Asimov's psychohistory and real math [closed]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












In Asimov's Foundation, math based psychohistory is referenced to model and predict not less than the history of the human kind.



Given that is of course just fiction, is there any existing mathematical approach going anyhow in this direction?







share|cite|improve this question














closed as off-topic by Jyrki Lahtonen, Jack M, barto, Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris, Ethan Bolker Aug 15 at 12:31


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is not about mathematics, within the scope defined in the help center." – Jyrki Lahtonen, Jack M, barto, Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris, Ethan Bolker
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • Very little except in isolated rather narrow areas.
    – Dr Peter McGowan
    Aug 15 at 8:42










  • If such a thing were a real science, it would be a discipline of social science or psychology, not of mathematics.
    – Jack M
    Aug 15 at 10:30






  • 2




    The spelling used by the author in English was Asimov.
    – GEdgar
    Aug 15 at 12:24






  • 1




    In 1963, Edward Lorenz discovered chaotic solutions to simple meteorological equations. This put paid to any hope of predicting the future course of human societies, which are much more complicated than the weather. So psychohistory is bunk. (Second Foundation, the last book in Asimov's Foundation trilogy, was published in 1953, so Asimov can't be blamed for not knowing about chaos.)
    – TonyK
    Aug 15 at 16:01














up vote
2
down vote

favorite












In Asimov's Foundation, math based psychohistory is referenced to model and predict not less than the history of the human kind.



Given that is of course just fiction, is there any existing mathematical approach going anyhow in this direction?







share|cite|improve this question














closed as off-topic by Jyrki Lahtonen, Jack M, barto, Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris, Ethan Bolker Aug 15 at 12:31


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is not about mathematics, within the scope defined in the help center." – Jyrki Lahtonen, Jack M, barto, Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris, Ethan Bolker
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • Very little except in isolated rather narrow areas.
    – Dr Peter McGowan
    Aug 15 at 8:42










  • If such a thing were a real science, it would be a discipline of social science or psychology, not of mathematics.
    – Jack M
    Aug 15 at 10:30






  • 2




    The spelling used by the author in English was Asimov.
    – GEdgar
    Aug 15 at 12:24






  • 1




    In 1963, Edward Lorenz discovered chaotic solutions to simple meteorological equations. This put paid to any hope of predicting the future course of human societies, which are much more complicated than the weather. So psychohistory is bunk. (Second Foundation, the last book in Asimov's Foundation trilogy, was published in 1953, so Asimov can't be blamed for not knowing about chaos.)
    – TonyK
    Aug 15 at 16:01












up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











In Asimov's Foundation, math based psychohistory is referenced to model and predict not less than the history of the human kind.



Given that is of course just fiction, is there any existing mathematical approach going anyhow in this direction?







share|cite|improve this question














In Asimov's Foundation, math based psychohistory is referenced to model and predict not less than the history of the human kind.



Given that is of course just fiction, is there any existing mathematical approach going anyhow in this direction?









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 15 at 15:20









David C. Ullrich

54.9k33686




54.9k33686










asked Aug 15 at 8:32









J. Doe

1144




1144




closed as off-topic by Jyrki Lahtonen, Jack M, barto, Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris, Ethan Bolker Aug 15 at 12:31


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is not about mathematics, within the scope defined in the help center." – Jyrki Lahtonen, Jack M, barto, Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris, Ethan Bolker
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




closed as off-topic by Jyrki Lahtonen, Jack M, barto, Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris, Ethan Bolker Aug 15 at 12:31


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is not about mathematics, within the scope defined in the help center." – Jyrki Lahtonen, Jack M, barto, Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris, Ethan Bolker
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • Very little except in isolated rather narrow areas.
    – Dr Peter McGowan
    Aug 15 at 8:42










  • If such a thing were a real science, it would be a discipline of social science or psychology, not of mathematics.
    – Jack M
    Aug 15 at 10:30






  • 2




    The spelling used by the author in English was Asimov.
    – GEdgar
    Aug 15 at 12:24






  • 1




    In 1963, Edward Lorenz discovered chaotic solutions to simple meteorological equations. This put paid to any hope of predicting the future course of human societies, which are much more complicated than the weather. So psychohistory is bunk. (Second Foundation, the last book in Asimov's Foundation trilogy, was published in 1953, so Asimov can't be blamed for not knowing about chaos.)
    – TonyK
    Aug 15 at 16:01
















  • Very little except in isolated rather narrow areas.
    – Dr Peter McGowan
    Aug 15 at 8:42










  • If such a thing were a real science, it would be a discipline of social science or psychology, not of mathematics.
    – Jack M
    Aug 15 at 10:30






  • 2




    The spelling used by the author in English was Asimov.
    – GEdgar
    Aug 15 at 12:24






  • 1




    In 1963, Edward Lorenz discovered chaotic solutions to simple meteorological equations. This put paid to any hope of predicting the future course of human societies, which are much more complicated than the weather. So psychohistory is bunk. (Second Foundation, the last book in Asimov's Foundation trilogy, was published in 1953, so Asimov can't be blamed for not knowing about chaos.)
    – TonyK
    Aug 15 at 16:01















Very little except in isolated rather narrow areas.
– Dr Peter McGowan
Aug 15 at 8:42




Very little except in isolated rather narrow areas.
– Dr Peter McGowan
Aug 15 at 8:42












If such a thing were a real science, it would be a discipline of social science or psychology, not of mathematics.
– Jack M
Aug 15 at 10:30




If such a thing were a real science, it would be a discipline of social science or psychology, not of mathematics.
– Jack M
Aug 15 at 10:30




2




2




The spelling used by the author in English was Asimov.
– GEdgar
Aug 15 at 12:24




The spelling used by the author in English was Asimov.
– GEdgar
Aug 15 at 12:24




1




1




In 1963, Edward Lorenz discovered chaotic solutions to simple meteorological equations. This put paid to any hope of predicting the future course of human societies, which are much more complicated than the weather. So psychohistory is bunk. (Second Foundation, the last book in Asimov's Foundation trilogy, was published in 1953, so Asimov can't be blamed for not knowing about chaos.)
– TonyK
Aug 15 at 16:01




In 1963, Edward Lorenz discovered chaotic solutions to simple meteorological equations. This put paid to any hope of predicting the future course of human societies, which are much more complicated than the weather. So psychohistory is bunk. (Second Foundation, the last book in Asimov's Foundation trilogy, was published in 1953, so Asimov can't be blamed for not knowing about chaos.)
– TonyK
Aug 15 at 16:01















active

oldest

votes






















active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes

這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Propositional logic and tautologies

Distribution of Stopped Wiener Process with Stochastic Volatility