Why Form, and so Unification of Types, is Important UNIFICATION OF TYPES AND MULTI-LEVEL MODELING KCL, 13 th March 2024 Chris Partridge (BORO Solutions and University of Westminster) Overview Overall, we look at why the ‘unification of types’ is pragmatically important (and, more generally, why the ‘innocent’ development environment unification provides is pragmatically important) We start by establishing there is an important business requirement (computer) semantic interoperability (CSI) We then look at an information perspective on evolution one which adds computers – and then CSI - to the evolutionary tree of life We then add a major evolutionary transition perspective we look at the historic major evolutionary transitions – focusing on human and symbolic evolution we see how these transitions can involve radical changes we look at the symbolic major evolutionary transitions we characterise CSI as a potential next major symbolic evolutionary transition (I realise this is a grand claim) we note that transitions are probably contingent and that we may have agency for cultural evolutions – such as CSI We then focus in on form it is a basis for making computation tractable by ordinary mortals it is often rooted in technology in other words, technology creates the opportunity for new forms we suggest forms may be key in enabling CSI We then look at the agile style promotes variation and selection And so, evolution 2 Structure What is (computer) semantic interoperability? An evolutionary information perspective The nature of major evolutionary information transitions The evolution of form Facilitating form variation and selection 3 What is (computer) semantic interoperability? a practical, enterprise, evolutionary perspective Technology and its interoperability New information technologies do not come with built in interoperability usually a two-stage transition: technology then interoperability it is often a ‘hard road’ to achieving the second stage - interoperability A classic example for speech is the Tower of Babel narrative in Genesis 11:1–9 this speaks to the power of interoperability and to the curse of not having it and the LORD said, "Look, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them . Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” in this myth, implausibly, the journey is ‘backwards’ from being interoperable to not being interoperable Computer technology also has its two-stage transition computer technology then computer interoperability 5 Practical significance of computer semantic interoperability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_interoperability#Importance https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/nifo-national-interoperability-framework-observatory/glossary/term/semantic-interoperability tl;dr CSI is about machines talking to machines l ack of CSI has serious practical consequences we don’t do CSI at all well now 6 How did the need (for CSI) emerge? (Why do machines need to talk to machines?) “Islands of automation was a popular term used largely during the 1980s … the … usage is [now] defunct” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islands_of_automation see also: Bjork, B. (1987) The integrated use of computers in construction - The Finnish experience, ARECCAD 87, Barcelona, TIME the typical enterprise is now so automated that it no longer makes sense to talk about ‘expanding islands’ of automation … maybe, given the size, ‘ continents of automation’. Now looking ahead to the next stage, ubiquitous or pervasive computing. 7 As the islands expand ( automation increases), the systems abut – and so, the need to communicate ( data sharing ) arises and increases. intra -operability inter -operability Measuring the efficiency of interoperability (a simple synchronous semantic interoperability test) System A System A System B System B We can use intra-operability as a benchmark to assess interoperability The goals is for the costs of intra- and inter-operability to be roughly comparable it should be (roughly) as easy to communicate within as across systems machines talking to themselves 8 System A System A System B System B machines talking to other machines Data sharing – starting to evolve: alleyways of computer semantic interoperability When one tries to trace computer semantic interoperability, to map the journey of data shared between systems, it often travels through narrow APIs. Continuing the metaphor: this leads to a cramped structure more akin to alleyways than bridges – alleyways that are not always onward connected. This is an indication that data sharing (computer semantic interoperability) is not as evolved as automation (it still has a way to go). 9 Two evolutionary trajectories Domain ontologies aspire to expand the alleyways – to make the bridges as wide as the continents – enabling seamless data sharing. Data sharing emerges as a requirement out of the successful evolution of data processing systems. From another perspective, data sharing (interoperability) depends upon data processing (automation). 10 {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} second trajectory data sharing interoperability alleyways less evolved {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A} first trajectory data processing (systems) automation islands ð continents more evolved Vertical and horizontal data sharing time KEY system diachronous migration synchronous exchange (API) transmission Computer system and human evolution has some rough structural similarity. System migrations, and their integral data migrations, are diachronous. W here the time axis goes up the page, these can be thought of as vertical migrations. By the same reasoning, system to system APIs are synchronous and so can be thought of as horizontal exchanges. Currently, (vertical) migrations are typically fraught, difficult projects – with significant loss of data. (In other words, they are inefficient, ripe for improvement.) 11 Evolutionary information perspective a simplistic overview Multi-(four-)dimensional evolution 13 Jablonka , Eva, and Marion J. Lamb. 2005. Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral , and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life . Four dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral , and Symbolic BEHAVIORAL GENETIC EPIGENETIC SYMBOLIC Simplified reduced two-dimensional evolution 14 Focuses on humans as a product of two different and interacting evolutionary processes: genetic evolution (vertical) and symbolic evolution (horizontal). Genes and symbols continually interact in a feedback loop: changes in genes can lead to changes in symbols which can then influence genetic selection, and vice versa. Both the processes jointly evolve (at least partly) through a Darwinian selection process. GENETIC SYMBOLIC Information perspective One can view evolution from an information perspective: the simplest case is genes for many biologists, the causal role of genes should be understood in terms of their carrying information about their various products; and perhaps as well about the environments in which these products enhance fitness https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological/ but more wide-ranging approaches exist information has also become a focus of general discussion of evolutionary processes, especially as they relate to the mechanisms of inheritance. ... Richard Dawkins ... argu [es] that the long-term path of evolution is made up of gradual changes in inherited information . ... So life itself, the argument goes, depends on the evolution of mechanisms that support a high fidelity flow of information from one generation to the next. More ambitiously still, Maynard Smith and Szathmáry argue that many of the crucial steps in the last four billion years of evolution—their “major transitions in evolution”— involve the creation of new ways of transmitting information across generations—more reliable, more fine-grained, and more powerful ways of making possible the reliable re-creation of form across events of biological reproduction. The transition to a DNA-based inheritance system (probably from a system based on RNA) is one central example. But Maynard Smith and Szathmáry suggest that the transition from great ape forms of social life to human social life is a major transition, in part because of the novel forms of large scale cooperation that typify human social life, but mostly because they see human language as a breakthrough informational technology, revolutionising the possibilities of high fidelity intergenerational cultural learning ( MacArthur 1958; Maynard Smith and Szathmáry 1995, 1999 ). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological/#InfEvo Jablonka and Lamb use the characteristic differences between typical modes of social inheritance in animals and humans to illuminate the impact symbolic transmission systems have on human cultural evolution ... Furthermore, repositories of symbolically stored information, such as books, computer databases, and libraries can also be searched, annotated, edited and so forth, in ways that add to their power and versatility . Such repositories can be powerful means by which knowledge accumulates across generations. ( Jablonka , Eva, and Marion J. Lamb. 2005. Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral , and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life.) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-cultural/#TranInhe 15 tl;dr – one can ‘read’ evolution in terms of evolving information. the evolution of new ways of transmitting information across generations more reliable, more fine-grained, and more powerful ways Focus on symbolic information Overall context the (information) evolution of life (on the planet Earth) Evolutionary transmission (over time) inheritance (persistence) – of characteristics biological – vertical – genetic – parent to child symbolic – horizontal (oblique) The ‘phylum’ of interest ‘(symbolic) information’ plainly, this involves ‘cultural’ evolution though the early stages also involve biological evolution Symbolic transmission – social - cultural new characteristics emerge through new practices (ways of doing) and are inherited if the practices are successfully shared 16 Building the symbolic information evolution perspective Simplified three component ontology: biological individuals the things that adapt to their habitat store information the source and target of transmissions (of information) transmission (of information) within or between biological units adaption (of information) the aspect of the transmission process that involves changes to information to make the biological individual better suited to their habitat 17 Recognising (promiscuous) biological individuals Biological individuals genetic (organisms) humans (we restrict our focus to this) symbolic individuals speeches texts (operating) computer systems inter-computer communications Recognising the symbolic biological individuals involves a ‘promiscuous ontology’ for more on promiscuous individualism see: Dupré, John, 2012, Processes of Life: Essays in the Philosophy of Biology. 18 Symbolic units as biological individuals Etymology: biology (n.) "the science of life and living things," 1819, from Greek bios "life, one's life, lifetime“ Biological individuals (common criteria) are physically-bounded, relatively well-integrated, autonomous agents, have an integrated causal network of dependence relations reproduce Information transmission opens the way to recognising symbolic units as biological individuals computer systems easily meet most of the common criteria regarding system migrations as information transmission allows them to meet the criteria of reproduction the next step is recognising texts and then speeches as biological individuals 19 Major evolutionary information transitions Situating computer semantic interoperability in the human tree of life Macroevolutionary perspective Major transitions many of the crucial steps in the last four billion years of evolution—the “major transitions in evolution”—involve the creation of new ways of transmitting information across generations—more reliable, more fine-grained, and more powerful ways of making possible the reliable re-creation of form across events of biological reproduction . major transitions in evolution typically involve transitions to new kinds of ways in which information is stored and transmitted, understood as transitions to new kinds of replicating entities Maynard Smith, John and Eörs Szathmáry , 1995, The Major Transitions in Evolution 21 Szathmáry and Maynard Smith’s major transitions 22 The point of departure for most work on major transitions has been Szathmáry and Maynard Smith’s (1995) list of game-changing alterations in evolutionary history: Replicating molecules to populations of molecules in compartments Unlinked replicators to chromosomes RNA as gene and enzyme to DNA and protein (genetic code) Prokaryotes to eukaryotes Asexual clones to sexual populations Protists to animals, plants, and fungi (cell differentiation) Solitary individuals to colonies (non-reproductive castes) Primate societies to human societies (language) One of Maynard Smith and Szathmáry’s insights is that the very mechanisms of evolution—the way evolution works—have changed over the course of evolutionary history. Maynard Smith, John and Eörs Szathmáry , 1995, The Major Transitions in Evolution From: Turner, Derek and Joyce C. Havstad , "Philosophy of Macroevolution", https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/macroevolution/ tl;dr – Szathmáry and Maynard Smith suggest eight major transitions (see below) - this broad view enables us to that the way evolution works changes over the course of its history - the last one is the evolution of language (where our story starts) ‘ Phylogenic ’ tree for hominoids to human speech evolution time gibbon orangutan chimpanzee gorilla human hominoids hominids hominines hominins 23 Language first emerged anywhere between 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, about 5 to 7 million years ago Maynard Smith and Szathmáry’s last major transition was language – speech. This tree takes us to up to that starting point. This tree indirectly illustrates the different typical timescales for genetic and symbolic evolution – where genetic evolution tends to take much longer than symbolic evolution. Later major evolutionary transitions From our symbolic information perspective later ‘major’ evolutionary transitions speech (spoken language) text (language on ‘paper’) writing printing computing (language processing) computer systems computer to computer communication 24 computing speech text ‘ Phylogenic ’ tree for human post-speech evolution human speech time (computer) communication (computer) systems print ( text ) writing ( text ) human speech computer print ( text ) writing (text) human speech computer text 25 Note this treats speech, text and computer as distinct biological individuals (a promiscuous individuality approach). Macroevolutionary perspective: transition characteristics Clear association of information with technology technology that shifts the processing (in stages) outside the brain/body into symbols Co-evolution rather than replacement we still talk and write new technology reshapes the old e.g. primary versus secondary orality (Ong, 1977, Rhetoric, Romance and Technology) 26 computing speech text Example: aspects of a major transition 27 “We know a good deal about the actual procedures that Thomas Aquinas followed in composing his works, thanks ... to the full accounts we have from the hearings held for his canonization. … ... Still stronger is the testimony of Reginald his socius and of his pupils and of those who wrote to his dictation, who all declare that he used to dictate in his cell to three secretaries, and even occasionally to four, on different subjects at the same time . . . No one could dictate simultaneously so much various material without a special grace. Nor did he seem to be searching for things as yet unknown to him; he seemed simply to let his memory pour out its treasures ...” Mary Carruthers, The Book of Memory, 1992. “… composing a text was not writing at all but composing mentally and performing orally and, on occasion, dictating from memory. Carruthers (Carruthers, 1990, p. 6) argues that Aquinas' multi-volume Summa Theologica was produced in just this way: … these highly literate medieval churchmen did their work orally, relying on memory for examining, criticizing and developing ideas rather than relying, as is usually assumed, on the written text. Sermons were composed in the mind and sometimes written down later. Texts were not scrutinized so much as used as a record against which to check memory. Reading was not so much a matter of studying a text as ingesting or internalizing it. Once ingested, it could become the object of meditation and reflection. The scrutinized object was in the mind not in the text.” Olson, The world on paper, 1994. Pre-printing textual practices in the western medieval world were oral Literacy as a transition What is literacy? “Literacy in Western cultures is not just learning the abc's ; it is learning to use the resources of writing for a culturally defined set of tasks and procedures. All writers agree on this point.” Olson, The world on paper, 1994. In other words, literacy is the communal cultural practice of producing and exploiting textual resources – more specifically it involves both collating and creating common access to historical textual information as well as creating new textual information . It is a property of societies rather than individuals. It seems a reasonable assumption that once writing technology becomes available, that literacy (in this refined sense) would naturally follow. But history reveals this is not the case. Printing was the catalyst for literacy in Europe – but not in China. Technology may create an opportunity for a transition, but more needs to be done to exploit it. 28 Computeracy as an analogue of literacy 29 What is computeracy (computing semantic interoperability)? Computeracy is not just the ability to process data; it is the communal cultural practice of producing and exploiting data resources – more specifically it involves both collating and creating access to historical information as well as creating new information as shareable data. It is a property of societies rather than individuals. In a similar situation to writing and printing, the mere availability of computing technology is necessary, but not sufficient to produce computeracy. This requires the development of data sharing techniques and their deployment in cultural practices where both historical and new information is produced as shareable data. And this requires (computer) semantic interoperability. Cultural transitions 30 human speech literacy print ( text ) writing (text) human speech computeracy (computer) systems print ( text ) writing ( text ) computeracy (as a transition) (computer) communication literacy (as a transition) If literacy is a cultural transition, could there be a similar transition for computing. Macroevolutionary perspective: the evolutionary contingency question Macroevolution consider evolutionary contingency Is evolutionary history contingent? if there is an evolutionary next step will it naturally always happen? Stephen Jay Gould claimed that if we could rewind the tape of history to some point in the deep past and play it back again, the outcome would probably be different. Gould, Stephen Jay, 1989, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History will it naturally always happen everywhere? the evidence is that it does not Evidence from recent information transitions writing did not evolve everywhere => it was contingent printing did not evolve everywhere it evolved in the Far East well before Western Europe Olson (1994) The world on paper compares the evolution of printing-based literacy in Western Europe and China he notes it evolved in Western Europe; it didn’t evolve in China (until imported from the West) It is probably likely that evolutionary history is contingent do we have agency? maybe we do in cultural evolution maybe it is Lamarckian 31 Evolution of Form Computers and form are connected Computers are formal modern electronic data processing is characterized by algorithmic specifications of rules (in program code) for both the structure of the data and carrying out the data transformation process 33 Whitehead on Form (Notation) The interesting point to notice is the admirable illustration which this numeral system affords of the enormous importance of a good notation. By relieving the brain of all unnecessary work, a good notation sets it free to concentrate on more advanced problems, and in effect increases the mental power of the race” […] This example shows that, by the aid of symbolism, we can make transitions in reasoning almost mechanically by the eye , which otherwise would call into play the higher faculties of the brain. … It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle — they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments. Whitehead, Alfred North (1911). An Introduction to Mathematics. Ch. V: tl;dr – one of the ways civilisations evolve is though notation (form) adaptions - this is because they improve computational efficiency 34 Simple example - evolution of form using writing What is the role of writing in mathematics? If one thinks of a sufficiently tedious problem in arithmetic—say, that of dividing forty-­three thousand eight hundred and seventy-­three by nine hundred seventeen million six hundred eighty-­nine thousand three hundred and eleven—the writing seems essential insofar as, although practically anyone can solve this problem, most (all?) of us can solve it only in the positional system of Arabic numeration. One simply cannot calculate in English, or any other natural language, as one can in Arabic numeration ; and again, for most of us, there is just no other way to solve arithmetical problems of any degree of difficulty. … It can furthermore seem that this is a paradigm case of reasoning in mathematics , that the various systems of written marks that have been devised for mathematics are merely useful devices that simplify the work of mathematics but are in no way essential to it. … Arabic numeration provides a paradigm of a system of written signs within which to work in mathematics. But a calculation in Arabic numeration, because it is algorithmic, is not very interesting as mathematics. Significant mathematics is not algorithmic and often intellectually very challenging. And yet, Jourdain claims, a good mathematical notation can make it accessible even to the less gifted of us. Macbeth, D. 2012. ‘Seeing How It Goes: Paper-and-Pencil Reasoning in Mathematical Practice’. doi : 10.1093/ philmat /nkr006. it is important to realize that the long and strenuous work of the most gifted minds was necessary to provide us with simple and expressive notation which, in nearly all parts of mathematics, enables even the less gifted of us to reproduce theorems which needed the greatest genius to discover. Each improvement in notation seems, to the uninitiated, but a small thing; and yet, in a calculation, the pen sometimes seems to be more intelligent than the user. Philip E. B. Jourdain, The Nature of Mathematics (1912), p. 16 tl;dr – useful forms – though hard to find – once found easily simplify computation - some useful forms depend upon (new) technology - Arabic numerals are a good example – as they require writing (technology) 35 Simple example - Roman versus Arabic numerals 36 To divide, say, twenty-­seven by three, one first writes the number: XXVII. Then one looks for signs that have three or more occurrences. Because in our example none do, we rewrite, putting ‘VV’ for each ‘X’ and ‘IIIII’ for ‘V’: VVVVIIIIIII. Now we can separate out three ‘V’ and three collections of two ‘I’, leaving VI, which we again break down to give IIIIII. Because this latter collection can be divided into three collections of two ‘I’ each, we can see that our original collection can be regarded also as three collections, each VIIII. We have our answer: twenty-­seven divides into three collections of nine. … The system of Arabic numeration is different. It is a positional, and in particular a decimal, system that does not directly picture collections of things (as Roman numeration does) but instead formulates arithmetical content in a mathematically tractable way, in a way that enables calculations in the system of signs. On does not operate on the signs of Arabic numeration in a calculation as above we operated on signs of Roman numeration. Macbeth, D. 2012. ‘Seeing How It Goes: Paper-and-Pencil Reasoning in Mathematical Practice’. doi : 10.1093/ philmat /nkr006. Referring to: D. Schlimm and H. Neth , “ Modeling Ancient and Modern Arithmetical Practices: Addition and Multiplication with Arabic and Roman Numerals” tl;dr – it is not just technology that enables the computational efficiency to emerge - it is the new form adaption as well The theses Part 1: Whitehead: a good form can radically simplify computation see also: Dutilh Novaes , Catarina. 2012. Formal Languages in Logic: A Philosophical and Cognitive Analysis Part 2: Macbeth (minor) : (writing) technology can enable new forms that radically simplify computation writing enabled the development of Arabic numerals which simplify basic calculations (it also enabled Roman numerals, which don’t you need technology + new form) (Macbeth has a much wider more interesting (major) thesis) This naturally suggests a follow up question: could computing enable new forms? and if so, what forms would it enable? 37 Forms as information evolution Under the information evolutionary perspective new forms are symbolic evolutionary adaptions can “involve the creation of new ways of transmitting information across generations—more reliable, more fine-grained, and more powerful ways” intimately linked to (symbolic) computing can be enabled by new information technology, such as computing their evolution (discovery) is contingent we have agency over their evolution (discovery) 38 New forms enabling semantic interoperability Situation we have not (yet?) achieved semantic interoperability the efficient transmission of information between computers it is an obvious next evolutionary step for computing we know it is contingent – these steps are contingent What if new forms were needed to unlock this evolution? we know we have the agency to develop forms but how do we develop - design the forms we need? 39 Facilitating form variation and selection Enabling variation – and selection One way of approaching this is through variation and selection variation is a prelude to selection selection IS the selection of some variations In this context, if there is not a lot of interesting variation (of forms), there is not a lot (of forms) to select from The IS unification of types is an example of a form variation that should be selected We need to demonstrate this the agile style provides an 'innocent' unification environment is a useful platform for generating variation and also applying selection pressures So, demonstrating fitness 41