Hey, folks. I am trying to keep this thread for discussions of MacLaughlin's chapter. You want to talk about realism/idealism, get your own damn thread.
Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: russell standish <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Date: 9/17/2009 1:37:04 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar--British Emergence > > Meaning is definitely there. From the meaning that humans give the the > biological world: ever noticed how there are many words for some > species (eg dogs or horses), but hardly any covering other major groups of > species (eg ants or beetles). Where there are explicit distinctions > made, there tends to be meaning, whether beneficial or pest. > > Of course there is biological meaning to most species, albeit not so > sophisticated. Most species will classify others into friend, foe or > neutral, for instance. > > One of the biggest meanings is self-meaning. I am because I can > be. This leads to heritable qualities, which is the raw stuff of > evolution. Without meaning, there is no evolution - just random drift, > or noise. Without meaning, there is no complexity or emergence either. > > Sorry I don't have to time to say more, and I'm sure there are others > who can put it more eloquently. It is one of the strands of my book > "Theory of Nothing", but not a major focus of it. > > Cheers > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:02:04PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote: > > Dear Russ S, > > > > I'm not sure I follow the meaning point. Biological organisms are structured > > in important (emergent) ways, but how do you attach meaning to that? > > > > -- Russ A > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:55 PM, russell standish <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Oh, dear, it seems I've been relegated to the Russ II position now > > > :). Serves me right, I guess. > > > > > > I still think meaning is essential. The reason why something is > > > structured rather than unstructured is that the structure means > > > something to somebody. > > > > > > And for measuring this, I don't think we can go past informational > > > complexity, which is really the difference in entropy of a system > > > and its maximal possible entropy (the entropy of just the parts of the > > > system arranged completely at random). > > > > > > While its a bugger to use, being horribly NP-complete in general to > > > calculate, it can be done for some systems, and with ingenuity > > > extended to others. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:30:52PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > > Russ, > > > > > > > > I agree with > > > > > > > > I would nominate that concept--i.e., the ability to create a structured > > > entity from unstructured components--as the commonality among "emergent" > > > phenomena. (That's why I like the notion of level of abstraction as > > > representative of emergence.) > > > > > > > > This is also, as we will see, the position of William Wimsatt, I think. > > > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > > > Clark University ([email protected]) > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlin k.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Russ Abbott > > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > > Sent: 9/14/2009 10:19:10 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar--British Emergence > > > > > > > > > > > > Owen, > > > > > > > > Here's how I would start. > > > > > > > > I'm not scientist enough to know what 'configuration physics' or > > > 'configuration chemistry' means. My guess is that it means something like a > > > structured collection of matter where the structure itself is important. One > > > of my friends likes to talk about that sort of thing as global constraints. > > > I think that's a fine way of expressing it, when one understands global as > > > referring to the entity being structured and not the world at large. > > > > > > > > I would nominate that concept--i.e., the ability to create a structured > > > entity from unstructured components--as the commonality among "emergent" > > > phenomena. (That's why I like the notion of level of abstraction as > > > representative of emergence.) > > > > > > > > That raises a few questions. > > > > > > > > What are the possible "binding forces" that can be used to create > > > structure? (My answer is that there are two categories of binding forces: > > > static and dynamic. The static ones are the forces of physics. They produce > > > emergent phenomena like chemistry as Roger said. The dynamic ones are much > > > more open and depend on the entities being organized. They produce emergent > > > phenomena like biological and social entities.) > > > > How do those binding forces work? (My answer is that the static ones work > > > according to the laws of physics. For the dynamic ones it is much more > > > difficult to find a useful generalization since again it depends on the > > > entities being structured.) > > > > Where does the energy come from that powers those forces. (My answer is > > > that for static forces, the energy is standard physics. Static entities > > > exist at equilibrium in energy wells. For dynamic entities the energy is > > > continually imported from outside. That's why they are "far from > > > equilibrium." They must import energy to keep themselves together.) > > > > Finally, what holds levels of abstraction together within software? (My > > > answer is that software is subsidized. It runs without having to worry about > > > the energy it uses. Consequently software confuses us because it hides the > > > energy issue. One can build anything one can think of in software using the > > > mechanisms for construction built into (and on top of) the programming > > > language one is using.) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Russ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Owen Densmore <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > [This is an email I sent to the reading group. It's title was: > > > > Emergence, Chaos Envy, and Formalization of Complexity > > > > I think that, rather than worrying about the existing concepts of > > > emergence, we would be far better off looking at the history of Chaos and > > > how they achieved amazing results in a short time, and how we could > > > similarly attempt formalization of complexity. One idea is to simply look > > > at the "edge of chaos" idea in more detail, thus placing complexity as a > > > field within chaos.] > > > > > > > > Nick has started a seminar on Emergence based on the book of that name by > > > Bedau and Humphreys. This got me to thinking about the core problem of > > > Complexity: its lack of a core definition, along with lack of any success in > > > formalizing it. > > > > > > > > Chaos found itself in a similar position: the Lorenz equations for very > > > simple weather modeling had quirks which were difficult to grasp. Years > > > passed with many arguing that Lorenz was a dummy: he didn't understand error > > > calculations, nor did he understand the limitations of computation. > > > > > > > > Many folks sided with Lorenz, siting similar phenomena such as turbulent > > > flow, the logistics map, and the three body problem. All had one thing in > > > common: divergence. I.e. two points near each other would find themselves at > > > a near random distance from each other after short periods of time. > > > > See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory > > > > > > > > Complexity similarly arose from observations such as sand-pile formation, > > > flocking, ant foraging, and so on. Their commonality, however, was not > > > divergence but convergence, not chaos but order. Typically this is coined > > > "emergence". > > > > > > > > I would like to propose an attempt to do what Poincare, Feigenbaum, > > > Layapunov and others have done for Chaos, but for Complexity. > > > > > > > > Nick has hit the nail on the head, I think, in choosing Emergence as the > > > core similarity across the spectrum of phenomena we call "complex". > > > > > > > > The success of Chaos was to find a few, very constrained areas of > > > divergence and formalize them into a mathematical framework. Initial > > > success brought the Rosetta stone: the Lyapunov exponent: a scalar metric > > > for identifying chaotic systems. > > > > > > > > It seems to me that a goal of understanding emergence is to formalize it, > > > hoping for the same result Chaos had. I'd be fine limiting our scope to > > > ABM, simply because it has a hope of being bounded .. thus simple enough for > > > success. > > > > > > > > You see why I included Chaos Envy? > > > > > > > > -- Owen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ============================================================ 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
