A fractal is a type of geometric shape that has a repeating pattern at different scales. Fractals are often very complex and beautiful, and they can be found in nature, art, and mathematics. Some examples of fractals are snowflakes, tree branches, coastlines, and the Mandelbrot set. The Mandelbrot set is one of the most famous fractals, named after the mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot who coined the term fractal. It is generated by a simple equation that produces an infinite variety of shapes and colors. See What are Fractals? – Fractal Foundation.
Family trees are NOT fractals. So, what is a family tree? A human family tree is structured representation of the biological and cultural relationship of unique individuals. Fundamentally, each person is a unique node in the family tree structure. The basic concept is that individuals are biologically related in a unique pattern consisting of two biological parents. Because of cultural considerations this biological relationship has been modified to include other culturally defined relationships including adoption. foster parents, guardianships, and a variety of other relationships.
Presently, the FamilySearch.org Family Tree is possibly the largest unified family tree in existence. However, the Family Tree is plagued with duplicates, constant revolving door changes, and unconnected individuals among other problems.
I was reading about recent studies that are finding that despite the commonly held idea that trees and other natural objects are fractal in nature, forests are not fractal. Here are a few examples of what is being published.
Why is it important to understand that a family tree is not fractal in nature? First, it is because of the word "tree" and secondly because of the unique nature of each node or individual. A family tree is a way to show the biological and cultural relationships between these unique individuals; all of us in the human family.
So, how does this affect the structure and maintenance of the FamilySearch.org Family Tree? Because each individual is uniqe, each family is also unique. So, if my family has a traditional structure of two biologic parents and a certain number of children, once those individuals and the family unit are identified, the family is not subject to addition added children or biological parents. Here is where the FamilySearch.org Family Tree fails to adequately represent each family. Families in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree are not fractals, they are not subject to infinite expansion by mere mathematical formulas. Once all the actual members of the family are determined, the structure is frozen. However, there is another factor that is unpredictable: history and the further fact that the Family Tree is a wild-west free-for-all that allows changes by anyone at anytime except for a few restricted (Read Only) arbitrary and random individuals.
Even if we take into account that families in the Family Tree are largely constituted from historical records and therefore subject to possible change due to presently unknown discoveries, there is a time when the amount of research necessary to establish the family structure such as the number and identity of the children born to the family exceeds some reasonable limit. In these cases, the failure of the Family Tree is to fail to recognize this established limit and impose a higher level of restrictions on making changes. Why can't there be a limit to the changes that can be made to families once they meet some rational criteria? It would be fairly easy to freeze families and then allow additions only upon application. Lack of this type of limitation is the most damaging evidence that the information in the Family Tree is not completely reliable.
So, how could this happen? The simple method of establishing a threshold for freezing (or locking or restricting) a family would be to set a standard for documentation. For families in the United States for example, the required documentation could include census records, vital records where available, and other standard records. Further changes could only be made if a record was found such as a DNA test that showed additional family members. This could be structured to not limit the addition of sources, memories, or standardization but would severely avoid duplication. With the development of artificial intelligence programing, it is now possible to set these intelligent types of limits and avoid the constant changes made to established family units such as the Mayflower descendants and most of the families documents in New England. The changes could be avoided by requiring anyone trying to change the contents of the family to present historical sources showing a need to make a change with an explanation before any change would be allowed. In addition, some of the information in the Family Tree has been well established for over 100 years and yet is still being subject to constant change such as the Royal Families of Europe and other families structures.
More about this later, after RootsTech.
