The Cold Claim
Coordination does not require meaning.
Cells coordinate.
Markets coordinate.
Traffic systems coordinate.
Algorithms coordinate.
None of these systems need to understand what they are doing in order to do it well.
They require constraints, signals, feedback loops, and thresholds — not interpretation.
Meaning is not a prerequisite for synchronisation.
This is not a metaphor. It is an architectural fact.
Coordination as Constraint Satisfaction
At its most basic level, coordination is the alignment of behaviour under constraint.
A system coordinates when:
local actions remain mutually compatible
global patterns stabilise without central awareness
responses are triggered by conditions, not reasons
Nothing here requires symbols.
Nothing here requires reflection.
Nothing here requires meaning.
Indeed, introducing meaning often slows coordination down.
The Elegance of Meaningless Systems
Biological systems are exemplary precisely because they do not interpret.
A cell does not ask what a signal means.
It responds.
This is why biological coordination is fast, robust, and scalable. It is also why it is indifferent.
Indifference is not a flaw at this level. It is a feature.
Systems that must interpret before they act do not survive long.
The Error of Projection
Human observers routinely project meaning onto coordinated systems.
We speak of:
genes wanting to replicate
markets deciding
algorithms learning intentions
These are interpretive overlays.
They describe our relation to the system, not the system’s operation.
The system coordinates regardless of whether anyone understands it.
The Uncomfortable Implication
If coordination does not require meaning, then meaning cannot justify itself by pointing to functionality.
Meaning does not make systems work.
Sometimes it makes them worse.
This is where the trouble begins.
Because if meaning is not necessary — why keep it?
The rest of this series will not answer that question.
It will show why asking it is unavoidable.
No comments:
Post a Comment