Try http://www3.vcu.edu/complex/
However, you'll probably find it easier to borrow one of Rosen's books from the library and read that, rather than to try to understand what others make of him. It's sort of the reverse of David Bohm... Cheers On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:46:55AM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Glen > , > > Everybody but me seems to know what Robert Rosen work you are referring to. > If I apologize for being an ill-educated bounder, could you provide me with > a netref or two to work with? > > I apologize. > > Nick > > (if you give me the reference, will that be an instance of causality?) > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <friam@redfish.com> > > Date: 11/28/2007 10:04:16 AM > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 53, Issue 25 > > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > > friam@redfish.com > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and > > Causality) (Nicholas Thompson) > > 2. [Fwd: New AAAI Conference - ICWSM 2008] (Robert Cordingley) > > 3. Re: Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and > > Causality) (Robert Cordingley) > > 4. Re: Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and > > Causality) (Glen E. P. Ropella) > > 5. some thoughts on the educational aspect of 632 (Prof David West) > > 6. Re: Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM > > andCausality) (Nicholas Thompson) > > 7. one laptop per child (Marcus G. Daniels) > > 8. Re: one laptop per child (Carl Tollander) > > 9. Re: one laptop per child (Alfredo Covaleda) > > 10. My employer in the news (Douglas Roberts) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:22:54 -0700 > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and > > Causality) > > To: friam@redfish.com > > Cc: echarles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > > All, > > > > I confess I have not followed the mathematical side of this discussion > into > > the blue underlined stuff. Nor do I claim to understand all of the plain > > text. > > > > However, I am tempted by the idea of a mathematical formalization of > > "natural design". Here is the argument: What EVERYBODY --from the most > > dyed in the wool Natural Theologist to the most flaming Dawkinsian -- > > agrees on is that there is some property of natural objects which we might > > roughly call their designedness. Tremendous confusion has been sewn by > > biologists by confusing that property -- whatever it might be -- with the > > CAUSES of that property, variously God or Natural selection, or > > what-have-you. So much of what passes for causal explanation in biology > > is actually description of the "adaptation relation" or what I call, just > > to be a trouble-maker, "natural design". > > > > It seems to me that you mathematicians could do a great deal for biology > by > > putting your minds to a formalization of "natural design". It would put > > Darwin's theory -- "natural selection begets natural design" out of the > > reach of tautology once and for all. What I am looking for here is a > > mathematical formalization of the relations --hierarchy of relations, I > > would suppose -- that leads to attributions of "designedness". Assuming > > that one had put a computer on a British Survey Vessel and sent it round > > the world for five years looking at the creatures and their surroundings, > > what is the mathematical description of the relation that would have to be > > obtained before the computer would come home saying that creatures were > > designed (and rocks weren't). Then -- and only then -- are we in a > > position to ask the question, "is natural selection the best explanation > > for this property. > > > > My supposition is that ALL current theories will not survive such an > > analysis. Indeed, we may need a new metaphor altogether. Many of you > will > > be familiar with the notion of fitness landscape. For intuitive purposes, > > let me turn the landscape upside down, so its peaks are chasms and its > > valleys are peaks. Now, drop a ball at random into the upside down > > landscape. Assuming that the landscape is rigid, the ball will roll > around > > until it finds a local minimum. If you put some jitter in the rolling, it > > might, depending on the size of the jitter and the roughness of the > > landscape, find the absolute minimum. But all of this assumes that the > > ball has no effect on the landscape! If we turn the landscape into a > > semi-rigid net so that the ball deforms the landscape as it rolls through > > it, then we have a much better metaphor for the relation between an > > organism's design and the environment in which it is operating. Some > > organisms -- weedy species -- cause the environment to rise under their > > feet, so to speak, so they are constantly driven out of whatever valley > > they settle in; Other organisms modify the environment in their favor and > > in effect, dig their way into a pit in the landscape. If the ball > > representing such organisms has inadequate jitter or the landscape is not > > sufficiently springy, such an organism can dig its way into a pit and > then > > go extinct. > > > > In short we need a dynamical theory. But such a theory will never happen > > until we have a sufficiently subtle (and verbalizable) mathematical > > formalization of the momentary relation between organisms and their > > environments that we are trying to explain. Get at it, you > > mathematicians!!!! > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > D'Espagnat gives a very biased view of QM. For a critical view of the > > > book see for instance > > > > > > Esfeld, Michael > > > Review of "Bernard d'Espagnat, On physics and philosophy, Princeton: > > > Princeton University Press 2006", Studies in History and Philosophy of > > > Modern Physics 38B (2007), pp. 989-992 > > > > > > > > > http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/shared/DocsPerso/EsfeldMichael/2007/Esp > > agnat-SHPMP07.pdf > > > > > > Gus Koehler wrote: > > > > Bernard D'Espagnat, practicing and well know physicist, in his 2006 On > > > > Physics and Philosophy makes the following points based on > contemporary > > > > limits that nature has imposed us via quantum mechanics: > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > G?nther > > > > > > -- > > > G?nther Greindl > > > Department of Philosophy of Science > > > University of Vienna > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/ > > > > > > Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/ > > > Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 5 > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:05:38 +0000 > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality > > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > > > <friam@redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > > <1164569392-1196172318-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1644186245- > > @bxe010.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > > > > > Glen, > > > Nearly all you say fits closely with my approach, except the word 'any' > > in the following quote. > > > > > > " To the contrary, I assume every actual system has an inherent > > > "hierarchicability" (following the word "extensibility") with respect to > > > any observer(s). In other words, a system can be projected onto any > > > ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by the projection." > > > > > > If you insert 'an' there instead, the combination of the possible and > > discovered orderings will reveal an image of other things. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:51:12 > > > To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam@redfish.com> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > G?nther Greindl on 11/21/2007 04:48 PM: > > > > So you probably won't even support sup/inf hierarchy, I gather; I'm > no > > > > Relativity pundit - do you think that follows from SR or is it a > > > > philosophical view? > > > > > > It's somewhere in between. But I don't derive the principle from SR. I > > > derive it from everyday experience. I tend to believe that any measure > > > (including relative ones like ordering and sup/inf) are mere aspects of > > > the underlying relations. So, it's not that I don't support hierarchy. > > > To the contrary, I assume every actual system has an inherent > > > "hierarchicability" (following the word "extensibility") with respect to > > > any observer(s). In other words, a system can be projected onto any > > > ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by the projection. > > > > > > No single ordering will tell us much about the system because (assuming > > > it's accurate) it only shows us one aspect (interpretation, usage) of > > > the system. In order to make a claim that we've identified a > > > cause-effect graph, we have to make several (in some cases infinite) > > > projections based on various imputed attributes. > > > > > > >> Such distinctions do NOT require one to consider [in]determinism. > But, > > > >> they do require one to consider historical accumulation and > > canalization > > > >> of causes, i.e. where and how ignorance (particularly of "negligible" > > > >> influences e.g. events very FAR away in space or time) affects > > causality. > > > > > > > > Ok, I see what you mean - but just to be careful with terminology: I > > > > guess you mean "affects the process under investigation causally" and > > > > not "affects causality" (last two words above paragraph) > > > > Former interpretation: we agree. Latter interpretation: we should > > > > discuss ;-)) > > > > > > Hmmm. At first blush, I'd say I agree with _both_ phrasings. I'd say > > > (weakly) that ignorance -affects the process under investigation > > > causally-. And I'd say (strongly) that ignorance -affects causality-. > > > How do those phrases make a difference to you? > > > > > > - -- > > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly > > > enforced. -- Frank Zappa > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > > > iD8DBQFHSrMwZeB+vOTnLkoRAnBEAKDUVstCXsAVcclg8ASwwkT7B3peXACeLKzm > > > uExfuxs71G/8vLHcUXzu2fM= > > > =02+D > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 6 > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:01:38 -0800 > > > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > <friam@redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 11/27/2007 06:05 AM: > > > > Nearly all you say fits closely with my approach, except the word > > > > 'any' in the following quote. > > > > > > > > "To the contrary, I assume every actual system has an inherent > > > > 'hierarchicability' (following the word 'extensibility') with respect > > > > to any observer(s). In other words, a system can be projected onto > > > > any ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by the projection." > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insert 'an' there instead, the combination of the possible and > > > > discovered orderings will reveal an image of other things. > > > > > > Good point. I was just thinking this over as I read Esfeld's review > > > (thanks G?nther). On the one hand, the system can be projected onto > > > _any_ ordering. But, as I think you're pointing out, some orderings > > > will be a close fit ("natural") and others will be like putting a square > > > peg into a round hole. So, some projections will work better than > > > others. (I have to qualify that with "for a particular purpose" > > > however. ;-) And the projections that work best provide a better > > > measure of the system than others (for that particular purpose). > > > > > > The part of Esfeld's review that got me thinking this way was the idea > > > that nonseparability and holism do not necessarily imply that we cannot > > > understand a system. Similarly, the "hierarchicability" concept I used > > > is not intended to imply that all imputations of hierarchy/order are > > > equally [use|meaning]ful. > > > > > > Another thought that keeps ricocheting around in my head is the problem > > > of my use of the word "ignorance". My usage of the word is often > > > challenged; but, I keep using it anyway. [grin] I'm stubborn. But, by > > > "ignorance", I don't _merely_ mean "lack of knowledge" of a given person > > > or a set of people. It also means the act or possibility of some > > > influence (element of cause) being negligible ... or marginalized. This > > > semantic hair splitting comes up in the Esfeld review, too, when he > says: > > > > > > "In none of these interpretations is any link from nonseparability and > > > holism to our ignorance of what nature is in itself." > > > > > > If I use my definition of "ignorance", then nonseparability and holism > > > _do_ imply that a form of ignorance (i.e. the marginalization of > > > particular influences) always obtains. Because we cannot know or > > > understand _everything_... because our models, by definition, cannot > > > ever be completely accurate, we _must_ consider some parts negligible. > > > (And by "we", I mean "any bounded entity that uses transduction across > > > that boundary to understand its environment" ... e.g. trees, ants, > > > cells, humans, etc.) > > > > > > In the case of complex cause, we can make multiple projections into > > > various orderings and select the ones that work best (for a particular > > > purpose). By such selection we can _approach_ an accurate understanding > > > of the system; but it is a limit process. > > > > > > - -- > > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. -- > > > Milton Friedman > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > > > iD8DBQFHTDFSZeB+vOTnLkoRAkIkAJ9mrSUXXLc6xlRU9Z/Mi7IyDT6kWQCg40pi > > > AQ+O5hTPgb73a/9/ZrKBfio= > > > =WfS3 > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 7 > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:55:08 -0800 > > > From: "Gus Koehler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything? > > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > > <friam@redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > Thank you for drawing this excellent review to our attention. > References > > to > > > differing views from D'Espaganat is very helpful. In any case, the > review > > > does not negate my essential point but only adds to it, and that is the > > > fundamental difficulties with trying to establish some foundation for > > > realism given quantum mechanics. These implications need to be brought > > > forward in the Friam discussion. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Gus > > > Gus Koehler, Ph.D. > > > President and Principal > > > Time Structures, Inc. > > > 1545 University Ave. > > > Sacramento, CA 95825 > > > 916-564-8683, Fax: 916-564-7895 > > > Cell: 916-716-1740 > > > www.timestructures.com > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf > > > Of G?nther Greindl > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:27 AM > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything? > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > D'Espagnat gives a very biased view of QM. For a critical view of the > book > > > see for instance > > > > > > Esfeld, Michael > > > Review of "Bernard d'Espagnat, On physics and philosophy, Princeton: > > > Princeton University Press 2006", Studies in History and Philosophy of > > > Modern Physics 38B (2007), pp. 989-992 > > > > > > > > > http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/shared/DocsPerso/EsfeldMichael/2007/Esp > > > agnat-SHPMP07.pdf > > > > > > Gus Koehler wrote: > > > > Bernard D'Espagnat, practicing and well know physicist, in his 2006 > On > > > > Physics and Philosophy makes the following points based on > > > > contemporary limits that nature has imposed us via quantum mechanics: > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > G?nther > > > > > > -- > > > G?nther Greindl > > > Department of Philosophy of Science > > > University of Vienna > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/ > > > > > > Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/ > > > Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > > > unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Friam mailing list > > > Friam@redfish.com > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 53, Issue 24 > > > ************************************* > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:50:54 -0600 > > From: Robert Cordingley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [FRIAM] [Fwd: New AAAI Conference - ICWSM 2008] > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <Friam@redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > Some on this list may find the following announcement of interest.. > > Thanks > > Robert Cordingley > > > > ************************************ > > ICWSM 2008 > > Papers Due: Monday, December 3, 2007 > > ************************************ > > > > Dear AAAI Members, > > > > I am delighted to announce that AAAI has welcomed a new conference to its > ranks -- the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. ICWSM, > which grew out of a series of workshops and a very successful 2006 AAAI > spring symposium, launched its inaugural conference in 2007. It has now > forged a formal alliance with AAAI for 2008 and beyond. > > > > ICWSM 2008 will be held in Seattle, Washington at the Seattle Hilton, > March 31 -- April 3. The conference will bring together academic and > industrial practitioners to present and to discuss new research, > applications, thoughts and ideas that are shaping the future of social > media analysis. The conference aims to bring together researchers from > different subject areas including computer science, linguistics, > psychology, statistics, sociology, multimedia and semantic web technologies. > > > > Please note the following important upcoming deadlines: > > > > * Paper Submission: December 3, 2007 > > * Tutorial Proposals: December 3, 2007 > > * Poster/Demo Submission: January 6, 2008 > > > > For complete submission details, please see http://www.icwsm.org/2008/. > > > > An impressive line-up of invited speakers will be included in the 2008 > program, including Bernardo A. Huberman (HP Labs), who will speak on > "Social Dynamics in the Age of the Web;" David Sifry (Founder, Technorati, > Sputnik, and Linuxcare); and Brad Fitzpatrick (LiverJournal Founder). In > addition, two tutorials are planned, including "Subjectivity and Sentiment > Analysis" by Jan Wiebe (University of Pittsburgh) and "Graph Mining > Techniques for Social Media Analysis" by Mary McGlohon and Christos > Faloutsos (Carnegie Mellon University). > > > > For further information, please write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Warmest regards, > > > > Carol Hamilton > > Executive Director, AAAI > > > > -- > > "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly > what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear > and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. > > > > There is another theory which states that this has already happened." > > > > Douglas Adams > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071127/9d348cae > /attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:12:20 -0600 > > From: Robert Cordingley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM > > and Causality) > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > > Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > Quick thought. Isn't 'designedness' directly proportional to a local > > reduction in entropy (= a measure of disorder, etc.) ? There's lots of > > math on entropy. > > Robert C > > > > Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > All, > > > > > > I confess I have not followed the mathematical side of this discussion > into > > > the blue underlined stuff. Nor do I claim to understand all of the > plain > > > text. > > > > > > However, I am tempted by the idea of a mathematical formalization of > > > "natural design". Here is the argument: What EVERYBODY --from the most > > > dyed in the wool Natural Theologist to the most flaming Dawkinsian -- > > > agrees on is that there is some property of natural objects which we > might > > > roughly call their designedness. Tremendous confusion has been sewn by > > > biologists by confusing that property -- whatever it might be -- with > the > > > CAUSES of that property, variously God or Natural selection, or > > > what-have-you. So much of what passes for causal explanation in > biology > > > is actually description of the "adaptation relation" or what I call, > just > > > to be a trouble-maker, "natural design". > > > > > > It seems to me that you mathematicians could do a great deal for > biology by > > > putting your minds to a formalization of "natural design". It would put > > > Darwin's theory -- "natural selection begets natural design" out of the > > > reach of tautology once and for all. What I am looking for here is a > > > mathematical formalization of the relations --hierarchy of relations, I > > > would suppose -- that leads to attributions of "designedness". Assuming > > > that one had put a computer on a British Survey Vessel and sent it round > > > the world for five years looking at the creatures and their > surroundings, > > > what is the mathematical description of the relation that would have to > be > > > obtained before the computer would come home saying that creatures were > > > designed (and rocks weren't). Then -- and only then -- are we in a > > > position to ask the question, "is natural selection the best explanation > > > for this property. > > > > > > My supposition is that ALL current theories will not survive such an > > > analysis. Indeed, we may need a new metaphor altogether. Many of you > will > > > be familiar with the notion of fitness landscape. For intuitive > purposes, > > > let me turn the landscape upside down, so its peaks are chasms and its > > > valleys are peaks. Now, drop a ball at random into the upside down > > > landscape. Assuming that the landscape is rigid, the ball will roll > around > > > until it finds a local minimum. If you put some jitter in the rolling, > it > > > might, depending on the size of the jitter and the roughness of the > > > landscape, find the absolute minimum. But all of this assumes that the > > > ball has no effect on the landscape! If we turn the landscape into a > > > semi-rigid net so that the ball deforms the landscape as it rolls > through > > > it, then we have a much better metaphor for the relation between an > > > organism's design and the environment in which it is operating. Some > > > organisms -- weedy species -- cause the environment to rise under their > > > feet, so to speak, so they are constantly driven out of whatever valley > > > they settle in; Other organisms modify the environment in their favor > and > > > in effect, dig their way into a pit in the landscape. If the ball > > > representing such organisms has inadequate jitter or the landscape is > not > > > sufficiently springy, such an organism can dig its way into a pit and > then > > > go extinct. > > > > > > In short we need a dynamical theory. But such a theory will never > happen > > > until we have a sufficiently subtle (and verbalizable) mathematical > > > formalization of the momentary relation between organisms and their > > > environments that we are trying to explain. Get at it, you > > > mathematicians!!!! > > > > > > Nick > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071127/0fe315c6 > /attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:43:21 -0800 > > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM > > and Causality) > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam@redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Nicholas Thompson on 11/27/2007 10:22 AM: > > > In short we need a dynamical theory. But such a theory will never > happen > > > until we have a sufficiently subtle (and verbalizable) mathematical > > > formalization of the momentary relation between organisms and their > > > environments that we are trying to explain. Get at it, you > > > mathematicians!!!! > > > > Isn't this what Robert Rosen tried to do? Granted his work is woefully > > incomplete; but do you see some fundamental flaw in his work that > > prevents it from providing (at least the foundations for) the > > formalization you're looking for? > > > > - -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully > > is prepared to die at any time. -- Mark Twain > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFHTI95ZeB+vOTnLkoRAizcAJ9DeJre8Z6iqpsr43DMn67ZGDCp0gCg4Lpn > > 7vgcA85ZrRPxTVFzOXRJZOU= > > =qlNw > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:15:12 -0500 > > From: "Prof David West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [FRIAM] some thoughts on the educational aspect of 632 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "The Friday Morning Applied > > Complexity Coffee Group" <friam@redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > I have spent too much time thinking about this and too little actually > > putting the ideas on paper. Consider the attached to be an outline that > > will be collectively developed and elaborated - or summarily rejected. > > > > Warning - the attached is highly idiosyncratic and biased, even though > > it is based on observations and interactions with the 632 and Friam > > community. > > > > Feedback - even jeers and catcalls - welcomed. > > > > dave west > > -------------- next part -------------- > > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > > Name: SFCEdu.doc > > Type: application/msword > > Size: 53248 bytes > > Desc: not available > > Url : > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071127/0b345037 > /attachment-0001.doc > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:14:51 -0700 > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM > > andCausality) > > To: "Robert Cordingley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "The Friday Morning > > Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam@redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Well, given that I am referring to a PATTERN, and patterns are a form of > negentropy, I think I am required to agree. > > > > Nick > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Robert Cordingley > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group > > Sent: 11/27/2007 2:12:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM > andCausality) > > > > > > Quick thought. Isn't 'designedness' directly proportional to a local > reduction in entropy (= a measure of disorder, etc.) ? There's lots of > math on entropy. > > Robert C > > > > Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > All, > > > > I confess I have not followed the mathematical side of this discussion > into > > the blue underlined stuff. Nor do I claim to understand all of the plain > > text. > > > > However, I am tempted by the idea of a mathematical formalization of > > "natural design". Here is the argument: What EVERYBODY --from the most > > dyed in the wool Natural Theologist to the most flaming Dawkinsian -- > > agrees on is that there is some property of natural objects which we might > > roughly call their designedness. Tremendous confusion has been sewn by > > biologists by confusing that property -- whatever it might be -- with the > > CAUSES of that property, variously God or Natural selection, or > > what-have-you. So much of what passes for causal explanation in biology > > is actually description of the "adaptation relation" or what I call, just > > to be a trouble-maker, "natural design". > > > > It seems to me that you mathematicians could do a great deal for biology > by > > putting your minds to a formalization of "natural design". It would put > > Darwin's theory -- "natural selection begets natural design" out of the > > reach of tautology once and for all. What I am looking for here is a > > mathematical formalization of the relations --hierarchy of relations, I > > would suppose -- that leads to attributions of "designedness". Assuming > > that one had put a computer on a British Survey Vessel and sent it round > > the world for five years looking at the creatures and their surroundings, > > what is the mathematical description of the relation that would have to be > > obtained before the computer would come home saying that creatures were > > designed (and rocks weren't). Then -- and only then -- are we in a > > position to ask the question, "is natural selection the best explanation > > for this property. > > > > My supposition is that ALL current theories will not survive such an > > analysis. Indeed, we may need a new metaphor altogether. Many of you > will > > be familiar with the notion of fitness landscape. For intuitive purposes, > > let me turn the landscape upside down, so its peaks are chasms and its > > valleys are peaks. Now, drop a ball at random into the upside down > > landscape. Assuming that the landscape is rigid, the ball will roll > around > > until it finds a local minimum. If you put some jitter in the rolling, it > > might, depending on the size of the jitter and the roughness of the > > landscape, find the absolute minimum. But all of this assumes that the > > ball has no effect on the landscape! If we turn the landscape into a > > semi-rigid net so that the ball deforms the landscape as it rolls through > > it, then we have a much better metaphor for the relation between an > > organism's design and the environment in which it is operating. Some > > organisms -- weedy species -- cause the environment to rise under their > > feet, so to speak, so they are constantly driven out of whatever valley > > they settle in; Other organisms modify the environment in their favor and > > in effect, dig their way into a pit in the landscape. If the ball > > representing such organisms has inadequate jitter or the landscape is not > > sufficiently springy, such an organism can dig its way into a pit and > then > > go extinct. > > > > In short we need a dynamical theory. But such a theory will never happen > > until we have a sufficiently subtle (and verbalizable) mathematical > > formalization of the momentary relation between organisms and their > > environments that we are trying to explain. Get at it, you > > mathematicians!!!! > > > > Nick > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071127/14281a98 > /attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:09:30 -0700 > > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [FRIAM] one laptop per child > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam@redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Hi, > > > > If I've been looking at the one laptop per child source code, and I'm > > amazed by how much stuff is available. Better equipped for ABM stuff > > than a lot of full Linux distributions. From Logo to Squeak to Mozilla > > XULRunner, it's all there. Could use them for classes for grown ups, > > I would think. The build tree is complex and well integrated -- it > > builds for hours and hours... > > I've only run the thing virtually, and I guess my only reservation is > > that the laptop itself will be slow. Anyone put hands on one? Also, > > has anyone actually had TamTam to play sound? That app seems > > especially well done. Holiday season, you know.. :-) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Marcus > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:18:21 -0700 > > From: Carl Tollander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] one laptop per child > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam@redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > You might go blind programming the thing with the thing. Screen is > > pretty small and the keyboard is not designed for big fingers. > > Nevertheless, despite the language deficiencies :-) I did the > > order/donation thing a couple days ago. Not expecting to see any OLPC > > atoms before the new year, but they say they will keep me posted of > > order progress by email. > > > > Maybe we could put Android on it. > > > > Carl > > > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > If I've been looking at the one laptop per child source code, and I'm > > > amazed by how much stuff is available. Better equipped for ABM stuff > > > than a lot of full Linux distributions. From Logo to Squeak to > Mozilla > > > XULRunner, it's all there. Could use them for classes for grown ups, > > > I would think. The build tree is complex and well integrated -- it > > > builds for hours and hours... > > > I've only run the thing virtually, and I guess my only reservation is > > > that the laptop itself will be slow. Anyone put hands on one? Also, > > > has anyone actually had TamTam to play sound? That app seems > > > especially well done. Holiday season, you know.. :-) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Marcus > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:39:54 -0500 > > From: "Alfredo Covaleda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] one laptop per child > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > > <friam@redfish.com> > > Message-ID: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > Hi > > > > So much has been said about OLPC (one laptop per child) for poor children > in > > the third world. It's wonderful and I'm sure it will help to reduce > poverty > > and enhance children's minds. Now Third world only got to get 200 millions > > of children out of their jobs and guarantee for many of them at least one > > bread and one glass of milk per day. Oops!, " ?Bread and milk for free?, > > ?What kind of dirty populist and criminal communist proposal is that? ". > > > > Regards > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > 2007/11/28, Marcus G. Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > If I've been looking at the one laptop per child source code, and I'm > > > amazed by how much stuff is available. Better equipped for ABM stuff > > > than a lot of full Linux distributions. From Logo to Squeak to Mozilla > > > XULRunner, it's all there. Could use them for classes for grown ups, > > > I would think. The build tree is complex and well integrated -- it > > > builds for hours and hours... > > > I've only run the thing virtually, and I guess my only reservation is > > > that the laptop itself will be slow. Anyone put hands on one? Also, > > > has anyone actually had TamTam to play sound? That app seems > > > especially well done. Holiday season, you know.. :-) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Marcus > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071128/4acc827a > /attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:16:01 -0700 > > From: "Douglas Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [FRIAM] My employer in the news > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > > <Friam@redfish.com> > > Message-ID: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/795087.html > > > > -- > > Doug Roberts, RTI International > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 505-455-7333 - Office > > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071128/19d5fa35 > /attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Friam mailing list > > Friam@redfish.com > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 53, Issue 25 > > ************************************* > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
