis’s Perspective
Danny Hillis extends this idea by applying it to society as a whole, which he views as a complex system that is similarly entangled. Hillis suggests that modern society’s intricate blend of technology, institutions, and human behaviors cannot be understood or managed through simple, reductionist approaches.
The systems we have created—from global communication networks to economic and political structures—are so deeply intertwined that the boundaries between different domains, such as the natural and the artificial, or the human and the technological, are increasingly blurred.
As a result, society exhibits the same characteristics of complexity and entanglement that Snowden describes in more specific systems.
Age of Enlightenment versus Age of Entanglement | Danny HillisIn the Age of Entanglement, progress is no longer about breaking things down (as in the Enlightenment) but about synthesizing and integrating different biological, technological, or social elements into new forms and processes. These new forms are often unpredictable, emergent, and adaptive, creating a world that is as much shaped by the interplay between humans and machines as by any deliberate design. This world is characterized by complexity and interconnectedness, where human intentions merge with machine processes, leading to creations and systems that humans cannot easily understand or control.
Ultimately, Hillis sees entanglement as a new stage of evolution where humanity is remaking itself, becoming something new as it integrates more deeply with its technological and institutional creations. This transformation brings opportunities and risks, requiring careful consideration and responsibility as we navigate this new era.
Entanglement and Actor-Network Theory
The concept of entanglement aligns closely with Actor-Network Theory (ANT) in its emphasis on interconnectedness, interdependencies, and the influence of human and non-human entities in shaping outcomes.
In ANT, each “actor” (person, object, technology, or institution) exists within a network that affects actions and outcomes. It suggests no single actor has total control; outcomes emerge from dynamic relationships. Similarly, Snowden and Hillis’s views on entanglement emphasize the deep interweaving of technology, society, and nature, creating networks where control is dispersed and outcomes are unpredictable.
Key alignments:
- Networked Influence: ANT and entanglement stress relational influence, where each entity’s role stems from its network relationships.
- Human and Non-human Actants: Both recognize non-human agents, like technologies, as significant influences.
- Beyond Reductionism: Each approach rejects reductionism, focusing on the whole network rather than isolating individual actors.
- Emergent Outcomes: ANT and entanglement highlight that outcomes are emergent and unpredictable due to interconnected influences.
Together, ANT and entanglement illustrate that understanding complex systems requires a relational view, focusing on fluid, networked influences rather than isolated control.
Comparing Snowden and Hillis
Snowden and Hillis emphasize that entanglement captures the essence of complexity in modern systems, where everything is deeply interconnected and outcomes are unpredictable. Snowden focuses on the general unpredictability of complex systems, while Hillis extends this idea to society as a whole, particularly in the context of technology. Hillis argues that society, like any complex system, is so deeply intertwined with technology and institutions that traditional, reductionist approaches are insufficient.
From Enlightenment to Entanglement
Both thinkers suggest that the reductionist paradigm of the Enlightenment, which involved breaking down complex phenomena into simpler components, is no longer adequate for understanding today’s complex systems. Instead, they advocate for a shift towards synthesizing and integrating diverse elements to navigate the complexities of an entangled world. This new approach acknowledges that outcomes in such systems are often emergent, requiring more adaptive and systems-based approaches to decision-making and governance.
Enlightenment 2.0
In the evolving discourse on complexity and entanglement, Snowden and Hillis underscore the necessity of new frameworks for understanding interconnected systems. While the Age of Entanglement concept highlights complex systems’ intricate and often unpredictable nature, Enlightenment 2.0 extends this understanding by advocating for a more integrative and ethically guided approach. Enlightenment 2.0 recognizes the limitations of Enlightenment-era reductionism and emphasizes the need for a holistic perspective that synthesizes diverse elements to address the multifaceted challenges of the 21st century.
This shift does not dismiss the relevance of entanglement; instead, it incorporates it into a broader paradigm that seeks to understand complexity and actively engage with it through adaptive strategies. Enlightenment 2.0 thus provides a progressive framework that transcends mere acknowledgment of complexity, aiming to enhance our capacity to navigate the intertwined realities of technology, society, and nature.
In essence, while the Age of Entanglement captures the nuances of interconnectedness, Enlightenment 2.0 builds upon this foundation, offering a forward-looking perspective that is both inclusive and forward-thinking. The two concepts can be seen as complementary: the Age of Entanglement describes the current state of affairs, while Enlightenment 2.0 provides a roadmap for addressing the challenges within this complex landscape. Together, they represent a dual approach to understanding and managing the intricate dynamics of our contemporary world, suggesting that progress requires recognizing complexity and embracing a new paradigm of thought that aligns with the realities of an entangled existence.
Two Worlds
We live in two worlds. World #1 is characterized by simplicity and direct cause-and-effect relationships. It is the natural environment our brains evolved to navigate—where survival depends on short-term thinking, direct interactions, and clear outcomes.
In contrast, World #2 is the ultimate product of human innovation over the last 70,000 years, especially the rapid advancements of the last few centuries. This world is entangled, defined by complexity, where non-linear relationships and deep interconnections dominate, making outcomes unpredictable and often emergent.
Conclusion
In the complex world we live in today, understanding and navigating systems requires a shift in thinking—from breaking things down to understanding how they come together. This new paradigm recognizes that progress and problem-solving in an entangled world depend on synthesizing and integrating diverse elements rather than isolating them. It acknowledges that the outcomes of actions in such systems are often emergent and cannot be fully predicted or controlled, calling for more adaptive and holistic approaches to decision-making and governance.
To manage complexity effectively, we should shift our focus from control to adaptation. By recognizing the interconnectedness of our systems and embracing integration over reduction, we can make more informed decisions together. Understanding and applying the concept of entanglement helps us navigate the unpredictable nature of our entangled world.
Resources
- Article: The Enlightenment is Dead, Long Live the Entanglement – Long Now by Danny Hillis (2019)
Posts that link to this post
POST NAVIGATION
CHAPTER NAVIGATION
Tags: actor-network theory (3) | complexity (91) | Danny Hillis (2) | Dave Snowden (37) | Enlightenment 2.0 (12) | entanglement (1) | paradigm shift (4) | The Enlightenment (28)
SEARCH
Blook SearchGoogle Web Search
Photo Credits: MidJournrey (Public Domain)
If you enjoy my work and find it valuable, please consider giving me a little support. Your donation will help cover some of my website hosting expenses.
Make a donation