Transcript Title

Evolutionary epistemology versus faith and
justified true belief:
―
Does science work and can we know the truth?
William P. Hall
President
Kororoit Institute Proponents and Supporters
Assoc., Inc. - http://kororoit.org
[email protected]
http://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net
Atheists Society Lecture: 12 August 2014
Access my research papers from
Google Citations
Introduction


Epistemology is a lot more important than a subject
for philosophical debate
Humanity faces a range of existential risks, e.g.,
–
Anthropogenic global warming & climate change



–
–
Peak oil / minerals
Global scale catastrophe




2
Rising sea levels
Global crop failures (e.g., potato famines)
Exotic disease pandemics (e.g., ebola)
1851-scale electromagnetic storms
Meteor strike
How do we know this? What should we do about them:
How do we know what we think we know?
Who do we trust? Does science provide truth? Or a
suitable basis for rational action?
Faith and belief do
not provide
effective answers!
9/11 & horrors of the 20th Century


The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center
Often suicidally committed perpetrators can
be guided by one or a few charismatic leaders
to commit massive outrages against initially
comparatively peaceful populations
–
–
–
–
–
4
Hitler, WWII in Europe and the Holocaust
Japan's warlords and WWII in the Pacific
Stalin, terrors and gulags
Mao Tse Tung and the Cultural Revolution
The multitude of smaller "ethnic cleansings" in the
Balkans/Cambodia/Iraq/Iran/Sudan etc…
Some smaller consequences of extreme beliefs

Historic – some smaller examples self-inflicted death
–
–
–

Current
–
5
Joseph Kibweteere's Catholic-based Movement for the Restoration
of the Ten Commandments of God (2000 – 800-1000 deaths in
Uganda from immolation.). See Venter 2006. Doomsday movements in
Africa: Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God)
Marshall Herff Applewhite's Heaven's Gate Cult (1997 - 39
poisoned). See Zeller (2003). The euphemization of violence: The
case of Heaven’s Gate”.
Jim Jones "Jonestown Massacre" (1978 - 913 deaths in Guyana,
mostly from suicide or murder of children (217) by parents). See
Alternative Considerations of Jonestown & Peoples Temple
Suicide bombers and the Sunni-Shia conflict, murder and
mayhem reported on a daily basis
How do individual people become weapons of mass destruction?

Contexts:
–
–
Psychotic leaders radiating ultimate conviction
Followers’ willingness to abdicate thoughtful responsibility
for own actions



Big question:
–
–
6
Charismatic leaders who convince others they have special
powers, such as the ability to heal, to speak with God directly, or
know absolute truth
Willingness to accept on faith (and faith alone) the word of God
as proclaimed by some charismatic leader or some purported holy
document
What leads seemingly ordinary people to sacrifice their
property and lives to follow charismatic leaders?
Easier to accept and believe than to think and criticize
Cults and the primacy of true belief


Con jobs performed by almost all religions and cults
based on faith and belief
Sola fide (by faith alone - see Wikipedia)
–
–
God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received
through faith, conceived as excluding all "works," alone.
True belief is determined by faith and faith alone



Some will claim confirmatory manifestations to justify
true belief or one disconfirmatory case to deny the
vast bulk of evidence
–

7
Faith in the guru/leader
Faith in the designated scriptures
Far better to criticize all important claims
How can we combat the Murdoch press??
My personal
problematic
“Your work is not
scientific”
Hall, W.P. 1973. Comparative population cytogenetics,
speciation and evolution of the iguanid lizard genus
Sceloporus. PhD Thesis, Harvard University
Invited review:
Hall, W.P. 2010. Chromosome variation, genomics, speciation
and evolution in Sceloporus lizards. Cytogenetic and
Genome Research 127 (2-4), pp. 143-65.
Why understanding epistemology became personally
important to me

(Evolutiononary biology is not a physical science)
PhD Harvard (1973) Chromosome variation, genomics, speciation and
evolution in Seceloporus lizards (cty.) Ernest E Williams & Ernst Mayr
–
–

Poorly received by my advisors, journals & other critics
–
–
–

–
–
9
Referring to my draft thesis, EEW said, “I don’t like it, do it over! ” [i.e.,
the thesis, not the research]
[Me] What’s wrong with it? [EEW] “I don’t know.”
The data was so overwhelming he and Mayr still had to pass the work
In 1977-79 while I was a post doc at Univ. Melbourne I summarised my
thesis work for peer review and formal publication:
–

One of the largest studies of chromosome variation to then
Novel theories challenging Mayr’s geographical speciation model
A U. of Mich. PhD student who earlier assisted both in the field and lab
claimed “Your work is unscientific” and re-drafted it
He failed to understand the logic of my methodology and argument
Was he correct?
I spent most of postdoc studying history and epistemology of science
–
Too late for my job prospects as an evolutionary biologist
Initial learnings from history and philosophy of
science (< 1980)


Most philosophers seemed to live in ivory towers, away with the
black swans and other figments of imagination
Only two offered practical answers to my problematic (ref
Maniglier on Bachelard and the concept of problematic)
–
Thomas Kuhn (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Historical and sociological analysis
 Paradigms
 Normal vs Revolutionary Science
(Kuhn helped my understanding, but not relevant for today’s talk)

–
Karl Popper




10

(1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery
(1963) Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific
Knowledge
(1972) Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach
(1977 – with J.C. Eccles) The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for
Interactionism
(1994) Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem: In Defence of
Interaction
The early Popper vs. the mature Popper
on epistemology

Popper 1959, 1963
–
–
–
–
–
–

Popper (1972 – “Objective Knowledge”) biological approach
–
–
–
–
–
–

11
We can’t prove if we know the truth
There is no such thing as induction
Deductively falsifying a theory is deterministic
Correspondence theory of truth
Make bold hypotheses and try to falsify them –
what is left is better than what has been falsified
Falsifiability demarcates science from pseudoscience
Knowledge is a biological phenomenon
Knowledge is solutions to problems of life
All knowledge is cognitively constructed (Popper is a radical constructivist!)
Falsification doesn’t work in the real world; claims can be protected by
auxiliary hypotheses (All claims to know must be regarded as fallible)
Three worlds ontology
“Tetradic schema” / “general theory of evolution” to eliminate errors and
build knowledge
Many contemporary philosophers misunderstand Objective Knowledge
– “Objective knowledge” = knowledge codified into/onto a physical
object (DNA, printed paper, pitted CD, magnetic domains)
How do you do “science” with complex and often
chaotic systems?

Differences between the life and physical sciences
–
–
Deterministic vs stochastic (≠ indeterminate) causation
Physical science


–
Living systems



Causally complex, non-linear, to some degree chaotic
Can explain retrodictively but cannot predict deterministically
Comparative approach
–
Study “natural experiments”


–
–
Shared common ancestry controls most variables
Look for correlations between possible causes and effects
Cycles of speculation, criticism and testing
Extend scope phylogenetically and range of effects
Hall (1983) Modes of speciation and evolution in the sceloporine iguanid
lizards. I. Epistemology of the comparative approach and introduction to the
problem

12
Hypothetico-deductive approaches
Theoretical predictions susceptible to near deterministic refutation
1. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND INITIAL SPECULATIONS
3a. COLLECT OTHER
NEEDED DATA
2. SELECT APPROPRIATE NATURAL ‘EXPERIMENTS’ AND
‘CONTROLS’ TO ILLUSTRATE PROBLEM
4a. FURTHER CROSS
CORRELATION ANALYSES
WITH NEW DATA
3. COLLECT DATA FROM EXPERIMENTS AND CONTROLS
NO
ARE
CORRELATIONS
FOUND
?
4. DO CROSS-CORRELATION ANALYSES OF N-DIMENSIONAL
MATRICES TO IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT PHENOMENA
5a. REVISE AND/OR REPLACE
MODEL AS INDICATED BY
NEW CORRELATION
ANALYSES
YES
5. GENERATE MODELS THROUGH ANALOGY, INDUCTION,
ETC. WHICH PROVIDE CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS FOR
SIGNIFICANTLY CORRELATED PHENOMENA
My answer to the
problematic:
How to understand complex
stochastic systems
scientifically?
• Build, test &
criticize as
as many
connections as
possible between
theory and
reality
7.
a.
b.
c.
NO
NO
SHOULD
MATRICES BE RERANKED ?
YES
6a. IS
MODEL LOGIC
OK?
YES
NO
TEST ASSMPTIONS:
DEMONSTRATIONS
H D EXPERIMENTS
SIMULATIONS
OK
?
6.
IS MODEL LOGIC
OK?
8.
a.
b.
c.
TEST PREDICTIONS:
SAME PHENOMENA OF NEW CASES
OTHER PHENOMENA OF ORIGINAL CASES
OTHER PHENOMENA OF OTHER CASES
YES
9. TEST RECONSTRUCTIONS:
DO MODELS PLAUSIBLY
RECONSTRUCT CASES
ACCORDING TO EVIDENCE?
NO
YES
OK
?
NO
YES
AND
13
10.
A NATURAL PHENOMENON HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AND UNDERSTOOD,
BUT THIS UNDERSTANDING SHOULD BE HELD ONLY AS LONG AS IT
PROVIDES REALISTIC EXPLANATIONS OF OBSERVATIONS ABOUT NATURE
YES
OK
?
NO
Scientific thinking
in the 20th Century
(skipped for today)
See extra slides
Evolutionary
epistemology
―
A biologically-based theory
of the growth of scientific
knowledge
Philosophy, “knowledge”, and “truth”

A-priori assumptions
–
–
–
–

A claim to know may truly correspond to
reality, but… Truth (or falsity) in the real
world cannot be proved
–
16
There is a “real world” with law-like behaviours
The physics of reality causes individual existences
There are no essences beyond the reality of our
existences
Solipsistic approaches are self-defeating
–
Knowledge of the world is not identical to the
real world
Cognition is in the world - it does not mirror it
Knowledge is constructed
Impossible to know whether a claim is true or not

Problems
–
–


Vision does not form an image of
external reality
The brain does not perceive reality, it
constructs a model
–
–
17
“Problem of Induction” - any number of
confirmations does not prove the next
test will not be a refutation (e.g.,
Gettier)
The biological impossibility to know if a
claim to know is true
–
Perception and cognition are
consequences of propagating action
potentials in a neural network.
Action potentials stimulated by physical
perturbations to neurons
Perception lags reality (see added slides)
Clock, via Wikimedia
Popper’s probable sources for his biological approach
to epistemology



Charles Darwin (1859) On the Origin of Species
Konrad Lorenz – 1973 Nobel Prize (animal cognition
and knowledge)
Donald T. Campbell cognitive scientist concerned with
knowledge growth
–
–

Popper’s acknowledgements, e.g.,
–
–
18
(1960) Blind Variation and Selective Retention…. (paper)
(1974) Evolutionary Epistemology (chapter)
(1972) Knowledge is solutions to problems of life
(1974) “The main task of the theory of knowledge is to
understand it as continuous with animal knowledge; and …
its discontinuity – if any – from animal knowledge” [p 1161,
“Replies to my Critics” in The Philosophy of Karl Popper]
Karl Popper's first big idea from Objective Knowledge:
“three worlds” ontology
“living
knowledge”
“codified
knowledge”
Cybernetic
self-regulation
Cognition
Consciousness
Tacit knowledge
Recall/Decode/Instruct
Encode/Reproduce
Genetic heredity
Recorded thought
Computer memory
Logical artifacts
Explicit knowledge
World 2
World 3
World of mental or
psychological states and
processes, subjective
experiences, memory of history
Organismic/personal/situational/
subjective/tacit knowledge in
world 2 emerges from interactions
with world 1
“life”
19
The world of “objective”
knowledge
Energy flow
Thermodynamics
Physics
Chemistry
Biochemistry
Produced / evaluated by
world 2 processes
World 1
Existence/Reality
“Epistemic cut” concept clarifies validity and relationships of
Popper’s three worlds


Popper did not physically justify his ontological proposal
Howard Pattee 1995 “Artificial life needs a real epistemology”
–
An “epistemic cut” (also known as “Heisenberg cut”) refers to strict
ontological separation in both physical and philosophical senses between:
Knowledge of reality from reality itself, e.g., description from construction, simulation from
realization, mind from brain [or cognition from physical system]. Selective evolution began with a
description-construction cut.... The highly evolved cognitive epistemology of physics requires an
epistemic cut between reversible dynamic laws and the irreversible process of measuring [or
describing]….
–
–



20
Different concept from “epistemic gap” separating “phenomenological
knowledge” from “physical knowledge”
No evidence Pattee or Popper ever cited the other
One epistemic cut separates the blind physics of world 1 from the
cybernetic self-regulation, cognition, and living memory of world 2
A second epistemic cut separates the self-regulating dynamics of living
entities from the knowledge encoded in books, computer memories and
DNAs and RNAs
See Pattee (2012) Laws, Language and Life. Biosemiotics vol. 7
Popper’s second big idea: "tetradic schema“ / "evolutionary
theory of knowledge" / "general theory of evolution"
Pn
a real-world problem faced by a
living entity
TS a tentative solution/theory.
Tentative solutions are varied
through serial/parallel iteration
EE a test or process of error
elimination
Pn+1 changed problem as faced by an
entity incorporating a surviving
solution
The whole process is iterated
21
Popper (1972), pp. 241-244

TSs may be embodied in W2 “structure” in the individual entity, or

TSs may be expressed in words as hypotheses in W3, subject to objective
criticism; or as genetic codes in DNA, subject to natural selection

Objective expression and criticism lets our theories die in our stead

Through cyclic iteration, sources of errors are found and eliminated

Tested solutions/theories become more reliable, i.e., approach reality

Surviving TSs are the source of all knowledge!
USAF Col. John Boyd's OODA Loop process wins dogfights
and military conflicts
22

Achieving strategic power depends critically on learning more, better and
faster, and reducing decision cycle times compared to competitors.

See Osinga (2005) Science, strategy and war: the strategic theory of John
Boyd - http://tinyurl.com/26eqduv
Popper's General Theory of Evolution + John Boyd
Pn
On
TS1
TS2
•
•
•
Self
criticism
EE
A
Environmental
criticism /filter
Reality trumps belief
EE
Pn+1
TSm
O
24
= Observation of reality; O = Making sense and orienting to
observations with solutions to be tested; D = Selection of a solution
or making a “decision”
A = Application of decision or "Action" on reality
EE = Elimination of errors
 Self-criticism eliminates bad ideas before action
 The real world is a filter that penalizes/eliminates entities that
act on mistaken decisions or errors (i.e., Darwinian selection
operates or Reality trumps belief )
Science as a social
processes for
formalizing and
managing knowledge
to make it reliable
Vines, R., Hall, W.P. 2011. Exploring the foundations of
organizational knowledge. Kororoit Institute Working
Papers No. 3.
Hall, W.P., Nousala, S. 2010. What is the value of peer
review – some sociotechnical considerations. Second
International Symposium on Peer Reviewing, ISPR 2010
June 29th - July 2nd, 2010 – Orlando, Florida, USA
Vines & Hall (2011) – Building personal and explicit knowledge
from real-world experience

Knowledge exists at several levels of organization
–
–
–
26
Personal tacit (W2)  Personal explicit (W3)
Organizational common (W3)  Organizational Formal (W3)
Formal integrated in organizational structure/dynamics (W2)
Vines & Hall (2011) Turning individual knowledge into reliable
and trustworthy organizational knowledge
27
Hall & Nousala (2010) - Constructing formal knowledge
28
Hall & Nousala (2010) - Growing and formalizing scientific,
scholarly and technical knowledge

Building the Body of Formal Scientific Knowledge
involves cycles of knowledge building and criticism in
four hierarchical levels of cognitive organization:
Existential Reality (W1) 
1. Personal (“I”):
observe (W2)  orient  TTs  (W1) EE  (iterate) … or …
(articulate & share) (W2 & W3) 
2. Collaboration Group (“We”) :
 assimilate (W2)  articulate  express (W3)  EE (W1)  
(iterate) … or … (submit)
3. SST Discipline Members (“Them” – mostly via W3):
 peer review (EE)   (reject/revise) … or …  (publish)
4. Knowledge Society: use  … or … evolve/retract 
29
Maintain, extend, test society’s Body of Formal Knowledge through
use
Hall (unpub) - Creating & managing formal knowledge
30
Take Home
•
•
•
•
All claims to know are
fallible
Don’t accept what you are
told or read uncritically
Consider sources
•
•
Gurus have vested interests
Science works pretty well
Test important claims
where you can
Hall, W.P. 2011. Physical basis for the emergence of
autopoiesis, cognition and knowledge. Kororoit Institute
Working Papers No. 2: 1-63.
Vines, R., Hall, W.P. 2011. Exploring the foundations of
organizational knowledge. Kororoit Institute Working
Papers No. 3.
Scientific thinking
in the 20th Century
Fundamentalism


See: American Academy of Arts and Sciences' Fundamentalism Project
in the Religious Movements 1998 Homepage section on fundamentalism:
http://tinyurl.com/moexo3j)
Fundamentalist sectarianism
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
34
–
Elect or chosen membership
Sharp group boundaries
Charismatic authoritarian leaders
Mandated behavioral requirements
Idealism as basis for personal and communal identity
Stress absolutism and inerrancy in their sources of revelation
Belief that truth is revealed and unified
Arcane so outsiders cannot understand communal truth
Members are part of a cosmic struggle
Reinterpret events in light of this cosmic struggle
Demonization of their opposition;
Selective in what parts of their tradition they stress
Attempt to overturn modern culture and its power.
Henry Blaskowski on Quora

The central 'faith' of science is that the world exists and is
observable. Everything else stems from that.
It is a faith in that it is indistinguishable from the "brain in a
jar"/Matrix theory of life. No, we can't prove we are not
just a brain in a jar, that we are making all this up.
So, if we
are in that state, science is just false.
But if the world exists, then science requires no faith, just
observation [and a bit more].
35
20th Century Epistemology tries to explain the
power of science to understand world

Plato’s “justified true belief”, Vienna Circle & Logical
Positivism
–

Truth is knowable
Post WWII
–
Constructivism and radical constructivism

–
The historian

–

Michael Polanyi
Karl Popper
Popper’s “irrationalist” students

36
Thomas Kuhn
Anti-Nazi’s

–
Knowledge is constructed – does not/cannot “reflect” external
reality

Imre Lakatos
P.K. Feyerabend
Problems with Logical Positivism

Gettier’s Problems
–

Any number of confirmations does not prove the next test will be a
refutation
The biological impossibility to know if a claim to know
is true
–
The brain does not perceive the world


–
Vision does not form an image of external reality



37
Cognition is a consequence of propagating action potentials in a
neural network.
Action potentials stimulated by physical perturbations to neurons

Photons are not the objects reflecting them
Photons striking retina are converted into neural action
potentials in primary photoreceptor cells
Neurons aggregate in the retina respond to lines, brightness,
changing contrast, movements
A mental construction is not identical to the external reality
Constructivism

Basic constructivist tenants
–
–
–

Social constructivism
–

Social relationships and interactions construct socially held
perceptions of reality and knowledge. Truth is what people
believe to be true
Radical constructivism
–
–
38
World is independent of human minds
“Knowledge” of the world is always a human construct
There is little point to be concerned about external reality
because you cannot know what it is
Knowledge cannot be transported from one mind into another
Individual knowledge and understanding depends on personal
interpretation of experience, not what "actually" occurs.
Major scientific advances

19th Century
–
–

20th Century
–
–
–
–
–
–
–


39
Darwinian theory of natural selection
Maxwell’s equations / theory of electromagnetism
Chromosomal/genetic theory of inheritance
Relativity
Atomic theory
Electrodynamics/unification of forces
Quantum theory
Synthetic theory of evolution
Plate tectonics
All based on theoretical speculation tested in practice
Prior science largely based on natural history observations
Human knowledge/dominance of the world appears
to grow through time


Pragmatic observation – human power over nature
has grown through time
Thomas Kuhn – The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (1960)
–
Key ideas




40
Paradigms
– World views
– Disciplinary matrices
– Incommensurable usages of same words
Normal science
Revolutions
This is constructivist historical interpretation not
epistemology
Time-lines for
constructing
knowledge
from reality
(animated slides explained
by references below)
Martin, C.P., Philp, W., Hall, W.P. 2009. Temporal convergence
for knowledge management. Australasian Journal of
Information Systems 15(2), 133-148.
Hall, W.P., Else, S., Martin, C., Philp, W. 2011. Time-based
frameworks for valuing knowledge: maintaining strategic
knowledge. Kororoit Institute Working Papers No. 1: 1-28.
(OASIS Seminar Presentation, Department of Information
Systems, University of Melbourne, 27 July 2007)
Information transformations in the living entity
through time
Living system
World 2
Cell
Multicellular organism
Social organisation
State
Classification
World 1
Memory of history
Semantic
processing to
form knowledge
Observations
(data)
Meaning
Predict, propose
Perturbations
Related
information
Slide 42
An "attractor basin"
Intelligence
Hall, W.P., Else, S., Martin, C., Philp, W. 2011. Time-based
frameworks for valuing knowledge: maintaining strategic
knowledge. Kororoit Institute Working Papers No. 1: 1-28.
(OASIS Seminar Presentation, Department of Information
Systems, University of Melbourne, 27 July 2007)
Another view
World 2
World 1
Medium/
Environment
Autopoietic system
Observation
Memory
World State 1
Classification
Perturbation
Transduction
Time
Synthesis
Evaluation
Processing Paradigm
(may include W3)
World 3
Iterate
Observed internal changes
Decision
Assemble
Response
World State 2
Effect
Internal changes
Effect action
Slide 43
Time-based cognitive
processes in
observing the world
to reach a goal
Based on Boyd’s OODA Loop
From the paper
t1 – time of observation
t2 – orientation & sensemaking
t3 – planning & decision
t4 – effect action
“now” as it
inexorably
progresses
through time
t1
convergent future
OODA
t4
t3
the world
×
stochastic
future
immutable past
calendar time
×
×
Anticipating and controlling
the future from now
t2
Animated slide
Click to advance
divergent
divergen
futures
t
×
intended
future
•Intended
convergent
future
:entity's
the
entity’s
future:
entity's
intended
Proximal
future
: :the
anticipated
Present:
calendar
time:
when
an
action
recent
past
:world
recent
sensory
data
in
journey
thus
far
the
memory
ofworld
history
perceivable
:the
the
world
that
the is
chart
: received
and
constructed
mapping
of
the
proximal
future
against
an
goal
or
farther
future
situation
in
the
world
(W2)
at in
t4to
as
executed.
calendar
time
concerning
the
perceivable
at t2 that
ascan
constructed
Memories
entity
observeextant
atint1W2.
inand
relationship
view
remains
intended
future
in
which
t
can
be
the
future
(at
tis
,its
where
gs
is
areality
goala
consequence
of
actions
at
t1+j,
where
•world
perceived
present
: external
theOODA
entity's
atfocus
t1 This
(i.e.,
observations)
the
entity
gs
gs
tend
to
on
prospective
and
the
chart.
authoritative
for
athe
single
cycle.
specified.
t
and
t
can
also
be
mapped
state
and
t
is
the
moment
when
that
jconstructed
is
a
time-step
unit—typically
on
understanding
in
W2
of
can
to construct
a its
1forward
gs
retrospective
associations
with
(W1)project
the entity
can1+jobserve
andevents
to
tgsisand
then
tpresent
forecasted
the
goal
realised).
Intentions
are
not
completing
next
OODA
cycle.
This
situation
in
the
world
time
tits
concept
of
the
situation
(i.e.,
gs+1
(understand
event-relative
time
) at
and
can
also
be at
3;in
in W2
(i.e.,
within
form
of
some
subsequent
goal.
necessarily
time
specific
but
are
always
anticipation
is
based
on
observed
recent
•tchronological
actual present
: the
entity's
future
situation.
Recent
in "nature
(calendar
timepast
)
3), or some
"cognitive
edge
•associated
divergent
future
: abased
world
state
where
with
anW2
event
or
goal-state
past,
perceived
and
forecasting
instantaneous
situation
in
W1
atwhat
time
t4.
is constructed
inpresent
on
the
entity’s
actions
the
future
(i.e.,
the
of
point
of
the
future
up
toain
tset
existed
inarrival
W1
leading
toproximal
t1.in calendar
4.up
(t
failed
achieve
the world
time
alsotobe
considered
to bestate
an of
1+j) can
the
intended future at tgs.
event).
“now” as it
inexorably
progresses
through
time
t2
t1
Animated slide
Click to advance
t1+j
tgs
stochastic
future
chart
convergent future
immutable past
perceived
present
the world
OODA
OODA
Perceivable world
Cognitive edge
×
×
×
recent
past
journey thus far
calendar time
divergent
futures
t4
t3
proximal
future
×
intended
future