No, no, no, no. >8^D
You sound like a crypto-kid who claims the BTC blockchain is "decentralized"
even though it's still just 1 blockchain (and proof of work). Your mesh must be
*multi*dynamic for it to fit the purpose, here. Maybe the type of meshing you have in
mind *is* multi-dynamic. But it's not obviously inferred just from the phrase.
On 7/21/22 11:58, Steve Smith wrote:
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".
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
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/
