Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Stephen Guerin]

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Russ Abbott  wrote:

> Are there any good examples of a complex system that doesn't involve
> biological organisms (including human beings)?
>

Three most used non-biological examples I've seen are:

   - ferromagnetism (described with ising model)
   - Bénard cells (convection)
   - Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction

Practically any physical system that transacts forms of energy can have
critical regimes of phase transitions and would all qualify as complex
systems.

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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Steven A Smith]

..

And in the spirit of beating a dead horse about the head and shoulders 
with a wet noodle made of well mixed metaphors, I offer the following 
scholarly support (I hope) for my preferred use of the term "to inform" 
in this case.


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/717d/bc6f72b99e7bc13a971ccf8bce4d5b4db35e.pdf

- Sieve

On 5/25/17 9:54 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:


Nick-

Just to be contrarian, I have to ask how much the heat, humidity and 
mosquito-flux of MA "shaped" the mood of your response?  I would still 
be tempted to suggest that those factors "informed" your mood and 
therefore response more than to have "shaped" them...


Just sayin'

 - Steve


On 5/25/17 9:50 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:


Nick -

I'm sorry to break into your travel plans/recovery with my (ab)use of 
language.


Unfortunately I do not remember any such admonishment in the past but 
am happy to take it in the moment.  I can tell that this is one of 
your hot-buttons...  maybe right up there with dangling participles 
or conflation of "it's" and "its" or "there", "they're" and "their"?


I agree that "inform" is a much too fancy word for the simple act of 
"shaping".  As a sometimes poet, I am quite happy to use the simplest 
or most apt word in a given situation.


That said, I suppose I will *try* to defend my use of the word 
"inform" in this context.  My working definition of "inform" in this 
context is "to provide qualitatively unspecified input to".


Going mildly against Glen's gripe with vagueness, I would claim that 
"inform" is more apt than "shape" in this case and chosen partly FOR 
it's vagueness.   I tend to reserve "shape" for geometric and 
topological structures.  While weather (in this case) has geometric 
structures, it is highly dynamic by nature...  I am not sure that you 
would say that the complex feedback control system in an internal 
combustion engine "shapes" the dynamical characteristics of said 
engine, though perhaps one could say they "shape" the torque and 
power curves (the curves, not the dynamics themselves)?


I'm mostly happy with restricting the use of "inform" to systems 
which provide "information"... in this case, the biological entities 
implicated in "shaping" the weather system being information inputs 
to the weather system?


In a simple algorithmic formulation, I suppose what I intended by 
"inform" was "to provide inputs relevant to" without specifying the 
types of inputs.  In this case, mostly adjustments to opacity, heat 
absorption/radiation/dispersion, and humidity.


I will concede that "inform" is a bit vague and high-faluting but 
won't as easily concede that "to shape" would be any more 
appropriate.   Perhaps we could find a yet better term?


"the implication that the complexity of weather systems was more
than incidentally dependent on the biological systems that
*/might shape/*them"

doesn't really do it for me either?  Do you not agree that "shape" 
has strong geometric (or possibly topological) connotations which are 
at best coincidental to the subject of weather?


Grrr,
 - Steve

On 5/25/17 9:08 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Steve,

I have just arrived in MA in the Mosquito Infested Swamp and opened 
your message.  Now I realize that this message is part of a high 
minded correspondence on profound matters, and that you have EVERY 
reason to have forgotten yourself.  But STILL I want to remind you 
that you promised me years ago NEVER AGAIN to use the word "inform" 
where the word "shape" would do as well or better.  Now, having said 
this, it is now my duty to crawl backwards through this high-minded 
correspondence and try to ACTUALLY have something USEFUL to say 
about it.  You would think that you high-minded folks at FRIAM would 
at least give an old guy a few days to TRAVEL.


"Inform" indeed!  Soon you'll be informing putty.  With what 
information will you provide that putty, as you are “informing” it.  
I informed the putty with my finger so that it lay smoothly against 
the window pane.  I informed my friend that it was time to leave for 
the Friam meeting; he was like putty in my hands.


Grrr

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 Steve
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 2:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 


Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

And I agree completely with the idea of zooming in (enough) to be at 
least hunting subSnarks on a domain composed almost entirely of 
Snarks... ((Or Snarkbait?)


Beating the dead snark, I was mildly perturbed by the implication 
that the complexity of weather systems was more than incidentally 
dependent on the biological systems that */might inform/*them 
(transpiration from forest or savannah, light absorption by algae, 
methane from cattle and termites, etc)


Se

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Steven A Smith]

Nick-

Just to be contrarian, I have to ask how much the heat, humidity and 
mosquito-flux of MA "shaped" the mood of your response?  I would still 
be tempted to suggest that those factors "informed" your mood and 
therefore response more than to have "shaped" them...


Just sayin'

 - Steve


On 5/25/17 9:50 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:


Nick -

I'm sorry to break into your travel plans/recovery with my (ab)use of 
language.


Unfortunately I do not remember any such admonishment in the past but 
am happy to take it in the moment.  I can tell that this is one of 
your hot-buttons...  maybe right up there with dangling participles or 
conflation of "it's" and "its" or "there", "they're" and "their"?


I agree that "inform" is a much too fancy word for the simple act of 
"shaping".  As a sometimes poet, I am quite happy to use the simplest 
or most apt word in a given situation.


That said, I suppose I will *try* to defend my use of the word 
"inform" in this context.  My working definition of "inform" in this 
context is "to provide qualitatively unspecified input to".


Going mildly against Glen's gripe with vagueness, I would claim that 
"inform" is more apt than "shape" in this case and chosen partly FOR 
it's vagueness.   I tend to reserve "shape" for geometric and 
topological structures.  While weather (in this case) has geometric 
structures, it is highly dynamic by nature...  I am not sure that you 
would say that the complex feedback control system in an internal 
combustion engine "shapes" the dynamical characteristics of said 
engine, though perhaps one could say they "shape" the torque and power 
curves (the curves, not the dynamics themselves)?


I'm mostly happy with restricting the use of "inform" to systems which 
provide "information"... in this case, the biological entities 
implicated in "shaping" the weather system being information inputs to 
the weather system?


In a simple algorithmic formulation, I suppose what I intended by 
"inform" was "to provide inputs relevant to" without specifying the 
types of inputs.  In this case, mostly adjustments to opacity, heat 
absorption/radiation/dispersion, and humidity.


I will concede that "inform" is a bit vague and high-faluting but 
won't as easily concede that "to shape" would be any more appropriate. 
  Perhaps we could find a yet better term?


"the implication that the complexity of weather systems was more
than incidentally dependent on the biological systems that */might
shape/*them"

doesn't really do it for me either?  Do you not agree that "shape" has 
strong geometric (or possibly topological) connotations which are at 
best coincidental to the subject of weather?


Grrr,
 - Steve

On 5/25/17 9:08 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Steve,

I have just arrived in MA in the Mosquito Infested Swamp and opened 
your message.  Now I realize that this message is part of a high 
minded correspondence on profound matters, and that you have EVERY 
reason to have forgotten yourself.  But STILL I want to remind you 
that you promised me years ago NEVER AGAIN to use the word "inform" 
where the word "shape" would do as well or better.  Now, having said 
this, it is now my duty to crawl backwards through this high-minded 
correspondence and try to ACTUALLY have something USEFUL to say about 
it.  You would think that you high-minded folks at FRIAM would at 
least give an old guy a few days to TRAVEL.


"Inform" indeed!  Soon you'll be informing putty.  With what 
information will you provide that putty, as you are “informing” it.  
I informed the putty with my finger so that it lay smoothly against 
the window pane.  I informed my friend that it was time to leave for 
the Friam meeting; he was like putty in my hands.


Grrr

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 Steve
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 2:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 


Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

And I agree completely with the idea of zooming in (enough) to be at 
least hunting subSnarks on a domain composed almost entirely of 
Snarks... ((Or Snarkbait?)


Beating the dead snark, I was mildly perturbed by the implication 
that the complexity of weather systems was more than incidentally 
dependent on the biological systems that */might inform/*them 
(transpiration from forest or savannah, light absorption by algae, 
methane from cattle and termites, etc)


Sent from my iPhone

> On May 25, 2017, at 1:39 PM, glen ☣ > wrote:


>

>

> I agree completely.  But if we look carefully at Russ' question:

>

>> On 05/24/2017 11:00 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

>> Can we think of anything that is non-biological, non-human, and 
not a biological or human artifact that would qualify as an agent 
based system?

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Steven A Smith]

Nick -

I'm sorry to break into your travel plans/recovery with my (ab)use of 
language.


Unfortunately I do not remember any such admonishment in the past but am 
happy to take it in the moment.  I can tell that this is one of your 
hot-buttons...  maybe right up there with dangling participles or 
conflation of "it's" and "its" or "there", "they're" and "their"?


I agree that "inform" is a much too fancy word for the simple act of 
"shaping".  As a sometimes poet, I am quite happy to use the simplest or 
most apt word in a given situation.


That said, I suppose I will *try* to defend my use of the word "inform" 
in this context.  My working definition of "inform" in this context is 
"to provide qualitatively unspecified input to".


Going mildly against Glen's gripe with vagueness, I would claim that 
"inform" is more apt than "shape" in this case and chosen partly FOR 
it's vagueness.   I tend to reserve "shape" for geometric and 
topological structures.  While weather (in this case) has geometric 
structures, it is highly dynamic by nature... I am not sure that you 
would say that the complex feedback control system in an internal 
combustion engine "shapes" the dynamical characteristics of said engine, 
though perhaps one could say they "shape" the torque and power curves 
(the curves, not the dynamics themselves)?


I'm mostly happy with restricting the use of "inform" to systems which 
provide "information"... in this case, the biological entities 
implicated in "shaping" the weather system being information inputs to 
the weather system?


In a simple algorithmic formulation, I suppose what I intended by 
"inform" was "to provide inputs relevant to" without specifying the 
types of inputs.  In this case, mostly adjustments to opacity, heat 
absorption/radiation/dispersion, and humidity.


I will concede that "inform" is a bit vague and high-faluting but won't 
as easily concede that "to shape" would be any more appropriate.   
Perhaps we could find a yet better term?


   "the implication that the complexity of weather systems was more
   than incidentally dependent on the biological systems that */might
   shape/*them"

doesn't really do it for me either?  Do you not agree that "shape" has 
strong geometric (or possibly topological) connotations which are at 
best coincidental to the subject of weather?


Grrr,
 - Steve

On 5/25/17 9:08 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Steve,

I have just arrived in MA in the Mosquito Infested Swamp and opened 
your message.  Now I realize that this message is part of a high 
minded correspondence on profound matters, and that you have EVERY 
reason to have forgotten yourself.  But STILL I want to remind you 
that you promised me years ago NEVER AGAIN to use the word "inform" 
where the word "shape" would do as well or better. Now, having said 
this, it is now my duty to crawl backwards through this high-minded 
correspondence and try to ACTUALLY have something USEFUL to say about 
it.  You would think that you high-minded folks at FRIAM would at 
least give an old guy a few days to TRAVEL.


"Inform" indeed!  Soon you'll be informing putty.  With what 
information will you provide that putty, as you are “informing” it.  I 
informed the putty with my finger so that it lay smoothly against the 
window pane.  I informed my friend that it was time to leave for the 
Friam meeting; he was like putty in my hands.


Grrr

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 Steve
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 2:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

And I agree completely with the idea of zooming in (enough) to be at 
least hunting subSnarks on a domain composed almost entirely of 
Snarks... ((Or Snarkbait?)


Beating the dead snark, I was mildly perturbed by the implication that 
the complexity of weather systems was more than incidentally dependent 
on the biological systems that */might inform/*them (transpiration 
from forest or savannah, light absorption by algae, methane from 
cattle and termites, etc)


Sent from my iPhone

> On May 25, 2017, at 1:39 PM, glen ☣ > wrote:


>

>

> I agree completely.  But if we look carefully at Russ' question:

>

>> On 05/24/2017 11:00 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

>> Can we think of anything that is non-biological, non-human, and not 
a biological or human artifact that would qualify as an agent based 
system?


>

> And we consider the previous comments about biology creeping into 
(even!) weather patterns and climate, and whether complexity is 
invariant through the reduction to physics ... and we can even extend 
that to something like Smolin's fecund universe, etc ad forever, it 
becomes clear that we're hunting the snark.  And I suppose the wisd

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

Steve, 

 

I have just arrived in MA in the Mosquito Infested Swamp and opened your 
message.  Now I realize that this message is part of a high minded 
correspondence on profound matters, and that you have EVERY reason to have 
forgotten yourself.  But STILL I want to remind you that you promised me years 
ago NEVER AGAIN to use the word "inform" where the word "shape" would do as 
well or better.  Now, having said this, it is now my duty to crawl backwards 
through this high-minded correspondence and try to ACTUALLY have something 
USEFUL to say about it.  You would think that you high-minded folks at FRIAM 
would at least give an old guy a few days to TRAVEL.  

 

"Inform" indeed!  Soon you'll be informing putty.  With what information will 
you provide that putty, as you are “informing” it.  I informed the putty with 
my finger so that it lay smoothly against the window pane.  I informed my 
friend that it was time to leave for the Friam meeting; he was like putty in my 
hands.  

 

Grrr

 

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 Steve
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 2:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

And I agree completely with the idea of zooming in (enough) to be at least 
hunting subSnarks on a domain composed almost entirely of Snarks... ((Or 
Snarkbait?)

 

Beating the dead snark, I was mildly perturbed by the implication that the 
complexity of weather systems was more than incidentally dependent on the 
biological systems that might inform them (transpiration from forest or 
savannah, light absorption by algae, methane from cattle and termites, etc)

 

Sent from my iPhone

 

> On May 25, 2017, at 1:39 PM, glen ☣ <  
> geprope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> 

> I agree completely.  But if we look carefully at Russ' question:

> 

>> On 05/24/2017 11:00 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

>> Can we think of anything that is non-biological, non-human, and not a 
>> biological or human artifact that would qualify as an agent based system?

> 

> And we consider the previous comments about biology creeping into (even!) 
> weather patterns and climate, and whether complexity is invariant through the 
> reduction to physics ... and we can even extend that to something like 
> Smolin's fecund universe, etc ad forever, it becomes clear that we're hunting 
> the snark.  And I suppose the wisdom of traditions like Buddhism and such, as 
> well as the falsification/selection approach of critical rationalism, 
> _strongly_ suggest to us what Harley Davidson tells us on a regular basis: 
> The journey is the destination.

> 

> So, rather than talk about the elusive snark, why not talk explicitly 

> about the journey ... the workflow, the tools, the thing(s) right in 

> front of our face/hands?  E.g. topological insulators don't look at 

> all plectic to me.  So, I'd be very interested to hear why y'all think 

> they are.  (By using "plectic", I'm admitting that I don't understand 

> quantum physics; so sure, they're mysterious... but how are they 

> complex in the way we're using the term, here?)

> 

> But I'm more interested in well-defined concepts of agents than I im in 
> well-defined concepts of complex systems.  So, what type of agents are we 
> talking about?  Kauffman's "thermodynamic agents"?  Zero intelligence agents? 
>  BDI-capable agents?  Etc.  These concrete details would put us squarely 
> inside the journey and outside the destination.

> 

> 

>> On 05/25/2017 12:21 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

>> MY point (at least, not trying to speak for others) was/is that 
>> "interesting", "life", and "complexity" might very well be highly superposed 
>> or even "conjugated" (to introduce an extremely overloaded technical term).

>> 

>> I suppose to disambiguate, I believe that "Life" is a subset of "Complex 
>> Systems" and life in the larger sense of ALife is a larger subset of complex 
>> systems, though probably still a *proper* subset? The outer bounds of he 
>> vagueness of "Life" convolved with the inner bounds of vagueness of Complex 
>> Systems might allow them to become identical?  The question of "Interesting" 
>> seems to be sharpened (or is it dulled?) by the subjectivity of the term...  
>> I suppose "interesting" is usually defined by being simultaneously "familiar 
>> enough to be relevant" and "unfamiliar enough to be novel".  Since we are 
>> LIfe ourselves, it seems likely that we find *life itself* at least relevant 
>> and as we expand the definition of Life it becomes more novel and 
>> interesting, up to embracing all of "complexity"... to the extent that the 
>> Alife movement expanded the consideration from biological life to proto-life 
>> and quasi-life, I'm t

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[gepr]

Well, that seems to be the question Russ is asking. It would be more difficult 
to answer 'no' if we left off the symbolic part. Then we could argue about the 
closures, if they exist, of things like vortices and such.

On May 25, 2017 5:09:38 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>ok, but we are confined to the inanimate here?  What natural inanimate
>objects do symbolic manipulation?
-- 
⛧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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Marcus Daniels]

ok, but we are confined to the inanimate here?  What natural inanimate objects 
do symbolic manipulation?

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 25, 2017, at 4:57 PM, glen ☣  wrote:
> 
> I agree for the most part.  But what M&V and Rosen (and to some extent 
> Shrödinger, Turing, von Neumann, etc.) were trying to do is suss out the 
> difference between living and inanimate systems.  And that's worthy.  You 
> don't really need the "agent" concept for that work, though.  I tend to 
> prefer the word "actor".  But that's polluted, too.
> 
> And you can't really write it off merely as a crude computational 
> convenience, either.  The core idea (taken up by Penrose and the 
> proofs-as-programs people, too!) is to settle the question of whether biology 
> is doing something super-mechanical or non-mechanical ... at least 
> non-algorithmic, if not non-computational.  It's not _all_ nonsense, though a 
> lot of it is.
> 
> 
>> On 05/25/2017 04:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> I am surprised by the suggestion that a crude computational convenience 
>> (agents) would really have any one-to-one mapping with real things.   Since 
>> we are not talking about biological neural systems nor artifacts from them, 
>> what sort of physical system would need to decouple symbols from their 
>> physical implementation?  It seems like nonsense by construction and a 
>> violation of parsimony.
> 
> -- 
> ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[glen ☣]

I agree for the most part.  But what M&V and Rosen (and to some extent 
Shrödinger, Turing, von Neumann, etc.) were trying to do is suss out the 
difference between living and inanimate systems.  And that's worthy.  You don't 
really need the "agent" concept for that work, though.  I tend to prefer the 
word "actor".  But that's polluted, too.

And you can't really write it off merely as a crude computational convenience, 
either.  The core idea (taken up by Penrose and the proofs-as-programs people, 
too!) is to settle the question of whether biology is doing something 
super-mechanical or non-mechanical ... at least non-algorithmic, if not 
non-computational.  It's not _all_ nonsense, though a lot of it is.


On 05/25/2017 04:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I am surprised by the suggestion that a crude computational convenience 
> (agents) would really have any one-to-one mapping with real things.   Since 
> we are not talking about biological neural systems nor artifacts from them, 
> what sort of physical system would need to decouple symbols from their 
> physical implementation?  It seems like nonsense by construction and a 
> violation of parsimony.

-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Marcus Daniels]

I am surprised by the suggestion that a crude computational convenience 
(agents) would really have any one-to-one mapping with real things.   Since we 
are not talking about biological neural systems nor artifacts from them, what 
sort of physical system would need to decouple symbols from their physical 
implementation?  It seems like nonsense by construction and a violation of 
parsimony.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 25, 2017, at 4:04 PM, glen ☣  wrote:
> 
> 
> Excellent!  Thanks for the clarification.  This seems (to me) to follow along 
> with Kauffman's "agents", at least up to the working paper version of 
> Investigations I have.  There, he suggests that a galaxy might be a 
> collection of agents.  I prefer what (I think) Smolin suggests in The Life of 
> the Cosmos, where the galaxies are the basic structural unit.  So, it makes 
> more sense to me to think of galaxies as the agents.  But it's reasonable to 
> think that the galaxies (what we think of when we use the term) are 
> epiphenomenal and the underlying agency is more minimally defined by 
> something else (black holes? or whatever constitutes dark matter/energy? 
> gravitation itself?).  To satisfy your symbolic requirement, we'd have to 
> identify the boundary.  To me, gravitation is inadequate (perhaps necessary 
> but not sufficient).  But perhaps if we included inflation and the idea that 
> inflation occurs all the time in various parts of the (unobservable) 
> universe, then that light-cone type boundary would work?  Could inflationary 
> bubbles ever interact in any way so that we could say they communicate with 
> symbols?  I have no idea what I'm talking about, obviously. 8^)
> 
> Also, if you disambiguate "biology", it might help.  Would silicon analogs of 
> organic compounds still be biology?  Would proto-biological processes count 
> (perhaps we can build agents in RNAWorld)?
> 
> 
> Ultimately, though, I think I'd answer your question with: No, I can't think 
> of any agents that satisfy all your criteria, the most important of which is 
> "non-biological".  Despite my persnickety objections to his works, I land 
> with Rosen in his tight coupling of biology (life) with closure to efficient 
> cause (aka "agency").
> 
> 
>> On 05/25/2017 01:25 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>> Thank you all for your interest and replies. I regret that I asked this
>> question just before leaving for vacation. I'll be away for a week.
>> 
>> Here are my thoughts, which I didn't want to impose before hearing other
>> answers.
>> 
>> A complex system involves agents with the following properties.
>> 
>>   - They can accumulate (and store) free energy.
>>   - They have means to release that energy.
>>   - They respond to (symbolic) information, i.e., symbols. By that I mean
>>   that they respond to things on the basis of their internal rules rather
>>   than as a consequence of physics or chemistry. (In other words they are
>>   autonomous in the sense that they are governed by internal rules and not
>>   just pushed around by external forces.) I'm not saying that the internal
>>   rules are not themselves run by physics and chemistry, only that the
>>   response of an agent to some information/symbol is minimally if at all
>>   connected to the physical nature of the symbol.  (A bit is a symbol. Bit
>>   representations don't matter when software looks at bit values. Similarly
>>   when you see a red traffic light you respond to the symbol
>>   red-traffic-light, not to the physical effects of the photons -- other than
>>   to translate those photons into the symbol. Software is a set of rules no
>>   matter what mechanism executes it.) Of course one of the things agents can
>>   do is to employ some of its stored energy as part of its response to a
>>   symbol.
>> 
>> The result of all this is that agents operate in two worlds:
>> physics/chemistry and information. A system cannot be considered complex
>> unless it includes such agents.
> 
> -- 
> ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[glen ☣]

Excellent!  Thanks for the clarification.  This seems (to me) to follow along 
with Kauffman's "agents", at least up to the working paper version of 
Investigations I have.  There, he suggests that a galaxy might be a collection 
of agents.  I prefer what (I think) Smolin suggests in The Life of the Cosmos, 
where the galaxies are the basic structural unit.  So, it makes more sense to 
me to think of galaxies as the agents.  But it's reasonable to think that the 
galaxies (what we think of when we use the term) are epiphenomenal and the 
underlying agency is more minimally defined by something else (black holes? or 
whatever constitutes dark matter/energy? gravitation itself?).  To satisfy your 
symbolic requirement, we'd have to identify the boundary.  To me, gravitation 
is inadequate (perhaps necessary but not sufficient).  But perhaps if we 
included inflation and the idea that inflation occurs all the time in various 
parts of the (unobservable) universe, then that light-cone type boundary would 
work?  Could inflationary bubbles ever interact in any way so that we could say 
they communicate with symbols?  I have no idea what I'm talking about, 
obviously. 8^)

Also, if you disambiguate "biology", it might help.  Would silicon analogs of 
organic compounds still be biology?  Would proto-biological processes count 
(perhaps we can build agents in RNAWorld)?


Ultimately, though, I think I'd answer your question with: No, I can't think of 
any agents that satisfy all your criteria, the most important of which is 
"non-biological".  Despite my persnickety objections to his works, I land with 
Rosen in his tight coupling of biology (life) with closure to efficient cause 
(aka "agency").


On 05/25/2017 01:25 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Thank you all for your interest and replies. I regret that I asked this
> question just before leaving for vacation. I'll be away for a week.
> 
> Here are my thoughts, which I didn't want to impose before hearing other
> answers.
> 
> A complex system involves agents with the following properties.
> 
>- They can accumulate (and store) free energy.
>- They have means to release that energy.
>- They respond to (symbolic) information, i.e., symbols. By that I mean
>that they respond to things on the basis of their internal rules rather
>than as a consequence of physics or chemistry. (In other words they are
>autonomous in the sense that they are governed by internal rules and not
>just pushed around by external forces.) I'm not saying that the internal
>rules are not themselves run by physics and chemistry, only that the
>response of an agent to some information/symbol is minimally if at all
>connected to the physical nature of the symbol.  (A bit is a symbol. Bit
>representations don't matter when software looks at bit values. Similarly
>when you see a red traffic light you respond to the symbol
>red-traffic-light, not to the physical effects of the photons -- other than
>to translate those photons into the symbol. Software is a set of rules no
>matter what mechanism executes it.) Of course one of the things agents can
>do is to employ some of its stored energy as part of its response to a
>symbol.
> 
> The result of all this is that agents operate in two worlds:
> physics/chemistry and information. A system cannot be considered complex
> unless it includes such agents.

-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Gillian Densmore]

Much joy and merriment to you and yours on your vacation.


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Russ Abbott  wrote:

> I think the weather example rests on the likelihood that we could have
> complex weather without biology.
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:26 PM Steve  wrote:
>
>> And I agree completely with the idea of zooming in (enough) to be at
>> least hunting subSnarks on a domain composed almost entirely of Snarks...
>> ((Or Snarkbait?)
>>
>> Beating the dead snark, I was mildly perturbed by the implication that
>> the complexity of weather systems was more than incidentally dependent on
>> the biological systems that might infiorm them (transpiration from forest
>> or savannah, light absorption by algae, methane from cattle and termites,
>> etc)
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On May 25, 2017, at 1:39 PM, glen ☣  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I agree completely.  But if we look carefully at Russ' question:
>> >
>> >> On 05/24/2017 11:00 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>> >> Can we think of anything that is non-biological, non-human, and not a
>> biological or human artifact that would qualify as an agent based system?
>> >
>> > And we consider the previous comments about biology creeping into
>> (even!) weather patterns and climate, and whether complexity is invariant
>> through the reduction to physics ... and we can even extend that to
>> something like Smolin's fecund universe, etc ad forever, it becomes clear
>> that we're hunting the snark.  And I suppose the wisdom of traditions like
>> Buddhism and such, as well as the falsification/selection approach of
>> critical rationalism, _strongly_ suggest to us what Harley Davidson tells
>> us on a regular basis: The journey is the destination.
>> >
>> > So, rather than talk about the elusive snark, why not talk explicitly
>> about the journey ... the workflow, the tools, the thing(s) right in front
>> of our face/hands?  E.g. topological insulators don't look at all plectic
>> to me.  So, I'd be very interested to hear why y'all think they are.  (By
>> using "plectic", I'm admitting that I don't understand quantum physics; so
>> sure, they're mysterious... but how are they complex in the way we're using
>> the term, here?)
>> >
>> > But I'm more interested in well-defined concepts of agents than I im in
>> well-defined concepts of complex systems.  So, what type of agents are we
>> talking about?  Kauffman's "thermodynamic agents"?  Zero intelligence
>> agents?  BDI-capable agents?  Etc.  These concrete details would put us
>> squarely inside the journey and outside the destination.
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 05/25/2017 12:21 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>> >> MY point (at least, not trying to speak for others) was/is that
>> "interesting", "life", and "complexity" might very well be highly
>> superposed or even "conjugated" (to introduce an extremely overloaded
>> technical term).
>> >>
>> >> I suppose to disambiguate, I believe that "Life" is a subset of
>> "Complex Systems" and life in the larger sense of ALife is a larger subset
>> of complex systems, though probably still a *proper* subset? The outer
>> bounds of he vagueness of "Life" convolved with the inner bounds of
>> vagueness of Complex Systems might allow them to become identical?  The
>> question of "Interesting" seems to be sharpened (or is it dulled?) by the
>> subjectivity of the term...  I suppose "interesting" is usually defined by
>> being simultaneously "familiar enough to be relevant" and "unfamiliar
>> enough to be novel".  Since we are LIfe ourselves, it seems likely that we
>> find *life itself* at least relevant and as we expand the definition of
>> Life it becomes more novel and interesting, up to embracing all of
>> "complexity"... to the extent that the Alife movement expanded the
>> consideration from biological life to proto-life and quasi-life, I'm
>> tempted to claim that *they* would include *all* of complex systems...
>> >> admitting that the specific boundaries of all the above *are* vague.
>> >>
>> >> To re-iterate, I think there IS good evidence to consider "complex
>> systems" and "life" as highly related and it seems obvious that they would
>> be "interesting", though I suppose there should be things outside of that
>> domain which are also obviously "interesting". Agency is another hairball
>> to sort through and I won't attempt much except that in MY definition of
>> Life, "Agency" is one of the qualities of proto-life.   To that extent, it
>> would seem that complex systems composed *of* entities with agency are as
>> likely as any "biological system" to exhibit complexity, etc.
>> >>
>> >> As for "Russ clarifying his question", I think this can be a
>> rhetorical device?   It has always seemed to me that Science really
>> degenerates to "asking the right question" where when properly formulated,
>> the "answer becomes obvious"... in some sense, I think THIS is what passes
>> for elegance, the holy grail of scientific theory?
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ☣ glen
>> > ==

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Russ Abbott]

I think the weather example rests on the likelihood that we could have
complex weather without biology.

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:26 PM Steve  wrote:

> And I agree completely with the idea of zooming in (enough) to be at least
> hunting subSnarks on a domain composed almost entirely of Snarks... ((Or
> Snarkbait?)
>
> Beating the dead snark, I was mildly perturbed by the implication that the
> complexity of weather systems was more than incidentally dependent on the
> biological systems that might infiorm them (transpiration from forest or
> savannah, light absorption by algae, methane from cattle and termites, etc)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On May 25, 2017, at 1:39 PM, glen ☣  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I agree completely.  But if we look carefully at Russ' question:
> >
> >> On 05/24/2017 11:00 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> >> Can we think of anything that is non-biological, non-human, and not a
> biological or human artifact that would qualify as an agent based system?
> >
> > And we consider the previous comments about biology creeping into
> (even!) weather patterns and climate, and whether complexity is invariant
> through the reduction to physics ... and we can even extend that to
> something like Smolin's fecund universe, etc ad forever, it becomes clear
> that we're hunting the snark.  And I suppose the wisdom of traditions like
> Buddhism and such, as well as the falsification/selection approach of
> critical rationalism, _strongly_ suggest to us what Harley Davidson tells
> us on a regular basis: The journey is the destination.
> >
> > So, rather than talk about the elusive snark, why not talk explicitly
> about the journey ... the workflow, the tools, the thing(s) right in front
> of our face/hands?  E.g. topological insulators don't look at all plectic
> to me.  So, I'd be very interested to hear why y'all think they are.  (By
> using "plectic", I'm admitting that I don't understand quantum physics; so
> sure, they're mysterious... but how are they complex in the way we're using
> the term, here?)
> >
> > But I'm more interested in well-defined concepts of agents than I im in
> well-defined concepts of complex systems.  So, what type of agents are we
> talking about?  Kauffman's "thermodynamic agents"?  Zero intelligence
> agents?  BDI-capable agents?  Etc.  These concrete details would put us
> squarely inside the journey and outside the destination.
> >
> >
> >> On 05/25/2017 12:21 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> >> MY point (at least, not trying to speak for others) was/is that
> "interesting", "life", and "complexity" might very well be highly
> superposed or even "conjugated" (to introduce an extremely overloaded
> technical term).
> >>
> >> I suppose to disambiguate, I believe that "Life" is a subset of
> "Complex Systems" and life in the larger sense of ALife is a larger subset
> of complex systems, though probably still a *proper* subset? The outer
> bounds of he vagueness of "Life" convolved with the inner bounds of
> vagueness of Complex Systems might allow them to become identical?  The
> question of "Interesting" seems to be sharpened (or is it dulled?) by the
> subjectivity of the term...  I suppose "interesting" is usually defined by
> being simultaneously "familiar enough to be relevant" and "unfamiliar
> enough to be novel".  Since we are LIfe ourselves, it seems likely that we
> find *life itself* at least relevant and as we expand the definition of
> Life it becomes more novel and interesting, up to embracing all of
> "complexity"... to the extent that the Alife movement expanded the
> consideration from biological life to proto-life and quasi-life, I'm
> tempted to claim that *they* would include *all* of complex systems...
> >> admitting that the specific boundaries of all the above *are* vague.
> >>
> >> To re-iterate, I think there IS good evidence to consider "complex
> systems" and "life" as highly related and it seems obvious that they would
> be "interesting", though I suppose there should be things outside of that
> domain which are also obviously "interesting". Agency is another hairball
> to sort through and I won't attempt much except that in MY definition of
> Life, "Agency" is one of the qualities of proto-life.   To that extent, it
> would seem that complex systems composed *of* entities with agency are as
> likely as any "biological system" to exhibit complexity, etc.
> >>
> >> As for "Russ clarifying his question", I think this can be a rhetorical
> device?   It has always seemed to me that Science really degenerates to
> "asking the right question" where when properly formulated, the "answer
> becomes obvious"... in some sense, I think THIS is what passes for
> elegance, the holy grail of scientific theory?
> >
> >
> > --
> > ☣ 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
>

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Steve]

And I agree completely with the idea of zooming in (enough) to be at least 
hunting subSnarks on a domain composed almost entirely of Snarks... ((Or 
Snarkbait?)

Beating the dead snark, I was mildly perturbed by the implication that the 
complexity of weather systems was more than incidentally dependent on the 
biological systems that might infiorm them (transpiration from forest or 
savannah, light absorption by algae, methane from cattle and termites, etc)

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 25, 2017, at 1:39 PM, glen ☣  wrote:
> 
> 
> I agree completely.  But if we look carefully at Russ' question:
> 
>> On 05/24/2017 11:00 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>> Can we think of anything that is non-biological, non-human, and not a 
>> biological or human artifact that would qualify as an agent based system?
> 
> And we consider the previous comments about biology creeping into (even!) 
> weather patterns and climate, and whether complexity is invariant through the 
> reduction to physics ... and we can even extend that to something like 
> Smolin's fecund universe, etc ad forever, it becomes clear that we're hunting 
> the snark.  And I suppose the wisdom of traditions like Buddhism and such, as 
> well as the falsification/selection approach of critical rationalism, 
> _strongly_ suggest to us what Harley Davidson tells us on a regular basis: 
> The journey is the destination.
> 
> So, rather than talk about the elusive snark, why not talk explicitly about 
> the journey ... the workflow, the tools, the thing(s) right in front of our 
> face/hands?  E.g. topological insulators don't look at all plectic to me.  
> So, I'd be very interested to hear why y'all think they are.  (By using 
> "plectic", I'm admitting that I don't understand quantum physics; so sure, 
> they're mysterious... but how are they complex in the way we're using the 
> term, here?)
> 
> But I'm more interested in well-defined concepts of agents than I im in 
> well-defined concepts of complex systems.  So, what type of agents are we 
> talking about?  Kauffman's "thermodynamic agents"?  Zero intelligence agents? 
>  BDI-capable agents?  Etc.  These concrete details would put us squarely 
> inside the journey and outside the destination.
> 
> 
>> On 05/25/2017 12:21 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>> MY point (at least, not trying to speak for others) was/is that 
>> "interesting", "life", and "complexity" might very well be highly superposed 
>> or even "conjugated" (to introduce an extremely overloaded technical term).
>> 
>> I suppose to disambiguate, I believe that "Life" is a subset of "Complex 
>> Systems" and life in the larger sense of ALife is a larger subset of complex 
>> systems, though probably still a *proper* subset? The outer bounds of he 
>> vagueness of "Life" convolved with the inner bounds of vagueness of Complex 
>> Systems might allow them to become identical?  The question of "Interesting" 
>> seems to be sharpened (or is it dulled?) by the subjectivity of the term...  
>> I suppose "interesting" is usually defined by being simultaneously "familiar 
>> enough to be relevant" and "unfamiliar enough to be novel".  Since we are 
>> LIfe ourselves, it seems likely that we find *life itself* at least relevant 
>> and as we expand the definition of Life it becomes more novel and 
>> interesting, up to embracing all of "complexity"... to the extent that the 
>> Alife movement expanded the consideration from biological life to proto-life 
>> and quasi-life, I'm tempted to claim that *they* would include *all* of 
>> complex systems...
>> admitting that the specific boundaries of all the above *are* vague.
>> 
>> To re-iterate, I think there IS good evidence to consider "complex systems" 
>> and "life" as highly related and it seems obvious that they would be 
>> "interesting", though I suppose there should be things outside of that 
>> domain which are also obviously "interesting". Agency is another hairball to 
>> sort through and I won't attempt much except that in MY definition of Life, 
>> "Agency" is one of the qualities of proto-life.   To that extent, it would 
>> seem that complex systems composed *of* entities with agency are as likely 
>> as any "biological system" to exhibit complexity, etc.
>> 
>> As for "Russ clarifying his question", I think this can be a rhetorical 
>> device?   It has always seemed to me that Science really degenerates to 
>> "asking the right question" where when properly formulated, the "answer 
>> becomes obvious"... in some sense, I think THIS is what passes for elegance, 
>> the holy grail of scientific theory?
> 
> 
> -- 
> ☣ 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 Com

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Russ Abbott]

Thank you all for your interest and replies. I regret that I asked this
question just before leaving for vacation. I'll be away for a week.

Here are my thoughts, which I didn't want to impose before hearing other
answers.

A complex system involves agents with the following properties.

   - They can accumulate (and store) free energy.
   - They have means to release that energy.
   - They respond to (symbolic) information, i.e., symbols. By that I mean
   that they respond to things on the basis of their internal rules rather
   than as a consequence of physics or chemistry. (In other words they are
   autonomous in the sense that they are governed by internal rules and not
   just pushed around by external forces.) I'm not saying that the internal
   rules are not themselves run by physics and chemistry, only that the
   response of an agent to some information/symbol is minimally if at all
   connected to the physical nature of the symbol.  (A bit is a symbol. Bit
   representations don't matter when software looks at bit values. Similarly
   when you see a red traffic light you respond to the symbol
   red-traffic-light, not to the physical effects of the photons -- other than
   to translate those photons into the symbol. Software is a set of rules no
   matter what mechanism executes it.) Of course one of the things agents can
   do is to employ some of its stored energy as part of its response to a
   symbol.

The result of all this is that agents operate in two worlds:
physics/chemistry and information. A system cannot be considered complex
unless it includes such agents.

-- Russ

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:40 PM glen ☣  wrote:

>
> I agree completely.  But if we look carefully at Russ' question:
>
> On 05/24/2017 11:00 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> > Can we think of anything that is non-biological, non-human, and not a
> biological or human artifact that would qualify as an agent based system?
>
> And we consider the previous comments about biology creeping into (even!)
> weather patterns and climate, and whether complexity is invariant through
> the reduction to physics ... and we can even extend that to something like
> Smolin's fecund universe, etc ad forever, it becomes clear that we're
> hunting the snark.  And I suppose the wisdom of traditions like Buddhism
> and such, as well as the falsification/selection approach of critical
> rationalism, _strongly_ suggest to us what Harley Davidson tells us on a
> regular basis: The journey is the destination.
>
> So, rather than talk about the elusive snark, why not talk explicitly
> about the journey ... the workflow, the tools, the thing(s) right in front
> of our face/hands?  E.g. topological insulators don't look at all plectic
> to me.  So, I'd be very interested to hear why y'all think they are.  (By
> using "plectic", I'm admitting that I don't understand quantum physics; so
> sure, they're mysterious... but how are they complex in the way we're using
> the term, here?)
>
> But I'm more interested in well-defined concepts of agents than I im in
> well-defined concepts of complex systems.  So, what type of agents are we
> talking about?  Kauffman's "thermodynamic agents"?  Zero intelligence
> agents?  BDI-capable agents?  Etc.  These concrete details would put us
> squarely inside the journey and outside the destination.
>
>
> On 05/25/2017 12:21 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> > MY point (at least, not trying to speak for others) was/is that
> "interesting", "life", and "complexity" might very well be highly
> superposed or even "conjugated" (to introduce an extremely overloaded
> technical term).
> >
> > I suppose to disambiguate, I believe that "Life" is a subset of "Complex
> Systems" and life in the larger sense of ALife is a larger subset of
> complex systems, though probably still a *proper* subset? The outer bounds
> of he vagueness of "Life" convolved with the inner bounds of vagueness of
> Complex Systems might allow them to become identical?  The question of
> "Interesting" seems to be sharpened (or is it dulled?) by the subjectivity
> of the term...  I suppose "interesting" is usually defined by being
> simultaneously "familiar enough to be relevant" and "unfamiliar enough to
> be novel".  Since we are LIfe ourselves, it seems likely that we find *life
> itself* at least relevant and as we expand the definition of Life it
> becomes more novel and interesting, up to embracing all of "complexity"...
> to the extent that the Alife movement expanded the consideration from
> biological life to proto-life and quasi-life, I'm tempted to claim that
> *they* would include *all* of complex systems...
> > admitting that the specific boundaries of all the above *are* vague.
> >
> > To re-iterate, I think there IS good evidence to consider "complex
> systems" and "life" as highly related and it seems obvious that they would
> be "interesting", though I suppose there should be things outside of that
> domain which are also obviously "interesting". Agenc

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[glen ☣]

I agree completely.  But if we look carefully at Russ' question:

On 05/24/2017 11:00 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> Can we think of anything that is non-biological, non-human, and not a 
> biological or human artifact that would qualify as an agent based system?

And we consider the previous comments about biology creeping into (even!) 
weather patterns and climate, and whether complexity is invariant through the 
reduction to physics ... and we can even extend that to something like Smolin's 
fecund universe, etc ad forever, it becomes clear that we're hunting the snark. 
 And I suppose the wisdom of traditions like Buddhism and such, as well as the 
falsification/selection approach of critical rationalism, _strongly_ suggest to 
us what Harley Davidson tells us on a regular basis: The journey is the 
destination.

So, rather than talk about the elusive snark, why not talk explicitly about the 
journey ... the workflow, the tools, the thing(s) right in front of our 
face/hands?  E.g. topological insulators don't look at all plectic to me.  So, 
I'd be very interested to hear why y'all think they are.  (By using "plectic", 
I'm admitting that I don't understand quantum physics; so sure, they're 
mysterious... but how are they complex in the way we're using the term, here?)

But I'm more interested in well-defined concepts of agents than I im in 
well-defined concepts of complex systems.  So, what type of agents are we 
talking about?  Kauffman's "thermodynamic agents"?  Zero intelligence agents?  
BDI-capable agents?  Etc.  These concrete details would put us squarely inside 
the journey and outside the destination.


On 05/25/2017 12:21 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> MY point (at least, not trying to speak for others) was/is that 
> "interesting", "life", and "complexity" might very well be highly superposed 
> or even "conjugated" (to introduce an extremely overloaded technical term).
> 
> I suppose to disambiguate, I believe that "Life" is a subset of "Complex 
> Systems" and life in the larger sense of ALife is a larger subset of complex 
> systems, though probably still a *proper* subset? The outer bounds of he 
> vagueness of "Life" convolved with the inner bounds of vagueness of Complex 
> Systems might allow them to become identical?  The question of "Interesting" 
> seems to be sharpened (or is it dulled?) by the subjectivity of the term...  
> I suppose "interesting" is usually defined by being simultaneously "familiar 
> enough to be relevant" and "unfamiliar enough to be novel".  Since we are 
> LIfe ourselves, it seems likely that we find *life itself* at least relevant 
> and as we expand the definition of Life it becomes more novel and 
> interesting, up to embracing all of "complexity"... to the extent that the 
> Alife movement expanded the consideration from biological life to proto-life 
> and quasi-life, I'm tempted to claim that *they* would include *all* of 
> complex systems...
> admitting that the specific boundaries of all the above *are* vague.
> 
> To re-iterate, I think there IS good evidence to consider "complex systems" 
> and "life" as highly related and it seems obvious that they would be 
> "interesting", though I suppose there should be things outside of that domain 
> which are also obviously "interesting". Agency is another hairball to sort 
> through and I won't attempt much except that in MY definition of Life, 
> "Agency" is one of the qualities of proto-life.   To that extent, it would 
> seem that complex systems composed *of* entities with agency are as likely as 
> any "biological system" to exhibit complexity, etc.
> 
> As for "Russ clarifying his question", I think this can be a rhetorical 
> device?   It has always seemed to me that Science really degenerates to 
> "asking the right question" where when properly formulated, the "answer 
> becomes obvious"... in some sense, I think THIS is what passes for elegance, 
> the holy grail of scientific theory?


-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

It is not my nature to take exception to your oft curmudgeonly (or is it 
contrarian?) style but in this case I want to question the implications 
of what you say here when you suggest that we are conflating vague 
concepts merely because they are vague.


   But we have to be careful not to arbitrarily swap one vague concept for another.  Just because 
"interesting", "life", and "complexity" are all vague doesn't mean they're 
analogs

MY point (at least, not trying to speak for others) was/is that 
"interesting", "life", and "complexity" might very well be highly 
superposed or even "conjugated" (to introduce an extremely overloaded 
technical term).


I suppose to disambiguate, I believe that "Life" is a subset of "Complex 
Systems" and life in the larger sense of ALife is a larger subset of 
complex systems, though probably still a *proper* subset? The outer 
bounds of he vagueness of "Life" convolved with the inner bounds of 
vagueness of Complex Systems might allow them to become identical?  The 
question of "Interesting" seems to be sharpened (or is it dulled?) by 
the subjectivity of the term...  I suppose "interesting" is usually 
defined by being simultaneously "familiar enough to be relevant" and 
"unfamiliar enough to be novel".  Since we are LIfe ourselves, it seems 
likely that we find *life itself* at least relevant and as we expand the 
definition of Life it becomes more novel and interesting, up to 
embracing all of "complexity"... to the extent that the Alife movement 
expanded the consideration from biological life to proto-life and 
quasi-life, I'm tempted to claim that *they* would include *all* of 
complex systems... admitting that the specific boundaries of all the 
above *are* vague.


To re-iterate, I think there IS good evidence to consider "complex 
systems" and "life" as highly related and it seems obvious that they 
would be "interesting", though I suppose there should be things outside 
of that domain which are also obviously "interesting". Agency is another 
hairball to sort through and I won't attempt much except that in MY 
definition of Life, "Agency" is one of the qualities of proto-life.   To 
that extent, it would seem that complex systems composed *of* entities 
with agency are as likely as any "biological system" to exhibit 
complexity, etc.


As for "Russ clarifying his question", I think this can be a rhetorical 
device?   It has always seemed to me that Science really degenerates to 
"asking the right question" where when properly formulated, the "answer 
becomes obvious"... in some sense, I think THIS is what passes for 
elegance, the holy grail of scientific theory?


I do wish I could be as concise as you generally are, but I definitely 
lack the discipline if not the skills for that.


Mumble,
 - Steve

On 5/25/17 11:36 AM, glen ☣ wrote:

Maturana and Varela, Robert Rosen, Mark Bedeau, Stuart Kauffman [†] (as well as a huge ecology of others) have written 
about this to no avail, apparently.  We _insist_ on having our ambiguity and eating it, too.  In the end, it's 
rhetorical trickery (of which I'm no less culpable than anyone else) to use words like "complexity", 
"emergence", "interestingness", "agent", etc. in a technical context without making 
_some_ (any!) attempt to disambiguate.

There are bottom-up rhetorical tactics (Newman, Moore, et al), where they reserve their 
vague-speak for the vague contexts, and simply tolerate their own and others higher order 
pattern-matching homunculi to imagine categories like complexity and agency.  And there are 
top-down tactics (M&V, Rosen, et al), where the rhetoriticians try to speak directly 
about the "can't define it but I know it when I see it" categories.  If you view 
these two rhetorical tactics as inductive vs generative (e.g. back-tracking), respectively, 
you can appreciate both.

But we have to be careful not to arbitrarily swap one vague concept for another.  Just because 
"interesting", "life", and "complexity" are all vague doesn't mean they're 
analogs.  We need Russ to clarify his question before we'll have anything useful to say about it.

[†] Including this "gem" by Kauffman: https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5684, wherein 
he proceeds to treat subjects Rosen had treated way earlier, way better, and with no 
citation of Rosen, to boot. [sigh]  But, hey, defection can be profitable.


On 05/25/2017 05:23 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

maybe an interesting (but relevant) question is also "what is interesting?"

It seems that we, as examples of complex, organized, far-from-equilibrium, systems of 
dissipative systems entities find other examples with similar (subsets) of those 
properties "interesting"...  I'm not sure what a system without those 
properties would call interesting (or if it could/would call anything anything).

I think what you are calling "interesting" are systems exhibiting nonlinear phenomena, 
self-organization, and aghast! emergence.   I think therefore that such systems exhibit 

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Steven A Smith]

I just looked up "Topological Insulator" (thanks Carl) and was blown 
away (once again) about things discovered/developed during my 
professional career that I had not heard of before but find 
relevant/fascinating to some of my work.  I wonder if the boys (and 
girls?) of the Enlightenment felt the same as the scientific progress of 
that era unfolded so fully inside one lifetime?


By coincidence I was just at my nephew's graduation from UofA with a BS 
in Materials Science.  I met his dept. chair and another researcher who 
are leading him forward to a PhD in Material Science, working in the 
area of quantum phononics.  The project(s) were fascinating.


They are already building standing acoustic waves with quantum 
properties and expect to be doing quantum computing with them soon...


None of this is unanticipated, the only thing I have a hard time 
accepting is that it is happening (it would seem) in my lifetime.


My PhD Molecular Biologist daughter was arguing against targeted gene 
splicing as a practicality until CRISPR happened and now, just a couple 
of years later, it is key to her own work!  The social implications 
would seem to be staggering?


I don't believe in a Kurzweilian style singularity exactly, but the 
exponential growth (by what measure?) of tech seems to be happening 
quite clearly...  the impact on everyday life, of course is another matter.


Technological optimists (like Marcus?) probably only see the upside of 
this, while neo-retro-luddites (like myself) have a hard time staying 
away from the grey-goo/dystopian futures...I am also somewhat of a 
fatalist and expect that it will all happen one way or another with or 
without me fretting.   A couple of years ago, you may have heard me 
asking Schlitz about living in Ecuador as I was looking at withdrawing 
to the hills of Panama, not exactly for these reasons but with that in 
mind.   The folks with a beachhead there turned out to be nuttier than 
fruitcakes (why would that not surpise us) so it wasn't a real option 
anyway.


Enough wandering I suppose...

Carry on!
 - Steve


On 5/25/17 12:01 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:

Metamaterials.   Topological insulators.


On May 24, 2017 6:59 PM, "Russ Abbott" > wrote:


Are there any good examples of a complex system that doesn't
involve biological organisms (including human beings)?


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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Carl Tollander]

Metamaterials.   Topological insulators.


On May 24, 2017 6:59 PM, "Russ Abbott"  wrote:

> Are there any good examples of a complex system that doesn't involve
> biological organisms (including human beings)?
>
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[glen ☣]

Maturana and Varela, Robert Rosen, Mark Bedeau, Stuart Kauffman [†] (as well as 
a huge ecology of others) have written about this to no avail, apparently.  We 
_insist_ on having our ambiguity and eating it, too.  In the end, it's 
rhetorical trickery (of which I'm no less culpable than anyone else) to use 
words like "complexity", "emergence", "interestingness", "agent", etc. in a 
technical context without making _some_ (any!) attempt to disambiguate.

There are bottom-up rhetorical tactics (Newman, Moore, et al), where they 
reserve their vague-speak for the vague contexts, and simply tolerate their own 
and others higher order pattern-matching homunculi to imagine categories like 
complexity and agency.  And there are top-down tactics (M&V, Rosen, et al), 
where the rhetoriticians try to speak directly about the "can't define it but I 
know it when I see it" categories.  If you view these two rhetorical tactics as 
inductive vs generative (e.g. back-tracking), respectively, you can appreciate 
both.

But we have to be careful not to arbitrarily swap one vague concept for 
another.  Just because "interesting", "life", and "complexity" are all vague 
doesn't mean they're analogs.  We need Russ to clarify his question before 
we'll have anything useful to say about it.

[†] Including this "gem" by Kauffman: https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5684, wherein 
he proceeds to treat subjects Rosen had treated way earlier, way better, and 
with no citation of Rosen, to boot. [sigh]  But, hey, defection can be 
profitable.


On 05/25/2017 05:23 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> maybe an interesting (but relevant) question is also "what is interesting?"
> 
> It seems that we, as examples of complex, organized, far-from-equilibrium, 
> systems of dissipative systems entities find other examples with similar 
> (subsets) of those properties "interesting"...  I'm not sure what a system 
> without those properties would call interesting (or if it could/would call 
> anything anything).
> 
> I think what you are calling "interesting" are systems exhibiting nonlinear 
> phenomena, self-organization, and aghast! emergence.   I think therefore that 
> such systems exhibit proto-life-like properties by definition.   Your 
> exclusion of systems arising from biological (explicitely alive) systems 
> seems to be trying to niggle at the root of "what is life"?
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/25/17 5:59 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>>
>> Russ -
>>
>> I *think* I know what you are getting at, but I don't think we are there yet 
>> in this discussion.
>>
>> I think we've come full circle to the challenges we encountered in the early 
>> days of Artificial Life.  The first year or two of ALife conferences had a 
>> lot of focus on "what IS life?"  It is a bit too early in the morning for me 
>> to give this proper consideration but as I remember it, there were many 
>> examples of systems with life-like or more to the point proto-life-like 
>> properties.  I doubt I can put my hands on my proceedings from ALife I and 
>> ALife II easily and couldn't pull them up online beyond this:
>>
>> http://alife.org/conferences-isal-past?page=2
>>
>> I think your intuition that "unless all of physics would be" is correct, 
>> especially when caveated by your own reference to dissipative systems which 
>> go on to imply far-from-equilibrium and irreversible systems.
>>
>> A precursor to the ALife work was that of Tibor Ganti:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemoton
>>
>> which invoked "metabolism" and "self-replication" as qualities of proto-life.
>>
>> It seems like Autocatalytics Sets are useful and near-minimal abstractions?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_set
>>
>> I feel like my maunderings here are vaguely circular when concatenated with 
>> your own but I hope someone more incisive than I takes an interest in this 
>> discussion and tightens these ideas up a little.


-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Owen Densmore]

The physical examples like Saturn's pole formation is "complex" due to its
being an attractor state, I believe.

If I were doing a search for complex phenomena, which actually is a nifty
idea, I'd first tweet Melanie Mitchell, or Mark Newman, or ask Stephen, but
then I'd look for:
- tipping points
- equilibria
- fractal formations
- unstable systems (reverse of equilibra?)
- sigmoidal graph of a variable

You might like this, I'm following it:
https://www.complexityexplorer.org/courses/74-introduction-to-complexity-spring-2017

Post back if you find something satisfying.

   -- Owen


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:51 AM, ┣glen┫  wrote:

>
> The concept of an agent is even more ill-formed than that of complexity or
> emergence.  All the well-defined versions of the concept tighten it down to
> specific domains.  So, you'd have to refine your question even more in
> order to get a coherent answer.
>
> On 05/24/2017 11:00 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> > What about my revised question. Can we think of anything that is
> > non-biological, non-human, and not a biological or human artifact that
> > would qualify as an agent based system?
>
> --
> ␦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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[┣glen┫]

The concept of an agent is even more ill-formed than that of complexity or 
emergence.  All the well-defined versions of the concept tighten it down to 
specific domains.  So, you'd have to refine your question even more in order to 
get a coherent answer.

On 05/24/2017 11:00 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> What about my revised question. Can we think of anything that is
> non-biological, non-human, and not a biological or human artifact that
> would qualify as an agent based system?

-- 
␦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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Steven A Smith]

maybe an interesting (but relevant) question is also "what is interesting?"

It seems that we, as examples of complex, organized, 
far-from-equilibrium, systems of dissipative systems entities find other 
examples with similar (subsets) of those properties "interesting"...  
I'm not sure what a system without those properties would call 
interesting (or if it could/would call anything anything).


I think what you are calling "interesting" are systems exhibiting 
nonlinear phenomena, self-organization, and aghast! emergence.   I think 
therefore that such systems exhibit proto-life-like properties by 
definition.   Your exclusion of systems arising from biological 
(explicitely alive) systems seems to be trying to niggle at the root of 
"what is life"?




On 5/25/17 5:59 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:


Russ -

I *think* I know what you are getting at, but I don't think we are 
there yet in this discussion.


I think we've come full circle to the challenges we encountered in the 
early days of Artificial Life.  The first year or two of ALife 
conferences had a lot of focus on "what IS life?"  It is a bit too 
early in the morning for me to give this proper consideration but as I 
remember it, there were many examples of systems with life-like or 
more to the point proto-life-like properties.  I doubt I can put my 
hands on my proceedings from ALife I and ALife II easily and couldn't 
pull them up online beyond this:


http://alife.org/conferences-isal-past?page=2

I think your intuition that "unless all of physics would be" is 
correct, especially when caveated by your own reference to dissipative 
systems which go on to imply far-from-equilibrium and irreversible 
systems.


A precursor to the ALife work was that of Tibor Ganti:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemoton

which invoked "metabolism" and "self-replication" as qualities of 
proto-life.


It seems like Autocatalytics Sets are useful and near-minimal 
abstractions?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_set

I feel like my maunderings here are vaguely circular when concatenated 
with your own but I hope someone more incisive than I takes an 
interest in this discussion and tightens these ideas up a little.


- Steve


On 5/24/17 10:25 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
I'll buy the ones Steven Smith mentioned. But those are mainly 
weather and related. I guess that could be generalized to weather and 
geology.


I don't see why formation of galaxies, stars and planets would be 
considered a complex system phenomenon unless all of physics would be.


A vortex or hurricane or other dissipative system?

I'd rule out high speed trading since it's done with computers and 
works only because it interacts with people trading.


All the examples I like (weather, etc.) are open systems that have 
energy flowing through them. That often generates interesting 
phenomena. (As we mentioned above dissipative systems 
.) Do you think that's enough to qualify a 
system as complex? (I know, as Steve said, it's a fuzzy term.) They 
all reflect "emergence" of some sort -- even though I don't like that 
term these days. But they lack the quality of complexity that we find 
in systems containing agents with some degree of autonomy.


Are there any non-biological, non-human, non-computer systems that 
would qualify as consisting of autonomous agents?


On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:48 PM Gillian Densmore 
mailto:gil.densm...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Although Donder's Son  may have a fine example.  The clouds (gas
things)  Jupiter or saturns weather are fine example of
complicated stuff only those planets make.

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Steven A Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:

"Complex Systems" being a somewhat fuzzy concept, this is
hard/easy to answer.


Any physical system comprised of large numbers of similar or
identical elements  which interact and yield non-linear
collective behaviour seems like a good enough definition for
your purposes.   Sand dune formation and (breaking) waves and
cloud formation/dissipation all seem like pretty good
candidates, not to mention the aforementioned weather in
general.   Earthquake/Rift/Mountain formain seems like a good
fit as well as wind/rain erosion of soil in general.


On 5/24/17 8:56 PM, cody dooderson wrote:

Is a vortex like a funnel cloud or the Saturn's hexagon
considered a complex system?

Cody Smith

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Marcus Daniels
mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

High speed trading comes close to not involving people. 
  Other examples that come to mind involve some

autonomous (biological) agent creating demand.   For
example, energy or data or transportation networks are
responding to a logistical demand created by people.  
Netflix (vs. adaptive

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Steven A Smith]

Russ -

I *think* I know what you are getting at, but I don't think we are there 
yet in this discussion.


I think we've come full circle to the challenges we encountered in the 
early days of Artificial Life.  The first year or two of ALife 
conferences had a lot of focus on "what IS life?"  It is a bit too early 
in the morning for me to give this proper consideration but as I 
remember it, there were many examples of systems with life-like or more 
to the point proto-life-like properties.  I doubt I can put my hands on 
my proceedings from ALife I and ALife II easily and couldn't pull them 
up online beyond this:


   http://alife.org/conferences-isal-past?page=2

I think your intuition that "unless all of physics would be" is correct, 
especially when caveated by your own reference to dissipative systems 
which go on to imply far-from-equilibrium and irreversible systems.


A precursor to the ALife work was that of Tibor Ganti:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemoton

which invoked "metabolism" and "self-replication" as qualities of 
proto-life.


It seems like Autocatalytics Sets are useful and near-minimal abstractions?

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_set

I feel like my maunderings here are vaguely circular when concatenated 
with your own but I hope someone more incisive than I takes an interest 
in this discussion and tightens these ideas up a little.


- Steve


On 5/24/17 10:25 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
I'll buy the ones Steven Smith mentioned. But those are mainly weather 
and related. I guess that could be generalized to weather and geology.


I don't see why formation of galaxies, stars and planets would be 
considered a complex system phenomenon unless all of physics would be.


A vortex or hurricane or other dissipative system?

I'd rule out high speed trading since it's done with computers and 
works only because it interacts with people trading.


All the examples I like (weather, etc.) are open systems that have 
energy flowing through them. That often generates interesting 
phenomena. (As we mentioned above dissipative systems 
.) Do you think that's enough to qualify a 
system as complex? (I know, as Steve said, it's a fuzzy term.) They 
all reflect "emergence" of some sort -- even though I don't like that 
term these days. But they lack the quality of complexity that we find 
in systems containing agents with some degree of autonomy.


Are there any non-biological, non-human, non-computer systems that 
would qualify as consisting of autonomous agents?


On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:48 PM Gillian Densmore 
mailto:gil.densm...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Although Donder's Son  may have a fine example.  The clouds (gas
things)  Jupiter or saturns weather are fine example of
complicated stuff only those planets make.

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Steven A Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:

"Complex Systems" being a somewhat fuzzy concept, this is
hard/easy to answer.


Any physical system comprised of large numbers of similar or
identical elements  which interact and yield non-linear
collective behaviour seems like a good enough definition for
your purposes.   Sand dune formation and (breaking) waves and
cloud formation/dissipation all seem like pretty good
candidates, not to mention the aforementioned weather in
general.   Earthquake/Rift/Mountain formain seems like a good
fit as well as wind/rain erosion of soil in general.


On 5/24/17 8:56 PM, cody dooderson wrote:

Is a vortex like a funnel cloud or the Saturn's hexagon
considered a complex system?

Cody Smith

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Marcus Daniels
mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

High speed trading comes close to not involving people. 
  Other examples that come to mind involve some

autonomous (biological) agent creating demand.   For
example, energy or data or transportation networks are
responding to a logistical demand created by people.  
Netflix (vs. adaptive routing) is a demand created by

people.

As companies like Google begin to build agents that build
models and satisfy constraints the requests they initiate
will become more adaptive.

*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com
] *On Behalf Of *Russ
Abbott
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 24, 2017 6:59 PM
*To:* FRIAM mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
*Subject:* [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

Are there any good examples of a complex system that
doesn't involve biological organisms (including human
beings)?



FRIAM Applied Complexity Gr

Re: [FRIAM] Get ready for Blockchain

[Russell Standish]

Another little tip for those who type their emails in emacs (like I
do).

Under Option>Multilingual Environment>Toggle Input Method

When it asks for "Input method" type tex.

Now you can enter Unicode characters by typing their TeX equivalent eg
∀∀∃∃.

Enjoy! ⌣


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au



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