I know you missed my point but then made it for me. When we treat
redundancy as a linear way of increasing some quality
(availability/bandwidth/etc) we set ourselves up for experiencing the
recursion of N sets of belts and suspenders can become N-1 which can
then become (N-1)-1 until we reach 0. Your point as I understand it is
what I was urging...
Not urging Gil to write two checks, but for Gil and each of his
neighbors to write their own separate checks and with minimal increased
complexity mesh their services within conventional WiFi range... each
participant might choose their uplink according to their own
idiosyncratic interests (the one who has 6 TVs running on different
cable channels gets ComCast, the one who loves Elon Musk gets Starlink,
the one whose brother-in-law is a co-owner of the wireless company...,
the one who likes annoying her tinfoil-hat neighbor uses a 5G hotspot,
and the oldSkool prepper/survivalist provides the HAM radio relay
uplink, maybe the overgrown boyscout offers a 1bps semaphore service
with his friends within line-of-site) and then they all benefit from the
*robustness* you speak of. We are in violent agreement again.
On 7/21/22 12:29 PM, glen wrote:
Ha! Well, that kinda misses the point, which was, in part, a criticism
of "monism" and "reductionism", on top of telling Gil he needs to
write 2 checks, one each to mechanistically *different* providers.
Another part of the "2 is 1; 1 is none" refers back to things like the
epiphenomenator and the many-to-many nature of gen-phen maps and
Rosen's definition of complexity. The reason I pointed to the systems
engineering wiki rather than, say, a standard engineering definition
of "redundancy" is because (finally) systems engineering is coming
around to an understanding of plectics (cf
https://www.incose.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/complexity-primer-overview.pdf?sfvrsn=0),
whereas regular ole engineering is still dragging its feet.
In our push for "elegant" solutions to complex things, we are building
epistemically *fragile* models of the world. But when we have multiple
mechanisms that can fill equivalent roles within a model, those models
are robust. Then the model is only as fragile as it's most monist
component. This is why, I think, biology will always be a "special
science". The saying "life is messy" is more than just a statement
about personal resilience. It's an identity. Messy is Life. And Life
is Messy. If you *think* you have a universal hammer, you're wrong.
What's actually happened is you're incapable of seeing non-hammer things.
So ... your progression below is exactly backwards. Many is not fewer.
Many is reality. Fewer is fantasy. And the fewest few, 1, is nothing.
On 7/21/22 09:12, Steve Smith wrote:
2 is 1, 1 is none <glen> or in the extreme "many is fewer... until
it is also none".
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
