# Technological and scientific paradigms are each based around exploiting a specific phenomenon One ingredient is to amend the definition of paradigms in [[Technological paradigms and technological trajectories]] to be about [[phenomena]] per [[arthurNatureTechnologyWhat2009]]. So instead of a paradigm being defined by the ‘relevant problem’ a paradigm is defined by the phenomena[^1] being exploited. This focus on phenomena at the core of a paradigm is important because throughout history the core questions haven’t really changed: “how do we get more energy? Food?” “Why do objects behave the way they do?” It’s the form of the answers to these questions that change over time. Phenomena-based paradigms enable hierarchical paradigms, which seems critical to square with reality. Semiconductor computing is paradigm that exploits the phenomena of semiconductors acting like either a wire or break depending on the charge applied to it. However, the phenomena we have exploited to *create* the semiconductors has changed over time. So within this unshifted paradigm there have been many paradigm shifts. You could even argue that semiconductor computers are actually a subset of the paradigm that exploits the fact that you can encode logic in bits and smash them into each other in order to do computations at all. Like any fractal system, it makes clean boundaries impossible in an absolute sense. [[Every time you zoom in on a fractal, it presents the same pattern on a different scale]]. So this modification of paradigms means that you cannot say *without context* whether a change is evolutionary or revolutionary. This context-dependence doesn’t kill paradigms and evolutionary/revolutionary changes as useful concepts at all! It just makes it so talking about them requires the overhead of talking about which level you’re talking about. Thinking about paradigmic levels can be helpful in and of itself. People are often open to changing some levels and not others. ### Related Given this framing, you can resist a number of conepts: * [[Technological S curves]] - each curve is the output of exploiting a specific phenomenon * [[narayanamurtiCyclesInventionDiscovery2016]] can be framed around phenomena as discovering new phenomena and then exploiting them to discover more phenomena. * [[Low Hanging fruit theory of stagnation]] - can be broken apart into “how many ways can we exploit a given phenomena?” and “how can we find and exploit new phenomena?” * [[X-punk imagines a world dominated by X]] * [[Heat cycles for democratization and cutting edge experiments innovation and discovery]] * [[Unexplainable phenomena are not just indistinguishable from magic, but are magic]] * [[neumannOneProcess2020]] * [[kuhnStructureScientificRevolutions1962]] [^1]: [[Phenomena are things that happen without a human consciously making them happen]] <!-- #evergreen --> [Web URL for this note](http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Technological+and+scientific+paradigms+are+each+based+around+exploiting+a+specific+phenomenon) [Comment on this note](http://via.hypothes.is/http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Technological+and+scientific+paradigms+are+each+based+around+exploiting+a+specific+phenomenon)