7. Order, Chaos, and “Disorder Filters”
In this section, we’ll explore a more functional and objective definition of “chaos” that makes so many counterintuitive aspects of reality suddenly make total sense, and which explains many of the mistakes we’ve made throughout history. This is probably my favourite topic to talk about in this entire model, even though it isn’t part of TCQs. Let’s get started!
Chaos is usually defined as the state of being disordered, confused, unpredictable, or formless. However, things we describe as chaotic are often composed of orderly elements and give rise to well-understood, predictable behaviours and forms.
An emergency evacuation of a building or stadium seems chaotic because we don’t know what each individual will do. And yet, the movement of a crowd as a whole, the paths and exits they’ll take, the pressure built up from people pushing on each other, and the time it'll take to evacuate, can all be modelled extremely accurately.
Sand blowing in the wind seems chaotic because we cannot predict what each individual grain will do; yet, based on the speed, direction, and duration of the wind, we can predict the size, shape, and pattern of dunes that will be formed.
For this reason, we often refer to natural systems as “orderly chaos.” We intuitively understand what we mean, we see it in life all around us, and yet we’ve defined order and chaos as antonyms. Is reality wrong, or our definitions?
For TBA, we’re going to redefine chaos as “the number of options and possibilities available in a system”. The more chaos there is, the higher the number of available options and possibilities someone or something has, or that are present in a system, such as a society.
Unlike basing the definition on subjective qualities such as “confused”, “patternless” or “unpredictable”, which require a mind to perceive, the number of options and possibilities available to a person, thing or system is entirely objective.
Still, at first glance, this doesn’t sound like we’ve changed very much. When there are lots of options and possibilities available, the result is highly unpredictable, unconstrained, changing, patternless, etc. - all the same hallmarks we typically associate with chaos, right?
And yet we’ve changed so much! For example, if we increase the number of orderly options and possibilities, based on this new definition, we’ve actually increased chaos! Confused?
Think about all the orderly options and possibilities available to a young woman trying to decide how to spend her evening in a democratic country. She could bake muffins, work on her project car, go for a walk, meet with friends at a cafe, call her mom, go to a movie, attend a yoga class, go on a date, go to a rock climbing gym, do volunteer work for a political party, sign up for night courses, etc. etc. etc..
These are all orderly options and possibilities, yet because there are so many, it still results in all the hallmarks of chaos we mentioned previously - her evenings can be highly unpredictable, unconstrained, changing, patternless, etc.. Compare that to what we typically think of as a highly “orderly” society, something like a theocracy or dictatorship. What can a young woman living in Yemen do with her evening? Not much!
With this definition of “order,” we can see that, while dictatorships and theocracies are less chaotic, they actually aren’t more orderly at all; they’re just more limited, more “constrained”.
And this is the true opposite of chaos, not order but ‘constraint’. The opposite of TBA’s definition of ‘order’ is simply ‘disorder’. These definitions enable us to simultaneously increase both order and chaos! “Orderly chaos” is no longer an oxymoron!
The definitions are objective because reality doesn’t care about or recognize order and disorder; it allows anything to happen that can happen (as long as it’s keeping within the laws of physics). But objectively, in reality, constraint does take more energy than allowing chaos.
This explains why highly constrained societies, such as dictatorships and theocracies, require a significantly higher proportion of the population to be engaged in internal policing compared to more chaotic (but still orderly) societies, like democracies.
So, how do more constrained societies score with TCQs? The fact that constraint takes more energy means they’re less efficient. Constraint also results in less dynamics and complexity. This decrease in efficiency, dynamics and complexity results in a loss of stability. Is this what we see in reality? Yes! Dictatorships and theocracies have historically been less stable in the long term than democracies. And with our concepts now aligned with reality, this fact that seemed confusing and counterintuitive to many now becomes obvious and intuitive.
However, we still have a problem. Chaos often coincides with a trend toward disorder because there are typically far more disorderly options and possibilities than orderly ones, making them statistically more likely to occur. This explains why people typically equate chaos with disorder - they do, in fact, usually go together. So, how can we enjoy the benefits of chaos without simultaneously inviting disorder? Let’s introduce one more concept - what I’ve called “disorder filters”.
A “disorder filter” blocks the disorderly options and possibilities, meaning the only remaining way to increase chaos is to increase the orderly options and possibilities.
What are some examples of disorder filters? One of the main ones is in evolution. Chaos is pushing for any and every mutation to occur at random with no rhyme or reason. And that’s exactly what happens. However, if a mutation results in disorder in the organism - either physical or behavioural - making it unable to swim straight or think straight, for example - that will result in the organism either dying on its own, or a predator hastening its demise. While one role of evolution is selecting traits that enhance TCQs, another primary role is acting as a disorder filter.
In society, we have fines and/or incarceration that act as disorder filters. In business, it’s a loss of revenue or bankruptcy. In relationships, it’s sleeping on the couch or breaking up. When these disorder filters work, the trend towards chaos can only be achieved by increasing orderly options and possibilities, i.e., increasing complex order.
Is this what we see? Yes! We see increasingly complex order in organisms and ecosystems over time. As we do in societies, the business world and relationships. In all these cases, this increase in complex order is “good” when it also results in increased efficiency, stability, and dynamics, which are all features of chaos as well!
With a better understanding of chaos and constraint, separating those from order and disorder, and combining that with the concept of disorder filters, the trend towards complex order that is more efficient, stable, and dynamic becomes completely intuitive and expected.
This understanding also enables us to create more effective societies. It shows that the better we are at identifying and specifically targeting disorderly actions and behaviours, while allowing as many orderly options and possibilities as possible, the more stable, efficient, complex and dynamic our lives and societies can be, while being just as orderly as more constrained societies that score worse on all those qualities.
As an example of how this could look, some countries make drinking alcohol in public illegal. However, it’s being drunk and disorderly in public that's the problem. Friends enjoying a few beers at the park and not disturbing anyone, or a couple enjoying a picnic at the beach with a bottle of wine, aren’t being disorderly. So the law should specifically target being drunk and disorderly in public, while allowing drinking alcohol in public when it’s being done in an orderly way. No example is ever going to be simple enough that one couldn’t bring in a host of other factors to consider, but this should at least illustrate the point.
Currently, we’re often frustrated by overly restrictive laws based on the lowest common denominator, and because their enforcement often punishes people even when they are acting responsibly and conscientiously. This often leads to resentment and the desire to undermine a system that is unnecessarily constraining. But imagine a society policed by an AI that understands all these concepts. It could be much better at enforcing rules in a contextually relevant manner!
For example, if it saw someone jaywalking when it was totally safe to do so and wouldn’t lead to disorder, it wouldn’t issue a ticket, making people feel respected as responsible adults capable of making rational decisions, rather than as rebellious children. Ironically, a hypothetical future society where such an AI “sees all and knows all,” which most people assume would be unbearably oppressive, could actually be less restrictive, more fair, and people could be freer than in the current systems we have today.
