The relativity of perspectives

Reflections in the futures cone, frames of reference, and assemblage spaces

I’ve learned a lot in the last two weeks, the response to my initial blog posts has triggered an explosion of new thoughts and connections, including links between colonial worldviews, classical and modern physics, (pseudo)scientific management, and ideology. The hunch is that the interplay of this has a significant impact on how the future is viewed.

As always, my thoughts stand on the shoulders of others. I'd like to extend a special thanks to Jim Maltby, John Willshire, and Frank W. Spencer IV, who provided a treasure trove of links and explorations that contribute to my thoughts this week. There is much more to explore, unpack, and make sense of.

Before diving into various rabbit holes, I decided to conduct a deeper investigation of the futures cone, with the help of John Willshire's talk, 'Reflections on Assemblage Space'.

Several key points stood out:

1. The experiential futures ladder and its potential in service design. The example provided struck me as a pragmatic application of futures thinking, especially important given that many still view futures work with esoteric suspicion.

2. Be as curious about the past as you are about the future - understanding how the past impacts the way we view the future. I drew a broader connection to social conditioning, educational entrainment, and a dominant ideology born from the enlightenment, industrial revolution, and underlying causal deterministic philosophy.

3. Be mindful of the present - considering the links between selective hindsight and temporal myopia. These were new concepts and I immediately drew links with the current AI gold rush, which serves as an example of how current developments, hype and noise can influence our view of the future.

4. What's preposterous for you might be highly probable for someone else - for me this was the essential point, emphasising that the futures cone is not fixed, but rather depends on the unique perspective of the individual looking through it. With my physicists hat on, I immediately connected this to ‘frames of reference’.

The idea that the futures cone is dependent on an individual's unique perspective aligns well with the concept of frames of reference in physics and cosmology. Light cones illustrate the limits of causality and the propagation of information in spacetime, depending on the observer's frame of reference. Similarly, the futures cone can be seen as a tool that captures the limits of what is considered possible, probable, preferable and preposterous based on an individual's or group's frame of reference.

This synergy of concepts reinforces the importance of considering multiple perspectives when engaging in futures work or theorising change. Creating a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of the future depends on an open and participatory approach that acknowledges the ‘relativity of perspectives’.

We might also consider the intersection of multiple frames of reference. In cosmology, the intersection of light cones represents areas where information and causal influence can be exchanged between different observers. Similarly, the intersection of multiple futures cones can provide valuable insights into the commonalities and differences between many futures.

In his talk, John described the concept of an ‘Assemblage space’, a rough map of what we see and what we don't when considering the intersection of multiple futures cones. I plan to delve deeper into this link between the intersection of light cones and assemblage space, starting with this paper.

I followed John’s reference to Professor Paul Coulton's talk, which criticised the light cone model. Intrigued, I digged deeper. His thinking led me to consider colonialism, cultural perspectives on time, and the relationship to dominant Western ideology. The relevant segment of the talk can be found at the 20:00 timestamp, below.

In another of Coulton’s talks, ‘Alien Futuring’, time is presented as a human construct, shaped by cultural, social, and historical factors. He highlights the influence of the past in shaping our assumptions about the future and critiques the linear concept of time that the futures cone is predicated on. In this respect, the futures cone fails to capture the diversity of perspectives and experiences that arise from different cultural interpretations of time.

I found this exploration fascinating due to its depth and its ability to inspire introspection about my own preconceptions and blind spots. It also revealed a fresh lead into emerging technologies and potential trajectories of speculative artefacts (an exploration for the near future).

Subsequent research revealed ideas such as monochronic versus polychronic cultures, and linear versus cyclical time perceptions. This leads to the question of how these concepts might aid us in developing alternative perspectives on the future. In my upcoming post, I will delve deeper into the diverse cultural viewpoints on time.

---

It’s a short one this week, more exploration, less speculation. I feel I’ve only started scratching the surface, yet the can of worms has been opened, things have become meta, somewhat divergent and I look forward to sharing deeper musings soon.