I feel that I have been "there" from (near) the inception of the
Complexity Bubble you refer to.
I'm not sure if you are mixing a metaphor here... though it does seem
that the source domain is the same in both metaphors: 1) A bubble like
a housing or tulip bubble which just keeps expanding until it bursts
from it's own unsustainable expansion; 2) A bubble like the kind that we
put children with no immune system inside of.
I wonder if this concise paragraph you offer here isn't what you are
mostly getting on about with circular definitions? I DO think that
Complexity Science (if there is such a thing in reality) has the
properties you speak of: "If you understand the lingo then you
understand the questions and if you don't then you don't."
My own memory/opinion is that Complexity Science grew up out of various
existing fields such as Nonlinear Physics and Dynamical Systems theory.
The colloquial term "Chaos" has a fairly decent description on Wikipedia:
*Chaos theory* is a branch of mathematics
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics> focused on the behavior
of dynamical systems
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system> that are highly
sensitive to initial conditions
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_conditions>. 'Chaos' is an
interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness
of chaotic complex systems
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_complex_system>, there are
underlying patterns, constant feedback loops
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback_loops>, repetition,
self-similarity <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity>,
fractals <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractals>, self-organization
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization>, and reliance on
programming at the initial point known as /sensitive dependence on
initial conditions/.
I don't believe that anyone invoked the Wikipedia entry for Complex
Systems which I find on the whole fairly reasonable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems
which seem a bit overlapping and redundant to me (In Wikipedia? Never!)
Sadly, I think an earlier quote (from Marcus) that said roughly "nobody
understands mathematics, they just get used to it" might apply a bit to
Complex Systems/Science.
I realize this may not be helpful, and I appreciate your frustrations.
I also seem to remember that Owen(?) gave a pointer to Melanie
Mitchell's "Complexity Explorer" course on "Intro to Complexity":
https://www.complexityexplorer.org/courses/74-introduction-to-complexity-spring-2017
which I *think* can actually be taken out of sync with the group that
started in April.
I DO think that one of the more interesting points of Complexity Science
is to get at the basic nature of Emergence as you suggest. Perhaps
that is "creation itself" or at least "life itself"?
Mumble,
- Steve
On 6/8/17 7:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Dear All,
I wonder the extent to which you would all agree that there is a bit
of a complexity bubble: i.e., if you know the lingo, then you can
understand the questions; if you don't know the lingo, then you can't
understand what complexity people are on about. So, one kind of
project a group like us could work on is breaking out of the bubble.
That would require putting the complexity problem in a form that any
ordinary mortal can understand. Here’s my attempt: I think what you
are up to is coming up with a general theory of creation, more general
even than natural selection. You want to offer a theory that accounts
for the emergence of complex structures (/sensu Thompsoni/) in the
universe. Now that’s a program that anybody outside the bubble could
understand.
How wrong am I about that?
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language
I think you and I on the same page. My first thought (before the
concept-mapping tools) was to collaboratively develop an ontology so
that we could all talk about the same things. But my guess is that
would just cause even more hemming and hawing over terms. Regardless
of tools, someone needs to run point. If there's a lead author and
the other participants can "get behind" that author's objective, then
it would work.
On 06/08/2017 03:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context,
but usually in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more)
operators clicking and typing and dragging and connecting while others
chatter out loud, then shifting the mouse/keyboard(s) to another(s).
>
> I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool
developer on the list... I'm blanking his name, though I know he has
been active off and on! I hope he catches this and pitches in. I
believe he was heading toward web-enabled, simultaneous editing
capabilities. I did some tests and provided some feedback on an
early version a few years ago..
>
> My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few
others driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never really
adopted by myself.
>
> I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM
for the NSF a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed by
Tim Goldsmith (dept. Psychology) at UNM. The presumption WAS (IS)
that we all have reserved lexicons and for a collaborative group to
develop a common one, there has to be a lot of discussion and
negotiation. Our example was a group of climate change scientists who
(un)surprisingly used identical terms in very similar contexts with
very different intentions and meanings in some cases. It isn't too
surprising when you realize that an ocean scientist and an atmospheric
scientist are very interested in many of the same physical properties,
but with different emphasis and within different regimes. Pressure,
density, humidity, salinity, vorticity all seem to have pretty clear
meanings to any scientist using them, but the relative importance and
interaction between them has different implications for each group.
>
> Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran
out. This is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still
valid but without a patron and without SME's to "test on" it is hard
to push such tools forward. My part included building the equivalent
of what you call "mind maps" from the differing lexical elements,
floating in N-space and "morphing" from each individual (or
subgroup's) perspective to some kind of common perspective... with the
intention of helping each individual or subgroup appreciate the
*different* perspective of the others.
>
> This is modestly related to my work in "faceted ontologies" (also
currently not under active development) where "multiple lexicons" is
replaced by "multiple ontologies" or in both cases, the
superposition of multiple lexicons/ontologies.
>
> I haven't worked with Joslyn since that 2007? paper... but we
*tried* a joint project with PNNL/NREL a couple of years ago, but it
failed due to inter-laboratory politics I think. He's an equally
brilliant/oblique character as you... take that for what it is worth!
>
> I liked Frank's double-dog-dare to you. I think that is one of the
good things you bring out in this list, all kinds of others'
feistiness! It was also good that you could both call it for what it
was. It makes me want to read Kohut... I have special reasons for
trying to apprehend alternate self-psychology models right now, though
from your's and Frank's apparent avoidance(/dismissal?) of Kahut and
my immediate phonetic slip-slide to Camus, I'm a little leery.
--
☣ glen
============================================================
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
============================================================
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
