There's an observability assumption underlying any sort of assessment of frequencies.
I've whipped the horse before about pre-emptive registration; the idea being that once
you *plop* into an observing frame, you may not be able to get out of it. Even the most
agnostic, objective way of targeting some "system" raises indexicality and
universality issues.
So, sure, once one registers some thing as "that's an agent", puts a boundary
around it, formalizes flux across that boundary, etc., then you can identify agent
behaviors and (nearly) distinguish/register those behaviors, and quantify their
frequencies (within some ε similarity between any 2 behaviors).
Of course, where one defines agents explicitly, up-front, frequency analysis is standard
practice, even in monitoring operating systems and the execution of arbitrary software.
But with underlying (global) logics like Lenia's updater, all you're doing is shunting
off the physics to an approximation. I suppose you might find a *compression* of Lenia's
kernel as applied over space and time. That seems to be what Chan is after, similar to
"theoretical biology".
On 9/27/22 18:50, Steve Smith wrote:
On 9/26/22 9:30 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
One thing that got me interested in this work is the possibility of organizations of
agents in different frequency spaces coming together to make agents over the total
frequency domain. Also, I would be curious about the robustness of agents under frequency
filtering. There appear to be possibilities here that weren't necessarily available in
other "smooth" approaches.
I'm really glad you tossed this one into the ring, BTW.
I don't know how this maps onto your own thoughts but I have been cogitating on systems of systems
(e.g. ecosystems, sociopoliticaleconomic, etc) for some time and *they* definitely represent huge
scale ranges in any dimension you can identify/measure. Multi-scale features abound in the these
domains with all sorts of frequency-dependent coupling/mixing models implied. " If a tick
carrying lyme disease falls off a grass-blade in a field and lands on a pet dog with a ... human
master who ... etc., does a butterfly flap it's wings in a typhoon?" and "for want of a
nail..." both come to mind.
I regularly have Herb Simon's prophetic statement
<https://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/ArchitectureOfComplexity.HSimon1962.pdf>
ringing in my ears when I see/hear/think about the modeling of systems of systems:
/NEARLY DECOMPOSABLE SYSTEMS In hierarchic systems, we can distinguish
between the interactions among subsystems, on the one hand, and the
interactions within subsystems -i.e., among the parts of those subsystems~n the
other. The interactions at the different levels may be, and often will be, of
different orders of magnitude./
Agent modeling carries a strong bias toward quantized entities but makes
spatial and time frequency coupling more obvious/easy/explicit than some other
forms... I think of CA (including the myriad sub-species that Chan offers in
Table 1) as specialized/constrained cases of Agent-models, just with specific
spatio-temporal regularity imposed?
--
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/
