The structure of Aperiomics

Aperiomics has been developed by me since about 1989. The original insight was that most of the plant and animal kingdoms, as well the human societies could be modeled by 12 principles. These are referred to as color codes to make them easier to remember. There are Red, Red-Orange, Orange, Orange-Yellow, Green, Green-Blue, Blue, Blue-Indigo, Indigo, Indigo-Violet, and Violet. These colors are not meant to conform to historical associations with them, for example Blue is not associated with melancholy or Red with anger.

Much of Aperiomics is not new, the aim was not to create a new theory of society or evolution. Instead it was to take the available knowledge and fit it into these 12 principles, to see if they were complex enough to contain all the interactions found. Since then there are tens of thousands of pages of notes and publications on this. Some of the 12 principles have changed slightly over the years as an accumulation of information gave greater insights into them.

The initial idea was just to categorize a lot of information, it was easier to refer to a Red-Blue interaction between different groups of society. With more information on Red-Blue it appeared to be more of a legitimate label, not just an arbitrary designation.

In many cases color codes are partially defined by mathematical formulae, for example Blue-Indigo refers to the normal curve in some ways. This part of society is where the working class cooperates together, such as with unions, people helping each other, creating the concept of normality and marginalizing the abnormal people and ideas.

Blue would refer more to exponentials, where people tend to be loners and individuals. They aim to succeed by growth by competing rather than cooperating with others. Taking the Blue and Blu-Indigo interactions then much of the competition and cooperation in society can be categorized.

Aperiomics does not claim which color is better or which balance of competition and cooperation should be aimed for. By modeling what actually happens faithfully it comes up with more insights on how the plant and animal kingdoms function, as well as human civilization.

Aperiomics is also fully falsifiable, in the sense that if knowledge stopped fitting into it then it would destroy the model. Because this seemed likely it was not shown to anyone from 1989 to about 2001. If it was turning out to be nonsense it seemed better to find that out without being humiliated at some point. But the model has held up well, and so it is being more broadly described now for public debate.

About half of these interactions are well known, the other half are sometimes surprising but predicted by the model. These are not necessarily predictions on what will happen in the future, but on what other interactions are implied by the model. Digging for more information on those interactions can then be done. Without Aperiomics it would be more difficult to look for those interactions or to see how they connect with other aspects of society.

For example the increasing amount of absurd ideas on the left were hard to foresee from even 10 years ago, but they are part of the Aperiomics model as some parts of society become poorer. Also the increasing amount of lying on the right was hard to square with conservatism from a decade ago, but this is another necessary interaction in a poorer society.

Aperiomics is not intended to solve any problems, however with its granular approach to interactions it may be useful in some ways. An example would be in studying an ecosystem without disturbing the plants and animals. At some point it might become obvious that a weed or pest is threatening the ecosystem, and some small efforts might be made to restore its balance. But often this does not work, it upsets all kinds of feedback mechanism that can make other problems worse.

This can be useful in understanding the other side of an issue, how their internal logic tends to force them to do things that seem strange or enraging. But Aperiomics is not about taking sides on those issues, it just describes their structure.