Symmetry Breaking- Phase changes & Moral Progress

"In nature things move violently to their place, and calmly in their place"
— Sir Francis Bacon


Towards the end of the prior session on morality the discussion moved in the direction of finding explanation for the positive historical progression in morality. This discussion was led by Don Ross and carried over into the early section of the next video : Here

Summary of the Discussion

Don Ross discusses how moral dynamics can be modeled by game theory by discussing another example of moral progress. Prior to WWII the tribes of New Guinea each lived in a valley. Every tribe was permanently at war with every other tribe. Individuals from each tribe were unable to move from their valley safely because any contact between members of opposing tribes would result in bloodshed or death. It was however necessary for tribes to venture up the mountain which entailed great risk of coming into contact of other tribes. These were the dynamics of the structural equilibrium that had come to be.

Ross describes how there very well may have been thoughtful individuals questioning whether there could be a better alternative to this seemingly intractable dilemma. When an equilibrium has set in however, no one individual (or 10 individuals) acting out an alternative approach can change the established dynamic. With the onset of WWII, foreign troops infiltrated the island and in the process the previous equilibrium had its symmetry dramatically unsettled. The presence and location of the troops created a constraint on the pattern of violence allowing the tribes people  to more freely access the mountain without fear of slaughter from the competing tribes. This accidental consequence allowed the great majority of the tribes people to experience an alternative to the previous equilibrium and within one generation the tribes of New Guinea were no longer warring with each other.

Prior to the arrival of the invasive elements it would have been far too risky and unproductive for a small minority to change the dynamics. At that stage it is much easier and a more successful survival strategy to rationalize the current state of things. This rationalization likely took the form of adopting moral codes of honor, vengeance, and obviously distrust of those outside the tribe. Once a critical number of inhabitants were exposed to a different way the societal moral codes quickly changed.

My Commentary

The point obviously is not to suggest that war or imperialism leads to positive consequences. I expect that there were also negative consequences for the tribes people as well. The dynamics involved however, in the cultural change are interesting. From a pessimistic point of view this suggests that the symmetry of cultural dynamics in a state of equilibrium can be difficult to break in a bottom-up fashion. From an optimistic point of view however, the adaptive capacity for societal change can be dramatic once the symmetry is broken and a new vantage point can be taken.

This example reminds me of the process that collections of H2O molecules undergo when exposed to different climates. H2O molecules do not have an intrinsic (foundational) state of solid, liquid or gas. Instead the state of the collection of molecules will change phase when extrinsic influences cause the temperature to reach certain critical thresholds. The temperature change is continuous, but at these critical points a symmetry is broken. At this point the change is no longer simply continuous and quantitative, but a instead a qualitative change emerges (see detailed explanation here) such as water from ice.

Minds however are different from collections of H20 molecule in important ways. I would like to believe that a mind has the intrinsic capacity to change it's view. I am suggesting that we can view a single phenomena from multiple perspectives. If we go about our viewing receptively a capacity for creativity emerges. The Taoist philosopher Chaung Tzu put it this way.

When you break something up, you create things.
When you create something, you destroy things.
Material things have no creation or destruction.
Ultimately these concepts connect as one.

If we are receptive to potential alternatives beyond the current norm we may be able to break the symmetry of destructive cycles.  Often it appears as though it takes an event that grabs hold of many minds to create a receptivity to alternatives.

The recent tragic mass shooting of young children may be such an event. There is an increase in the receptivity to changing the gun laws in our country that may be reaching a critical threshold. I am in favor of more regulations (constraints) surrounding this issue. I believe reasonable constraints applied to the process of owning guns has potential to reduce the cycle of violence that is responsible for the majority of gun related homicides. Ironically, the rare tragic events that are changing minds are responsible for a small minority of the homicides and may be less susceptible to prevention. While these tragic mass murders have been increasing in frequency, overall rates have been in decline.






While the overall rates have been in decline, they remain at unacceptable and unnecessarily high levels. This is a complex problem that I think needs to be addressed on many levels. I would like to see a collective wave of increased awareness to the issue of our moral foundations. In the prior discussion there was a general consensus agreement that there are no absolute foundational moral values. Steven Weinberg took this further suggesting that this implied that 'we have to live the unexamined life'. Using Hitler as an example he takes the position that vengeance can be an appropriate response, not for the purpose of deterrence, or the protection of society in the future, but simply because 'he is evil'. If we accept that there is no absolute moral foundational code are we restricted to following our intuitions, or is there a way to live an examined life that helps promote well-being among individuals, groups and society as whole?

I believe we can live an examined life that informs our intuitions. We can ask the ourselves the question 'what is being complemented and what is being constrained'. Deterrence of violence due to individual concern of punishment (in some form), and protection from future violence by certain individuals are constraints that may be necessary to improve the general societal well-being. Nature generally shows that interdependent systems that constrain each other are able sustain a progression in complexity. Without these constraints what is left for vengeance? Perhaps vengeance feels as though it can quench an unexamined intuition, but what type of cycle is this likely to encourage. History informs us that unconstrained vengeance will spiral in a destructive fashion.

Vengeance is a common theme driving the violence expressed in gang culture. There also is no shortage of popular movies glorifying the morality of vengeance and rarely do they consider alternatives. Some have pointed to the way culture can shape the expression of mental dysfunction.   Punishment may be useful as a deterrent to some degree (constraining violent behavior). In some cases to protect society, those who are unable respond to attempts at rehabilitation may need to have their access to society removed. Vengeance by itself however only feeds the cycle of destruction. As long as vengeance is celebrated as a foundational moral code it will be difficult to break the symmetry of this cycle.

There is an alternative approach. Vengeance with it's capacity for self amplification exemplifies a positive feedback cycle. Positive feedback cycles by their nature are unstable, unsustainable and escalate rapidly in one direction. In contrast negative feedback cycles seek a stable and sustainable balance through a process of complementary constraint. Can we envision a justice system that seeks to enhance individual and societal well-being through well considered constraints? One where the constraints on violent expression leads to a progressive societal stability and each progression of societal stability lessens the need for external constraints?

"The unexamined life is not worth living"
Plato