Nick,
Maybe let me explain how I use these two "dimensions" together in my
"Organic Complex Systems" theory:
I am interested in 1) the Organization (structure) of organic systems,
and 2) how that organization changes/evolves.
So, yes, Organization is "what is there" as you say. But, also "how that
organization changes" is also "what is there".
But, furthermore, my theory is also very interested in something else
about "organizational change" beyond just "how it changes". I am
profoundly interested also in how "random" versus how "deterministic"
that change can be. I am interested in this because I suspect that, in
living systems, the randomness versus determinism thing is all over the
map. Living system dynamics sometimes behaves randomly and sometimes
behaves deterministically, and mostly "somewhere in between". At least
it looks so to me.
Therefore, when it comes to #2) above - how the organization of living
systems changes, I am also profoundly interested in characterizing the
"predictability/unpredictability" aspects of that change, as well as the
mechanism of "how" that change occurs. I need to represent how that
"degree of unpredictability of change of organization" can itself change
from time to time in biology. Shannon's entropy is the perfect model for
this.
To recap, the organization of living systems can change: from
disorganized to disorganized, from disorganized to organized, from
organized to disorganized, and from organized to organized. (All four of
these are actually continua.) But - and this is the point - all 4 of
those types of changes can either be predictable or unpredictable.
(Yes, in biology, it sometimes occurs that a disorganized situation
transitions to an organized situation with a high degree of probability.
That's what make biology different from thermodynamics, and makes
biology appear to contradict the second law sometimes.)
Consequently, you can see that I need a mathematics that lets
Organization/Disorganization vary independently from
Predictability/Unpredictability sometimes. Shannon entropy has a part to
play in that - but thermodynamic entropy does not, because I am not
doing Physics.
Grant
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
But you agree that good prediction requires there to be structure or a
process that provides the frame work in which a prediction can be made.
Minimally, I think we assume that what we see is a feature of what is
there. Not all careful observational techniques reveal the same aspect.
n
*From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]
*On Behalf Of *Russ Abbott
*Sent:* Saturday, August 07, 2010 3:45 PM
*To:* Grant Holland
*Cc:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] entropy and uncertainty, REDUX
That seems to me to be a different point--and one that Glen made about
entropy a while ago. Scientific realists assume that what one sees is
what there is, more or less, that structure in any dimension is
presumed to be part of the universe, and that as observers we just see
what is. (I know that's oversimplified, but that's the basic idea.)
Predictability is different in that it's a matter of predicting
something unknown when the prediction is made.
-- Russ
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Grant Holland
<grant.holland...@gmail.com <mailto:grant.holland...@gmail.com>> wrote:
t
------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
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
--
Grant Holland
VP, Product Development and Software Engineering
NuTech Solutions
404.427.4759
============================================================
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
