Disorder/Order: Discovery or Invention? - Understanding Understanding: Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition - page 280

tically changed by changing from one alphabet a to another one, say, b .In
other words, the degree of disorder or order that can be seen in an arrange-
ment depends in a decisive way upon the choice of language (alphabet) that
is used in these operations. Take as an example my telephone number in
Pescadero. It is 879-0616 . Shift to another alphabet, say, the binary alpha-
bet. In that language my number is 100001100010001001011000. Should
you have difficulties remembering that number, shift back to the former
language!
Take as another example the random number sequence 8, 5, 4, etc., I
spoke of earlier (point ii ). I suggest shifting from an alphabet that uses
Arabic numerals to one that spells out each numeral in English: 8—eight,
5—five, 4—four, etc., and it becomes clear that under this alphabet the
former “random sequence” is well determined, hence has a very short
description: it is “alphabetical” (eight, five, four, nine, one, etc.).
Although I could go on with a wealth of examples that would drive home
again and again the main points of my argument, in the hope that the fore-
going examples suffice I will summarize these points in two propositions.
Number one: A computational metaphor allows us to associate the degree
of order of an arrangement with the shortness of its description. Number
two: The length of descriptions is language-dependent. From these two
propositions, a third one, my essential clincher, follows: Since language is
not something we discover—it is our choice, and it is we who invent it—
disorder and order are our inventions! 2
With this sequence I have come full circle to my introductory claim that
I shall once and for all put to rest the question of whether disorder and
order are discoveries or our inventions. My answer, I think, is clear.
Let me draw from this constructivist position a few epistemological con-
sequences that are inaccessible to would-be discoverers.
One of these is that properties that are believed to reside in things turn
out to be those of the observer. Take, for instance, the semantic sisters of
Disorder: Noise, Unpredictability, Chance; or those of Order: Law, Pre-
dictability, Necessity. The last of these two triads, Chance and Necessity,
have been associated until even recently with Nature's working. From a
constructivist point of view, Necessity arises from the ability to make infal-
lible deductions, while Chance arises from the inability to make infallible
inductions. That is, Necessity and Chance reflect some of our abilities and
inabilities, and not those of Nature.
More of that shortly. For the moment, however, let me entertain the ques-
tion of whether there exists a biological backup for these notions. The
answer is yes, and indeed, I am very happy that we have just those people
around who were producing this very backup that allows me to speak about
2 Except for the Greeks, who believed that it was the Gods who invented language,
and that we humans are doomed to discover it.