Futurity Dynamics 01 Jun 2023
The Future Reaches into the Present
The concept of the future, while inherently uncertain and elusive, plays a significant role in shaping our understanding of the world and influencing our present thoughts and actions. This essay explores decisionmaking as the result of practices facilitating futurity dynamics, examining how the future is defined, its impact on the present, and how our engagement with the future can affect its realization.
Defining the Problem Space
Human societies have developed various practices to render the future knowable, such as Prediction, Projection, Imagination, and Prefiguration. They reflect our inclination to understand and anticipate future events as discrete events.
Prediction involves using available data, historical patterns, and statistical models to estimate future events. Predictive analytics and forecasting techniques help us make informed decisions based on projected outcomes, enabling us to navigate uncertain terrain.
Projection entails extending present trends and patterns into the future. It relies on the assumption that past trajectories will continue, offering insights into potential outcomes. Economic forecasts and climate change models often employ projection to understand long-term implications.
Imagination allows us to create visions of the future that transcend existing constraints. It involves envisioning alternative possibilities and potential scenarios, inspiring innovation and shaping our aspirations. Science fiction, speculative design, and scenario planning are examples of imaginative practices that inform our understanding of the future.
Prefiguration refers to actively living and embodying the values and principles of a desired future in the present. It involves experimenting with alternative social structures, practices, and technologies as a way to bring about the envisioned future. Social movements and intentional communities often employ prefigurative strategies to challenge existing systems.
These various modes of future-oriented routines are drivers to innovation and are worthy objects of study. I shall distinguish these situations though comparative In short, this article aims to affirm the following logical comparisons:
Prediction =/= Lucky Guess
Projection =/= Common Sense
Imagination =/= Nonsense
Prefiguration =/= Delusion
Species of Future-Oriented Knowledge
Future-oriented knowledge producing routines provide a different perspective through which we can gain insights and understanding related to the future. They offer ways of knowing that correspond to knowledge of the future, although it is important to acknowledge that true knowledge of the future is unattainable due to its inherent uncertainty and speculative nature. Future-oriented practices approach the boundary of what is knowable about the future, pushing the limits of our understanding and offering valuable tools for exploration, analysis, and speculation. By engaging with possible futurities as real events, we can expand our perspectives and develop nuanced understandings of potential future scenarios.
We are met with a particular genus of question that asks, “What makes a ‘prediction’ different that a ‘lucky guess’?” However, what this question is indirectly asking about are the grounds, foundational evidence, or justification that legitimizes a claim made about a perceived pattern that cannot be known for certain, such as the future.
Let’s revisit the distinctions of these eight concepts in relation to their impact on the future.
Distinguishing Prediction from a Lucky Guess
Prediction involves making an educated inference based on available evidence and logical reasoning. It aims to find the most likely explanation by eliminating improbable alternatives. In contrast, a lucky guess lacks a systematic approach and relies on chance rather than reasoned analysis.
Several factors contribute to the casting of a prediction, such as:
Basis in Evidence and Reasoning: A prediction is typically grounded in a systematic analysis of available data, historical patterns, and relevant information. It relies on evidence-based reasoning and employs rigorous methodologies to draw conclusions about future events. In contrast, a lucky guess lacks a solid foundation of evidence or logical reasoning, often arising from chance or intuition without substantial support.
Methodological Framework: Predictions are often made within a defined methodological framework that incorporates established principles, models, or techniques. These frameworks provide a systematic approach for gathering and analyzing information, allowing for the identification of trends, patterns, and potential outcomes. In contrast, a lucky guess lacks a structured approach and is typically based on a hunch or random chance.
Track Record of Accuracy: Predictions gain credibility when they have a track record of accurate forecasts, demonstrating a consistent alignment between the predicted outcomes and the actual results. Such accuracy suggests that the prediction was based on reliable methods and a comprehensive understanding of the factors involved. Conversely, a lucky guess relies on chance and lacks a proven track record of accuracy.
Expertise and Domain Knowledge: Predictions often come from individuals or groups with expertise in a specific field or domain. These experts possess specialized knowledge, experience, and understanding of the factors that shape the future in their respective areas. Their predictions are based on a deep understanding of the subject matter and informed analysis. On the other hand, a lucky guess does not require expertise or domain knowledge, as it relies on chance rather than informed insights.
Transparency and Accountability: Reliable predictions are characterized by transparency in their methodologies, assumptions, and limitations. Those making predictions are willing to provide a clear rationale for their conclusions, disclose the data sources used, and explain the reasoning behind their projections. They also acknowledge the inherent uncertainties and potential for error. In contrast, a lucky guess lacks such transparency and accountability, as it often lacks a systematic approach or clear justification.
Prediction Example
Observation: The sky is dark, and there are rumbling sounds.
Hypothesis: It might rain soon.
In this example, the observation of dark skies and rumbling sounds leads to the abductive inference that rain is a plausible prediction. Based on the available evidence, the hypothesis is formed as a likely explanation for the observed phenomena.
Lucky Guess Example
Observation: A person consistently guesses the correct outcomes of coin flips.
Hypothesis: The person may have a hidden method or skill for predicting coin flips.
In this example, the observation of consistently correct coin flip guesses leads to the abductive inference that there might be an underlying method or skill contributing to the person’s accuracy. The hypothesis is generated as a plausible explanation for the observed pattern. However, unlike prediction, a lucky guess lacks a systematic approach. It relies on chance rather than reasoned analysis. The correct guesses are not based on evidence, logical reasoning, or an understanding of the factors that influence the outcome of coin flips. Instead, they are attributed to luck or random chance.
Distinguishing Projection from Common Sense
Projection involves predicting future outcomes based on available data and statistical modeling. It is a rigorous approach that aims to estimate likely scenarios. Common sense, on the other hand, relies on intuition, personal experiences, and everyday reasoning to make judgments and assessments. While both approaches have their merits, they differ in terms of methodology and reliance on evidence.
Key characteristics of projection include:
Data-driven: Projection relies on comprehensive data collection and analysis to identify patterns, correlations, and trends that can inform future projections. It emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decision-making.
Statistical modeling: Projection often involves employing statistical techniques to analyze historical data, establish relationships, and generate forecasts. These models can range from simple trend extrapolation to complex predictive algorithms.
Quantifiable outcomes: Projection aims to provide quantifiable estimates of future events, such as economic growth rates, population trends, or climate change projections. It emphasizes numerical predictions and measurable indicators.
Key characteristics of common sense include:
Subjective perspective: Common sense is influenced by individual perspectives, cultural backgrounds, and personal biases. It is shaped by one’s worldview, beliefs, and accumulated knowledge, which may vary among different individuals or communities.
Everyday reasoning: Common sense draws upon everyday experiences, observations, and logic to make sense of the world and anticipate future outcomes. It often relies on heuristics, mental shortcuts, and informal reasoning rather than rigorous analysis.
Tacit knowledge: Common sense is rooted in tacit knowledge, which is acquired through personal experiences, interactions, and cultural context. It encompasses practical wisdom and intuition that may not be explicitly articulated.
The key difference between projection and common sense lies in their approaches to evaluating notions about the future. Projection relies on systematic analysis of empirical data and statistical modeling to generate quantifiable predictions, while common sense draws upon subjective perspectives, everyday reasoning, and tacit knowledge to make intuitive assessments. Both approaches can offer valuable insights, but they operate on distinct principles and methodologies.
Projection Example
Observation: Over the past decade, there has been a steady increase in global temperature.
Hypothesis: The global temperature will continue to rise in the future.
Here, the observation of a consistent upward trend in global temperature leads to the abductive inference that the trend is likely to continue. The hypothesis of future temperature rise is based on the projection of the observed pattern into the future.
Common Sense Example
Observation: A person avoids touching a hot stove.
Hypothesis: The person understands that touching a hot stove can cause burns.
In this case, the observation of the person’s behavior, specifically avoiding touching a hot stove, leads to the abductive inference that the person possesses the common sense understanding that touching a hot stove can result in burns. The hypothesis is generated as a reasonable explanation for the person’s cautious behavior.
Note: You may have noticed I have implied common sense is a ‘decoy’ of knowledge. Stay tuned for a future blog post where I explain this position.
Distinguishing Imagination from Nonsense
Imagination refers to the creative process of generating ideas, concepts, or possibilities that may not have concrete evidence. It plays a crucial role in innovation, problem-solving, and envisioning alternative futures. Nonsense, however, refers to ideas or statements that lack coherence, logic, or rationality. While imagination can lead to novel insights, nonsense is ungrounded and lacks a sound basis or logical reasoning.
Differentiating between imagination and nonsense lies in the underlying foundations and coherence of ideas. Imagination, while involving creative and speculative elements, is grounded in a logical framework and draws upon existing knowledge and experiences. It seeks to expand possibilities, challenge conventional thinking, and inspire innovation. On the other hand, nonsense lacks logical coherence, defies established principles, and lacks a basis in evidence or reason. Evaluating notions about the future requires critical analysis, logical consistency, and an understanding of the contextual factors at play.
Consider the following elements:
Plausibility and Creativity: Imagination encompasses the ability to generate novel ideas, envision alternative futures, and explore imaginative possibilities. While imagination can involve creative leaps, it should still adhere to some degree of plausibility or coherence with known principles. Nonsense, on the other hand, lacks logical consistency or any basis in reality.
Intention and Purpose: Imagination often serves a purpose, such as inspiring innovation, problem-solving, or exploring hypothetical scenarios. It is driven by a desire to expand understanding or explore new frontiers. Nonsense, however, lacks a clear intention or purpose beyond being devoid of meaning or coherence.
Context and Communication: The context in which ideas are expressed can also provide clues. Imagination is often communicated in a context where it is understood to be speculative or creative, such as in literature, art, or speculative scenarios. Nonsense, on the contrary, is typically devoid of meaningful communication or logical coherence.
Feedback and Iteration: Imagination allows for feedback and iterative refinement. When imaginative ideas are subjected to scrutiny, they can be refined, developed, or discarded based on their potential for coherence, usefulness, or transformative impact. Nonsense, however, tends to resist or evade critical examination or improvement.
Imagination Example
Observation: A person presents an idea that involves envisioning a society where gravity no longer exists.
Hypothesis: The idea is an example of imagination rather than nonsense.
In this example, the observation of a person presenting an idea about a society without gravity leads to the abductive inference that the idea is an example of imagination rather than nonsense. The hypothesis is generated based on the understanding that imagination involves the creative process of generating ideas, concepts, or possibilities that may not have concrete evidence. While the idea may lack concrete evidence and seem unconventional, it aligns with the characteristics of imagination as it explores alternative possibilities and pushes the boundaries of current understanding. On the other hand, if the idea lacked coherence, logic, or rationality, it would be classified as nonsense. However, in this case, the idea falls within the realm of imaginative thinking rather than being considered nonsensical.
Nonsense Example
Observation: A person makes incoherent and illogical statements during a conversation.
Hypothesis: The person may be intoxicated or experiencing a cognitive impairment.
In this example, the observation of the person’s incoherent and illogical statements leads to the abductive inference that the person may be under the influence or experiencing a cognitive impairment. The hypothesis is generated as a plausible explanation for the observed nonsensical behavior.
Distinguishing Prefiguration from Delusion
Prefiguration and delusion can be distinguished by the nature of their underlying processes and the basis upon which they are formed. Prefiguration involves envisioning or planning for future scenarios and preparing accordingly. It is a proactive approach to adapt to forthcoming challenges and opportunities. Delusion, on the other hand, refers to a persistent belief or perception that is not based on reality or evidence. Prefiguration involves rational and reasoned anticipation, while delusion denotes a distorted understanding of the world.
Prefiguration refers to the process of imagining and designing potential future outcomes based on a thoughtful analysis of existing trends, patterns, and possibilities. It involves a systematic approach that takes into account available information, historical data, and relevant factors to construct plausible future scenarios. Prefiguration acknowledges the inherent uncertainties but strives to make informed assessments and projections.
In evaluating notions about the future through Prefiguration, several key aspects come into play:
Data and evidence: Prefiguration relies on objective data and evidence, drawing from various sources to inform its predictions. It emphasizes the importance of empirical information, research findings, and logical reasoning.
Probability and likelihood: Prefiguration assesses the probability and likelihood of future outcomes based on available information. It acknowledges that multiple possibilities exist and assigns probabilities to each based on their supporting evidence.
Transparency and accountability: Prefiguration aims to be transparent in its methodology, assumptions, and limitations. It recognizes that its assessments are subject to change as new data or factors emerge. This transparency allows for critical evaluation and accountability in the evaluation of future notions.
Delusion refers to the holding of unfounded or irrational beliefs about the future. It involves constructing imaginary scenarios that lack a basis in objective reality or credible evidence. Delusion may arise from wishful thinking, personal biases, or a disregard for available information.
When evaluating notions about the future for signs of delusion, several key elements should be considered:
Lack of evidence: Delusion often involves beliefs or claims that lack substantive evidence or fail to align with established facts and data. It relies on subjective perspectives or personal anecdotes rather than objective and verifiable information.
Disregard for probability: Delusion tends to dismiss or ignore the probabilities and likelihoods associated with different outcomes. It may present an overly optimistic or pessimistic view without considering the complexity and variability inherent in future events.
Resistance to scrutiny: Delusion often resists critical examination or challenges to its assumptions. It may rely on logical fallacies, cognitive biases, or selective information to support its claims, avoiding rigorous evaluation and scrutiny.
Prefiguration Example
Observation: The population is aging, and healthcare costs are rising.
Hypothesis: Implementing preventive healthcare measures could help mitigate future healthcare expenses.
Here, the observation of an aging population and increasing healthcare costs leads to the abductive inference that preventive healthcare measures may be beneficial. The hypothesis suggests that by prefiguring systems to focus on prevention, future healthcare expenses can potentially be reduced.
Delusion Example
Observation: A person firmly believes they can communicate with extraterrestrial beings.
Hypothesis: The person may be experiencing a delusional belief or holding a false perception of reality.
In this case, the observation of the person’s strong belief in communicating with extraterrestrial beings leads to the abductive inference that the person may be experiencing a delusion or holding a false perception of reality. The hypothesis is generated as a plausible explanation for the observed belief that is inconsistent with mainstream understanding.
The Impact of the Future on the Present
The future possesses a unique capacity to influence the present. Fear and hope, as two primary emotional responses to the future, have a profound impact on human behavior. Fear of an undesirable future can lead to caution, risk aversion, and the implementation of preemptive measures to avoid potential harm. Conversely, hope for a better future motivates us to strive for progress, innovation, and positive change. Additionally, the future serves as a catalyst for preparation or preemptive action, as individuals and societies anticipate and adapt to forthcoming challenges and opportunities.
Our thoughts and actions in relation to the future contribute to shaping the trajectory of potential outcomes. By actively engaging with different possibilities, we can increase the likelihood of certain futures and diminish the likelihood of others. There is comfort and terror in the fact that no single entity has complete control over the future, as it emerges from a complex interplay of countless factors.
Conclusion
Futurity dynamics encompass the multifaceted relationship between the future and the present. Enumerating practices such as prediction, projection, imagination, and prefiguration help us understand and navigate the uncertainties of the future and helps place what each mode of thought provides. The future, in turn, exerts influence on the present through evoking fear, hope, preparation, and preemption in time-sensitive species. Our thoughts and actions in relation to the future play a crucial role in shaping the likelihood of different outcomes. We can strive to create futures that align with our aspirations, values, and shared visions by embracing a proactive and forward-thinking mindset.
article [philosophy time