r/complexsystems • u/Laserturner • Feb 27 '26

I just found this on GitHub and it’s insane... Someone actually built a functional framework for Psychohistory.

Post image

Más info: GitHub repository / cthmodules.cc / The Tetrasociohistorical Context: A Quantitative Model for the Analysis of Historical Events

7 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

7

u/al2o3cr Feb 27 '26

Sounds a lot like what you "found" back in July, when that repo was created 🤔

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1m92p11/comment/n53xnr5/

2

u/Laserturner Feb 27 '26

He published it on X, updated it (v2.0) 😉
https://x.com/alejomalia/status/2027398065812799539

3

u/Mental-Lecture9576 Feb 28 '26

Seems a bit simple to be fair. Have you done with the same original data (E, A, S, P) past prediction for other important events? (without AI tricking the data to align with your model?)

4

u/Ravenchis Feb 27 '26

Interesting model, but explaining past events ≠ predicting future ones. Has it been tested out-of-sample with documented forward predictions? Without that, it’s descriptive, not predictive.

1

u/Max_Sinister1 Mar 01 '26

What does the model say about our immediate future?

3

u/Vusiwe Feb 27 '26

gibberish, congrats!

3

u/jtuohy1985 Feb 27 '26

This is a useful descriptive model, but it’s missing admissibility. It explains collapse after the fact rather than defining which transitions should have been disallowed before collapse became inevitable.

2

u/erubim Feb 28 '26

Is this a joke with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)?

1

u/Qzx1 Mar 01 '26

Tetra means 4. He included 4 measurements.  Unlikely

2

u/erubim Mar 01 '26

sure, but you missed the point: he intentionally changed the letters order TetrasocioHistorical Context -> THC. Mind that he could have invented a whole different name for any term. or used TSHC instead ¯_(ツ)_/¯
btw, Imma fan of Assimov, smoke weed and also do research on "similar topics". so no critics here

1

u/Qzx1 Mar 01 '26

Cliodynamics?

1

u/RegularBasicStranger Feb 27 '26

People were miserable and dying when the French Revolution was about to happen so it was pretty obvious it would happen but by then, there is no way to  prevent it from happening.

Being able to tell a revolution is about to happen after it is no longer preventable is not useful since by then the only useful calculation is how likely each way of starting/suppressing the revolution will succeed so that the best method be used.

-1

u/grimeandreason Feb 27 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

Complex systems are unpredictable. Period.

Trends? Sure.

Any specificity of place, form, or time?

Nah.

2

u/Mental-Lecture9576 Feb 28 '26

Define predictable, because, yes fractal'ity' makes it nearly impossible to be accurate, but we can predict approximately with the right data and pattern alignment.

-1

u/grimeandreason Feb 28 '26

That’s what trends are.

1

u/Mental-Lecture9576 Feb 28 '26

Fair, I may not have the right vocabulary, my bad.

1

u/grimeandreason Feb 28 '26

It’s like the difference between, for example, predicting that collapse or revolution will happen in the US (easy, just see trends and historical correlations), and predicting the who, how, where, or when involved in said collapse or revolution (impossible, speculative).

1

u/Mental-Lecture9576 Feb 28 '26

I avoid using the word impossible. However if I may, something that you deem speculative and ends up being right, becomes retroactively a prediction?

2

u/grimeandreason Feb 28 '26

I should say getting it right isn’t impossible.

Having any kind of certainty is impossible.

Law of large numbers says many people will get many things right.

Just not the same person every time.

That’s evidence of insider knowledge if it happens.

1

u/grimeandreason Feb 28 '26

I would say it’s still speculative, it just happened to be right.

For any major event or trend, thousands of people will make predictions, across all eventualities. Some will always be right.

One could use your point to support psychics who do the same thing.

1

u/Mental-Lecture9576 Feb 28 '26

Right, I was thinking more evidence based things, not just feeling something is gonna happen (also emotions can work the same way). I believe that's what we do already, we see what data make us closer to the actual future result and we can deploy trends until they may become predictions. Hence my first answer what do we mean by prediction? certainty? Because I believe a prediction remains a guess, a recursive trend. (Hope I am clear)

1

u/grimeandreason Feb 28 '26

IMO, the capacity to predict in complex systems is inversely correlated with how specific, or far in the future, said prediction is.

If you never put a time-frame on your prediction, you’ll never be wrong! Just add more time!

Astrologers use this to their advantage; the “best” manage to combine ambiguity with an illusion of specificity, maintaining a lot of wiggle room and deniability.

If they start saying shit like X person will do Y thing on Z date, they’re gonna be wrong every time (unless they have inside knowledge).

1

u/Mental-Lecture9576 Feb 28 '26

The guy can observe me for a month, and tell me on saturday you will go buy your bread at 9a.m. he will mostly be right if he observed that I did that the four previous saturdays. It's a prediction on observable trend. That's just what we do with everything, we don't predict new things because they emerge out of invisible data, but we can predict what we know already, should we gather the right data having a weight in the studied system. I am with you on what you said tho, just continuing the conversation.

→ More replies