Mathematica is built on nothing more conceptually complex than relays, and relays (or their modern refinements) work on the principles of physics. I don’t see why you are making the distinction.
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:59 PM To: FRIAM <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems? I'm wondering whether the message below got lost. Our did no one think it worth mentioning? On May 28, 2017 6:35 PM, "Russ Abbott" <russ.abb...@gmail.com<mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>> wrote: Greetings from Jerusalem! Quite an amazing city. Never been here before. Quite an amazing discussion too. My interest, I think, is not so much in defining what we (want to) mean by a complex system buy in exploring the implications of systems consisting of agents as described earlier. The ability to process symbols seems to me to make all the difference in the world. Physical entities capable of processing symbols seem to me to live it two worlds: the physical and the symbolic. (The original question was prompted by the notion that complexity requires that sort of dual worldness. But that's not my core concern. You can probably get pretty far wrt complexity in a world that includes switches, where by a switch I mean one energy flow that controls another, a light switch for example. So systems of multiple energy flows where one controls another like weather and geology are good candidates.) Symbolic processing, including computers, is a step beyond switches. Half a century ago Newell and Simon defined computers as physical symbol machines. We and many biological organisms are physical symbol machines also. I think that's an important way to look at it. The thing about physical symbol machines is that the rules of causation they follow are more complex than those of physics. That's enough rambling for now on my cell phone. On May 28, 2017 6:04 PM, "Stephen Guerin" <stephen.gue...@simtable.com<mailto:stephen.gue...@simtable.com>> wrote: Marcos writes; Depending on which J values are zero, there can one phase space or many independent phase spaces depending on how many disconnected components there are. I agree with a small tweak. Yes, the subgraphs would have their own independent phase spaces (especially if topologies were dissimilar). Though, I would not call the independent subgraphs components as they are no longer part of a larger whole. If the subgraphs are independent and not interacting you cease to have one system. You have multiple independent systems each with their own phase spaces. I'll wrap with my position: * I gave three examples of non-biological complex systems based on Russ's initial question * Russ's additional criteria later in the thread are similar to distinguishing criteria for complex living systems vs complex non-living systems. This is an area of research I'm fascinated with and I encourage this line of discussion * If I need to use Russ's criteria, I can't think of a non-biological example. To me it's like asking for a non-biological example of a living system. * I disagree with Russ's claim that all complex systems must satisfy his criteria to be a complex system. It is too limiting. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
