NationStates Jolt Archive

Three questions:

1) Does anyone read Hari Seldon's psychohistorical prediction of the fall of the Galactic Empire as Asimov making an allegorical prediction about the potential collapse of the USA?

2) Does anyone think that psychohistory could actually be used and applied to make reasonably accurate predictions about the future (ie: predictions better than either chance or commonsense)

3) Does a "yes" answer to either of these two questions mean that we should begin the establishment of a Foundation or two?

No, no, and the last question is irrelevant, as I've answered no to the first 2.

Three questions:

1) Does anyone read Hari Seldon's psychohistorical prediction of the fall of the Galactic Empire as Asimov making an allegorical prediction about the potential collapse of the USA?

2) Does anyone think that psychohistory could actually be used and applied to make reasonably accurate predictions about the future (ie: predictions better than either chance or commonsense)

3) Does a "yes" answer to either of these two questions mean that we should begin the establishment of a Foundation or two?

(1) No - far too ethnocentric an interpretation.

(2) Possibly, but only to a very limited extent. The "science" or "art" of predicting the future has a pretty poor track record.

(3) Hardly. Particularly given that the fall of the American empire would scarcely plunge the world into a dark age - again, far too ethnocentric.

No, no, and the last question is irrelevant, as I've answered no to the first 2.
Do you not think that theres a degree to which history does appear to repeat itself though?

Maybe.

Yes, but also no. I think that psychohistory could be used to make valid predictions of wide trends on very large populations, but it would be impractical to use it on populations much smaller than planets (and any subdivisions within the community complicate the equations so much that they might as well be treated as different systems, thus limiting population size to the largest contiguous population you can find, which is not nearly large enough for such broad predictions to be made) and could not, in my opinion, be used to make prediction with the degree of accuracy that Seldon achieved.

And to your last question, why would we need a foundation? The foundations were intended to maintain the knowledge of the former galactic empire as well as to speed it's return. The "collapse" of the U.S. will not take the form of a splintering into kingdoms and the fall of technology, it will take the form of a fall from the position of singular superpower as the economies of the former third world catch up.

Do you not think that theres a degree to which history does appear to repeat itself though?

Absolutely, societies move through cycles with easily distinguished stages. I could probably find a description somewhere, I'll post it if I find it online, if not I might type up some of what I have in print explaining it.

(1) No - far too ethnocentric an interpretation.Elaborate?

(2) Possibly, but only to a very limited extent. The "science" or "art" of predicting the future has a pretty poor track record. I disagree. Almost everything we do has involved in it some elements of predicting the future, even just catching a ball. What I think you might mean is a point that gets touched on in Prelude to Foundation, that you have to put so many variables into your model that it ends up no less complex than the real phenomenon, and that if you put too few in, then your predictions are neither more accurate nor more profound than common sense.

No NO NO

http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/cycles.html has some interesting stuff about cycles including a section describing social cycles

Three questions:

1) Does anyone read Hari Seldon's psychohistorical prediction of the fall of the Galactic Empire as Asimov making an allegorical prediction about the potential collapse of the USA?

2) Does anyone think that psychohistory could actually be used and applied to make reasonably accurate predictions about the future (ie: predictions better than either chance or commonsense)

3) Does a "yes" answer to either of these two questions mean that we should begin the establishment of a Foundation or two?

1. Yes, but only in sense that all empires fall.

2. Possibly, but we'd need much more information (It only worked on a galactic scale, and even then not perfectly), and historical records aren't all that accurate anyway. It's probably only possible to do slightly better than chance.

3. Hell, no. Anyone who makes decisions about a large group of people is bound to go corrupt eventually (Basically restating the "absolute power" cliche).

I can make a book recomendation, though. I forget who it's by, but it's called Psychohistorical Crisis, and it's set in the far future of the Foundation universe. Deals with free will under an oligarcy of the Foundation.

Maybe.

Yes, but also no. I think that psychohistory could be used to make valid predictions of wide trends on very large populations, but it would be impractical to use it on populations much smaller than planets (and any subdivisions within the community complicate the equations so much that they might as well be treated as different systems, thus limiting population size to the largest contiguous population you can find, which is not nearly large enough for such broad predictions to be made) and could not, in my opinion, be used to make prediction with the degree of accuracy that Seldon achieved.Large populations was one of the prerequisites, so saying that the population size was too small would make the predictions invalid without undermining the overall idea (maybe)

And to your last question, why would we need a foundation? The foundations were intended to maintain the knowledge of the former galactic empire as well as to speed it's return. The "collapse" of the U.S. will not take the form of a splintering into kingdoms and the fall of technology, it will take the form of a fall from the position of singular superpower as the economies of the former third world catch up.
Asimov/Seldon's Foundations were to prevent technological collapse and a new dark age. That seems less likely to be necessary, but if civilisation as we know it were to fall, is there something else that might be worth saving?

1. Yes, but only in sense that all empires fall.

2. Possibly, but we'd need much more information (It only worked on a galactic scale, and even then not perfectly), and historical records aren't all that accurate anyway. It's probably only possible to do slightly better than chance.

3. Hell, no. Anyone who makes decisions about a large group of people is bound to go corrupt eventually (Basically restating the "absolute power" cliche).
That's pretty close to the answers I'd have given for this actually.

I can make a book recomendation, though. I forget who it's by, but it's called Psychohistorical Crisis, and it's set in the far future of the Foundation universe. Deals with free will under an oligarcy of the Foundation.I'll check that out sometime

Do you not think that theres a degree to which history does appear to repeat itself though?

Possibly. Here's one of my favourite quotes (I don't actually fully agree with it, but it's good anyway):
Those who don't study the past will repeat it's errors. Those who do study the past will find new ways to f*ck up. :D

Large populations was one of the prerequisites, so saying that the population size was too small would make the predictions invalid without undermining the overall idea (maybe)

I'm saying there does not exist a popultation large enough to make pyschohistory possible, so if it could ever be applied it would not be until the distant future (like when the Foundation story is set).

Asimov/Seldon's Foundations were to prevent technological collapse and a new dark age. That seems less likely to be necessary, but if civilisation as we know it were to fall, is there something else that might be worth saving?

I can't envision civilization as we know it falling, or at the very least not as a result of the diminishing power of the U.S. Many social psychologists suggest that we are approaching the end of our cycle as a society, and that the organization of the U.S. will be destroyed and rebuilt anew, but I think it will more closely resemble the disintigration of European Monarchies in favor of Democracy than the collapse of Asimov's Empire.

I can't envision civilization as we know it falling, or at the very least not as a result of the diminishing power of the U.S. Many social psychologists suggest that we are approaching the end of our cycle as a society, and that the organization of the U.S. will be destroyed and rebuilt anew, but I think it will more closely resemble the disintigration of European Monarchies in favor of Democracy than the collapse of Asimov's Empire.
Makes sense

The U.S. WILL fall. It's inevitable, no single entity can possess power forever.

The question though is to whether Asimov predicted that.

Elaborate?

I disagree. Almost everything we do has involved in it some elements of predicting the future, even just catching a ball. What I think you might mean is a point that gets touched on in Prelude to Foundation, that you have to put so many variables into your model that it ends up no less complex than the real phenomenon, and that if you put too few in, then your predictions are neither more accurate nor more profound than common sense.

Firstly, at the time the Foundation series was written and published, the idea of an American empire about to fall was far less common. My reading of the books involved (and I believe Asimov should have stopped at the trilogy) illustrated far more parallels with the fall of both the British and Roman empires.

In particular, the parallel with Rome in that only both a strong emperor and strong generals would preserve the empire as a strong emperor with weak generals would be fighting on one or more peripheries (sp?), a weak emperor with strong generals would see an attempt to usurp the emperor, and a weak emperor and weak generals would hasten the fall to barbarians.

I believe that Asimov was referring far more to the past than attempting to predict the future.

Secondly, seek for those who predicted the fall of the USSR's empire, and the rise of radical Islam before the event. Let alone the internet or mobile phones, both of which make enormous differences to the way information is disseminated and opinions formed.

Of course, many claimed that such things were inevitable and predictable after the event. Just very few predicted them beforehand.

Prediction of the future is just too damn hard.

And that is without any consideration of a Mule, which, of course, was sufficient to nearly destroy one foundation.

BUMP.
C'mon people, I love this series.