Not to raise the subject necessarily... but just to note that I've been consistently accurate with my foresight and descriptions of how our complex system collapse has been developing. It would really pay you guys to consider the possibility that interpreting systems as observable physical processes as I do might be useful.
Our own whole complex throughput system is still operating in a global environment of increasing difficulty in using diminishing resources and still have a financial system multiplying investments in depleting them. That's going to just run into ever bigger disappointments till we stop, one way or another. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:17 PM > To: FRIAM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity > > Carl, > > Well, It depends on whether you're the kind of person who, when finding > that > nature has a habit of changing the title of the course and the text > shortly > before her exams, continues to study the wrong text because that's the > course they signed up for... > [ph] > > > > > > > Holding ourselves apart from nature, > > We are surprised when nature pays our work no mind. > > Were our methods unsound? > > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > > I think what may be holding back the math is our failure to go to > the > > next > > > level and consider change as a physical process. When you do that > > you find > > > what nature actually does much more interesting and inspiring than > > anything > > > we can invent. > > > > > > Using a physical systems model the process now bringing about our > > whole > > > system collapse was seen coming a long way off and it could have > > inspired > > > the math to demonstrate the turn onto another path instead too. > > Live and > > > learn I guess. > > > > > > The 2006 paper by Bettencourt is easily generalized to reach this > > > implication, acknowledging that for the physical growth system he > > considered > > > "achieving major innovation cycles must be generated at continually > > > accelerating rates"( > > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7301.abstract). > > > That's remarkably close to the basis of proof for the general > > principle I > > > offered in my "Infinite Society" paper in 1979 > > > (http://www.synapse9.com/UnhidPatt-theInfiniteSoc.pdf). The > general > > > principle being the theorem that I've been using ever since with > > excellent > > > forecasting results. In physical systems "growth runs into > > complications" > > > and nature does a lot of creative stuff with it. You just look > for > > the > > > complications coming and then 'voila', cool new science at every > > turn! > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On > > >> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:10 PM > > >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > > >> > > >> Prof David West wrote: > > >> > > >>>> We have also talked about the lack of rigorous mathematical > > >>>> representation of complexity and that being a barrier to > progress > > >>>> in the science. > > >>>> > > >>> the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above sentence raises > > >>> > > >> mine. > > >> > > >>> implicit in the sentence is some variation of "mathematics is a > > >>> > > >> better / > > >> > > >>> superior / privileged / real language compared to all other > > languages > > >>> used by humans to think and therefore we cannot really think > > properly > > >>> > > >> or > > >> > > >>> rigorously unless we are thinking mathematically." > > >>> > > >> I don't think that inference is implied by that sentence. I so > > believe > > >> math is a better language with which to describe reality than, > say, > > >> English. But, that's not what the sentence above says. The > > sentence > > >> above states that a _lack_ of math rigor is a barrier to one > > particular > > >> domain: plectics. > > >> > > >> Your inference goes quite a bit further than the David's sentence. > > >> > > >> > > >>> this annoying attitude is expressed / believed by a majority of > > >>> intellectuals and academicians - not just mathematicians. We > > cannot > > >>> > > >> be > > >> > > >>> "scientists" unless we 'mathematize' our field of enquiry. > > >>> > > >> And although I believe that math is the best known language for > > >> describing reality, I don't believe that one must mathematize > every > > >> scientific field or that one cannot be a scientist without > > >> mathematizing > > >> their field. > > >> > > >> Science is the search for truth. And truth can be sought using > any > > >> language... any language at all. Some domains, particularly the > > ones > > >> resistant to rigor are best studied with languages that have a > high > > >> tolerance for ambiguity... e.g. English. > > >> > > >> Some domains that are not so resistant to rigor are best studied > > with > > >> math. Often, it takes a great deal of work using ambiguity > tolerant > > >> languages like English before an ambiguity intolerant language > like > > >> math > > >> can be effectively used. > > >> > > >> If and when less ambiguous languages can be used, _then_ those > > >> languages > > >> become more effective than the more ambiguous languages. > > >> > > >> From 50,000 metaphorical feet, this can be seen as a simple case > of > > >> specialization. A generalist uses coarse tools and a specialist > > uses > > >> fine tools. Math is a fine tool that can only be used after the > > >> generalists have done their upstream work in the domain. Neither > is > > >> really "better", of course, when taking a synoptic view of the > whole > > >> evolution of the domain. But math is definitely more refined... > > more > > >> special. > > >> > > >> > > >>> Interestingly enough, all advances in science stem from the uses > of > > >>> metaphor - not mathematics. (see Quine) The premature rush to > > >>> > > >> abandon > > >> > > >>> the language of metaphor and publish using arcane squiggles is > the > > >>> > > >> real > > >> > > >>> - in my not very humble opinion - barrier to progress. > > >>> > > >> I agree. Likewise, the tendency to stick with a coarse language > > when a > > >> more refined language is called for is also a real barrier to > > >> progress... "progress" defined as: the evolution of a domain from > > >> general to special, coarse to fine. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > >> > > >> > > >> ============================================================ > > >> 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 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 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 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
