Re: [FRIAM] Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology

[sy]

Glen,
Yes, how people build bad models. Getting back to Taleb's point with the 'black 
swan', that he should have stated more clearly, that it's always dangerous to 
do complex analysis with fat tailed distributions.  You might be still more 
clear about it by making a list of behaviors that become complex and fat tailed 
to watch out for. That includes things like growth and collisions and changing 
distributions generally that progressinely diverge from their original 
behavior, and all suggest that the system being modeled isn't the same anymore. 
 Covering that up with an easy tweek of the noise factors in a model then 
doesn't address the problem. ;-)

Phil  
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:24:53 
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology


Thus spake Robert Holmes circa 10/03/2008 12:15 PM:
> Look at this way then - if he'd had access to a zillion parameter
> mega-simulation, do you think we'd all be safe and cozy and *wouldn't* be in
> the middle of a financial crisis?

[You guys need to trim the cruft off the bottom of your e-mails.]

I think we would be in a better position.  If nothing else, the
existence and use of zillion parameter mega-simulations _force_ us to
concede that models are often wrong and useless.  Granted, there are
still morons who think that there _can_ be accurate or True models.  But
if more people in powerful positions knew, tacitly, how bad most models
are, they would be much more suspicious of their and others' policy
decisions (which are all based on models of one sort or another).  At
least these guys had the sense to reify their models in some way, rather
than merely shooting from the hip and listening to their gut.  You gotta
give them that much credit.

We may not avert crises; but, we might soften them considerably.

NPC: a, b, and d are satisfied.  (c) might be a stretch. [grin]

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] or more simply, is there order?

[sy]

Glen,
I guess I'm intending "divergense" to  specifically mean behavior 
"progressively departing from" what it was, both in the mathematical and common 
English sense.   New kinds of behavior often develop as progressive changes 
from former kinds, right?  So a pattern of divergince can signal the approach 
of an emergent change in kind.  Maybe new trends in prices signal the unseen 
entry of new uses for a scarce resource, and a need to change models etc.

Phil
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:14:55 
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] or more simply, is there order?


Thus spake Phil Henshaw circa 10/03/2008 07:47 AM:
> Maybe it would then be clearer to say  "diverging from apparent past
> behavior, on the assumed belief that the future would continue to be a
> replication of the past" rather than "diverging from assumptions".

Well, there's no need to invent new terms for these things.  If what you
mean is periodicity versus quasi-periodicity versus sporadicalness (I
hate that word... can I just use "sporadicity"? ;), then just use those
terms rather than a vague concept of "divergence".  We have plenty of
tools to study the periodicity (or lack thereof) of a signal.

> With
> natural phenomena the 'generator' is actually the phenomenon in its
> environment itself,

I have to disagree, here, too.  I understand that there's an
"ontological wall" between an observer and a mechanism/generator.  But,
the phenomena is _never_ the generator at the same level of discourse.
Yes, a phenomena at one level can be a generator for a higher level.
But the way we use the words "generator" and "phenomenon" mean, by
definition, a (possibly occult) cause (generator) of an apparent effect
(phenomenon).

The way to deal with that is to build multiple measures, some at the
higher levels of the phenomena being studied and some at low levels to
provide a finer grained (admittedly still phenomenal) aspect of the
generators that lead to the higher level phenomena.  If the low-level
phenomena is commensurate with the high-level phenomena, then we have a
good model of the map between generator and phenomena for that system
under those conditions.

> so the physical thing is the one and only place where
> the design of the process is recorded.  So, no, for physical system
> emergence I see no reasonable way to make sense of examining "a complex map
> between generator and phenomenon" as you would when interpreting a set of
> coded instructions and the various runs of the instruction set on a
> computer.  

Again, "emergence" is a vague and abused term.  So, _if_ by "emergence",
you mean "a complex map between generators and phenomena", then I
understand you.  But if you deny the existence or coherence of such a
phrase when talking about extant physical systems, then I don't
understand what you mean by "emergence".

I'm not necessarily claiming that you're wrong or anything.  I just
don't understand what you mean.

> So still, the question is what are the physical system signals that would
> tell you that you're observing entirely new phenomena or emerging forms of
> behavior (and need a new model)?   Sometimes I've also interpreted that to
> mean evidence of 'permanent' or 'irreversible' system change as a way to
> narrow down what 'emergence' means.

Let me try to paraphrase what you've asked in this immediately preceding
paragraph.

The question is which measures does one use to detect aperiodic behavior
in a physical system?

The answer to that question will be completely dependent on the physical
system being studied, of course.  But it's not a new or rarely asked
question at all.  We ask this question every time we study a system...
even if that particular system (e.g. a pendulum) has been studied ad
nauseam.  So, that makes me think my paraphrase of what you're asking is
wrong.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] or more simply, is there order?

[sy]

Nick, it looks like my replies yesterday AM didn't get through... I've been 
poking at "making sense" as a reduction & mangling of the complex differences 
between things,.. Losing the many by making it one.  Sooo hard to say these 
unexpected things simply.  ;-) 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:09 
To: Phil Henshaw<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity 
Coffee Group
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] or more simply, is there order?


PH wrote

" I too also find I make my best sense when talking to myself"

NT replies:

Oh good lord!  I cannot allow myself to go along with this statement.  First, 
as a behaviorist, I am not sure what it means to talk to oneself.  Second,  I 
have no idea what the validator of such a statement would be.  

No, I think that only people who have been understood by [some] others can 
claim to have made sense.  Otherwise, made sense to whom?  That is why it is so 
maddening to speak and not be understood.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, 
Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED])




- Original Message - 
From: Phil Henshaw 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 10/2/2008 8:18:37 PM 
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] or more simply, is there order?


Yes,� such is the disappointment of life!   However� we do, I believe, have 
words that would be quite meaningless even to ourselves without some sort of 
experience in common. I too also find I make my best sense when talking to 
myself� but am still also driven to explore those subjects which I can only 
really understand by way of the give and take of examining the physical world 
people seem to experience in common.Since nearly everything in my mind 
makes complete sense, as I make it so, anything that doesn�t seems to have a 
good chance of being something not in my mind.That�s sort of a technique.   
 
I also find a consistent predictability to not being able to make very good 
sense of anything that grows exponentially.  I see loops of events that get 
somewhere that I can�t trace, and have found that very helpful in identifying 
things that are �out of body� in that sort of actual physical sense, but lead 
me to think about the distributed networks of things they connect which I can�t 
make much sense of.However, they still seem to be of the kind of thing not 
located in my mind, but located in the physical world of common experience, 
identifiable, but not explainable?Does that work, is that right ?
 
Phil
 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 5:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] or more simply, is there order?
 
Phil Henshaw Hath Spoken Thus: 
 
==>Look, I know this audience is not made of fools, and not deaf and dumb, and 
probably not disinterested in change, so I have to figure your inability to 
connect with my approach to constructing a science of change for natural 
complex systems must be that you find no door between your methods and mine.  
<==
 
Phil, 
 
Nick Thompson hath replied:
 
I have struggled to understand you over the years and just  can't. 
Others have said the same of me.
 
Perhaps "connection" is too high a standard.  Certainly "AUDIENCE" is too high 
a standard.  We are not all here, quietly attentive, waiting for ANYbody's 
message.  There is no "we" here.  
 
The older I get, the rarer communication between actual human beings seems to 
be.  We talk to our gods;  we talk to our college mentors; we talk to our long 
dead parents, we reproduce the values of those who have tortured us in our 
past.  However, talking to EACH OTHER is pretty unusual.   And hearing one 
another is rarer still.  
 
Take care, 
 
nick 
 
 
 
 
 
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, 
Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
 
 
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: Phil Henshaw 
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10/2/2008 5:56:08 AM 
Subject: or more simply, is there order?
 
 

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Rosen, Life Itself

[sy]

Glen,
You say "But, I'm not sure that "having clues to where to look for discoverable 
things" is a reliable procedure.  That sounds pretty ad hoc.  If I were to 
attempt to create a reliable procedure, it would invariably involve some 
concerted (and distributed) hands-on effort to explore reality.  In fact, I 
can't think of a better method than what we're already doing in science today."

It's odd that you don't catch my intent to help others understand a very non ad 
hoc and efficient method, not yet in general use, for doing just that.  To 
understand my technique you do need to distinguish between information and the 
physical prosesses from which we get it.. That can be a hangup.  Once you 
distinguish between those, what works to let your information signal you where 
to look in physical processes for better information about how they work is the 
transitions between continuities. That indicates transitions in how they are 
working, giving you focused questions and a subject to closely examine for 
more.  

my site is a bit of a mess, but you might think of it as all about the 
progressions in the continuity and conservation of change that signal where to 
look to see how complex developmental processes work.

Phil


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:08:14 
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rosen, Life Itself


Phil Henshaw wrote:
> Günther Greindl wrote:
 >>
>> You can stay in the system. Then there's only symbols. Whoever said
>>  that it was allowed to go outside the symbols?
>> 
>> And if you analyze one formal system on a higher level formal
>> system, then, there again, only symbols.
>> 
>> Everything else is philosophy (this is barebones formalism I am 
>> advocating here - but then again - why not? you have to give
>> reasons for assuming more).

Just to be clear, Günther wrote that part.

> [ph] Yes that's the key step, having a reason to assume more so that
> a process of looking for it is justified.   You can't confirm things
> outside your syntax without looking for them and finding them.
> Otherwise you just have fiction.  But having clues to where to look
> for things that are discoverable is a reliable procedure for going
> beyond your current model.

I agree that your syntax must be somehow inadequate to cause you to look 
outside of it.  And, if we believe his argument, Rosen's work culminated 
_merely_ into a demonstration of how our modeling language is 
inadequate.  (Not to belittle that achievement, of course.)  He didn't 
really get very far in extending the language so that it could capture 
(Rosennean) complexity.

But, I'm not sure that "having clues to where to look for discoverable 
things" is a reliable procedure.  That sounds pretty ad hoc.  If I were 
to attempt to create a reliable procedure, it would invariably involve 
some concerted (and distributed) hands-on effort to explore reality.  In 
fact, I can't think of a better method than what we're already doing in 
science today.  The only flaws I can see are a) not quite enough "big 
science" and b) not quite enough amateur science.  And, of course, our 
society is in a fragile balance between objective truth-seeking versus 
self-interested rhetoric.  We could easily fall back into a dark ages 
where, say, Monsanto, specified what we consider "biological truth".

So, it would be nice, but perhaps logically impossible, to construct a 
really _reliable_ procedure.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen

[sy]

That's closer I think.  There's little point to agility for a little fish after 
it has been swallowed.  All that helps then is making excuses... briefly.  
Agility only helps if you sense the 'disturbance' and avoid the attack 
entirely.  Derivatives are long range indicators of out of model events 
approaching.

Phil
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:32:51 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

phil henshaw wrote:
> The 'symptom' I was referring to was being caught flat footed without a
> model to warn you about the approach of major environmental change.

It's not clear to me what you and Marcus are arguing about... But I'll
offer the only real insight I've gained over the past few years. [grin]

There is only one way to prepare for potentially catastrophic change:
agility.  We can, post hoc, find examples where an entity (lineage,
organization, organism, etc) is pre-adapted for some change such that it
_seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change.  But this isn't
an effective tactic.  Complex systems are unpredictable (by definition)
in the concrete.

The only way to be prepared for some unspecified, truly novel,
abstractly named "change" is to be as agile as possible.  And the best
way to develop agility is to rapidly swap out "vignettes" (scenarios,
use cases, aspects, stories, models) on a regular basis.  The point is
not to make attempts to ensure that your suite of vignettes contains a
semblance of the coming change, however.  The point is to smear the risk
by practicing/training in as many different vignettes as possible.

And the only way to do this is by continually maintaining multiple
models of reality, all the while staying agnostic about the meaning and
usefulness any of those models.  You don't commit to any one model as
the Truth if you want to remain agile.

Of course, in stable times, exploitation (commitment) is the rule and
exploration is the exception.  But in unstable times, exploration is the
rule and exploitation is the exception.  The trick is to be willing to
sacrifice your exploitative efforts when the landscape starts to
destabilize.  The committed end up dying because their, once true
enough, convictions are no longer true enough.

This is why small businesses are the heart and soul of
capitalism/liberalism and why it's more agile than other organizational
strategies.  The high attrition rate of small businesses allows us to
balance exploration and exploitation.  When times are stable we grow big
behemoth exploiters.  When times become more chaotic, those behemoths
come crashing down and us little guys scramble and wander like ants,
with all our various deviant models and expectations of the world,
exploring the dynamic landscape and hoping to stumble into a niche and
become the next behemoth exploiter.  Then we hope to hoard enough
resources to skate through the next period of instability.

The trouble with applying this to "sustainability" is that we define
"sustainable" in terms of human comforts, wants, and needs.  What I
think Rosen would try to justify is the idea that we _cannot_ engineer a
world that sustains _human_ comforts, wants, and needs.  A sustainable
("living") system can only be designed holistically, from the inside.
Any design based on external or sliced up and extracted aspects/purposes
will eventually fail (or grow out of "control").  "Humanity" is an
abstract and pitifully impoverished _slice_ of Gaia (for lack of a
better term).  So any design we put in place to preserve the system from
the perspective of the human slice will eventually fail or mutate into
something not so human friendly.

Note that I'm _merely_ arguing from that perspective.  I don't
personally believe it wholeheartedly.  The only part I do believe is
that agility is the key to handling novelty and multi-modeling is the
key to maintaining agility (as well as _generating_ novelty).

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the
support of Paul -- George Bernard Shaw

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIFgpDpVJZMHoGoM8RAls6AJ0W4AHcuSgus9c+FlazwtaDq6tXsgCeNLtt
8SfCOG7wvVA+a9G7u5ar9rQ=
=cZOR
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] can you have 4 operating systems on one buss?

[sy]

Yes, increasing the available resource to relieve conflict has been the norm 
for centuries.  Now that since nearly anyone's taking of more resources is 
increasingly robbing and disrupting other users, has sort of become the main 
source of conflict on earth.. The negotiations are is crossing the line to 
conflict.  So I figure we need more Earths or more understanding on what's 
happening and of how to stay out of trouble in our new environment. 

That information appears limitless, but is still a function of physical packet 
flow', means it lives in both worlds, and since info systems have multiple 
users some of the behavior of open environs for independent systems seem to be 
displayed. 

Phil
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Roger Critchlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:55:57 
To:"The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" 
Cc:"Diegert, Carl F" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] can you have 4 operating systems on one buss?


Back to the original question, and taking "bus" in a more general way, ethernet 
has the properties that Phil is looking for:  the resource is limited, the 
users allocate and share by each pursuing a local rule, and the whole thing 
melts down when it gets overloaded.  The solutions proposed to solve the melt 
down, such as token ring and ATM, mostly involve a less anarchic sharing 
algorithm.  Yet the most successful solution to the melt down has been to 
increase the size of the shared resource.  
 
So the history of shared wire networking, the last 30 years, gives you a case 
study in engineering design responding to a particular resource contention 
problem and how the economics of it all worked out.

-- rec --
 

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 > wrote:
 
Phil Henshaw wrote:
 > That's sort of a central control mechanism for dealing with independent
 > users that were not smart enough to share the limited resource on their own.
 > If the independent users were to learn enough about each other's needs they
 > might learn ways to cooperate and make better use of the limited shared
 > resource.
 It's not that they are not smart enough to figure out what the resource
 is and how to share it.   It's that in this case the real failure would
 be ongoing haphazard negotiation by users, which is clumsy and poorly
 informed and its realization is usually not the primary problem they are
 interested in solving.  Better to design an automated load balancing
 algorithm and leave that work to a fast and patient computer.   The
 identification of general principles of what constitutes fair use (e.g.
 equal access to memory and cycles and known turnaround time), is the
 social/organizational question, and it's separate from the implementation.
 
 So my question in response to yours, in the context of the subject
 line,  was:  "Is there really a resource under contention?"
 Or is it just a venue for someone to interleave themselves as a
 controller and make themselves more important than they ought to be.
 Lots of people have vested interests in existing inefficiencies, the
 management of conflict, and the facilitation of people who would rather
 not think.
 



 Marcus
 
 
 
 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
 Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
 lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org 
 
 
 
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] can you have 4 operating systems on one buss?

[sy]

Well, the problem with the management solution for natural resource sharing is 
there's no one in charge, and actually no position from which anyone could be.  
So beyond learning creative ways for independent users to share, the only 
option to avoid unexpected eruptions of conflict would be to have a way of 
seeing the line of conflict coming.  People seem unaware that there are good 
long range indicators in the complexity of negotiations for watching that...

Phil. 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:54:51 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Cc:"'Diegert, Carl F'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] can you have 4 operating systems on one buss?


Phil Henshaw wrote:
> That's sort of a central control mechanism for dealing with independent
> users that were not smart enough to share the limited resource on their own.
> If the independent users were to learn enough about each other's needs they
> might learn ways to cooperate and make better use of the limited shared
> resource.
It's not that they are not smart enough to figure out what the resource 
is and how to share it.   It's that in this case the real failure would 
be ongoing haphazard negotiation by users, which is clumsy and poorly 
informed and its realization is usually not the primary problem they are 
interested in solving.  Better to design an automated load balancing 
algorithm and leave that work to a fast and patient computer.   The 
identification of general principles of what constitutes fair use (e.g. 
equal access to memory and cycles and known turnaround time), is the 
social/organizational question, and it's separate from the implementation.

So my question in response to yours, in the context of the subject 
line,  was:  "Is there really a resource under contention?"
Or is it just a venue for someone to interleave themselves as a 
controller and make themselves more important than they ought to be.  
Lots of people have vested interests in existing inefficiencies, the 
management of conflict, and the facilitation of people who would rather 
not think.

Marcus



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Very wierd science NYT

[sy]

Or.. (Even if a little 'zooey') couldn't it be a direct continuation of the 
earlier discussion of life being an 'ill-posed' question for information 
analysis?  

Phil. 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Carl Tollander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:47:56 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Very wierd science NYT


Paul writes:
> FYI from a freak and somewhat confused observer 
> _http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?th&emc=th_ 
> 
>  
> (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?th&emc=th 
> ) 
>  
> Paul
>
>
>   
You may feel somewhat better after drilling through this (see topic of 
the day):

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/01/this-and-that_15.html

Carl








FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Wedl lecture: Oscillatory motion on frozen gradients

[sy]

Oh, I wish

Phil

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Stephen Guerin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 23:02:24 
To:
Cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [FRIAM] Wedl lecture: Oscillatory motion on frozen gradients


** Talks will be held in 8 minute intervals on Tesuque Chair **

TITLE: Oscillatory motion on frozen gradients

TIME: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 12:30p - 4

LOCATION: Santa Fe Ski Basin 

ABSTRACT: Empirical investigation of the emergence of transverse waves as
gravitational gradients are imposed on skiers. Secondary focus will be on
modeling positive feedback in the emergence of  mogul fields and the spatial
frequency impacts from snow boarders.

The snow is great! Boarders and skiiers to spend the afternoon at Santa Fe Ski
Basin.  Cars leaving 624 Agua Fria at 11:45a or meet up at Totemoff Bar/Grill at
2:30p for break.



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen

[sy]

That's nice, describing informality as sneaking in new axioms (or 
'understandings', perhaps) in a series of assertions. Of course it's all but 
impossible to not do that,... given the complex way that ideas arise out of 
feelings and intents.  What then about the invisible assumptions that tend to 
be numerous in any attempt at making formal statements.  Would the likely 
presence of hidden assumptions make  all formal statements presumably informal?

Phil
 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:59:52 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Nicholas Thompson on 01/01/2008 10:59 PM:
> thus, to be a good formalism, a formalism has to be in
> some sense informal, right?

This is a difficult question phrased in a misleadingly simple way.

We now know that mathematics is _more_ than formal systems (thanks to
Goedel and those that have continued his work).  I.e. we cannot
completely separate semantics from syntax.  The semantic grounding of
any given formalism (regardless of how "obvious" the grounding is)
provides the hooks to the usage of the formalism.  Hence, by the very
nature of math, any formalism can be traced back to the intentions for
the formalism (though the original intentions may be so densely
compressed or that uncompressing them may be hard or impossible).

And in that sense, including your statement above, all formalisms will
then be good formalisms because they all have a semantic grounding.

But just because all formalisms assume a semantic grounding doesn't mean
they're "informal".  The hallmark of a formalism is that it encompasses
all the assumptions in axioms that are well-understood and clearly
stated up front.  I.e. a good formalism won't let new axioms slip in
anytime during inference.  So, that's what it now means to be "formal".
 An informal inferential structure loosens that constraint and will
allow one to introduce new semantics as the inference chugs along.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful. -- Anton LaVey

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHe98oZeB+vOTnLkoRAjKfAJ0fFwhcKlZulDmkoXZaDKb3a/b76QCfXjC5
WZaDT213cIPPOhP1bRH8rQE=
=cWA0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen

[sy]

Well, feedback loops begin and end too, and that displays an even greater 
'inefficiency' for causation... Just plane old bloody gaps.  The rub is that 
systems of loops originate for no efficient cause.  That's why I turned the sci 
method around to warch them since it's clear we can't explain them. 

Phil
  
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:56:01 
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED],   The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen


On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 11:32:33AM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> All, 
> 
> Ok, so my questions about Rosen are of a really fundamental nature. You guys 
> are already WAY down the track.  
> 
> In fact, could somebody clarify, in terms that a former english major would 
> understand, what it means to say,
> 
> "organisms are closed to efficient causation."   
> I read it and I read it and I READ it and it just doesnt STICK!
> 

You probably read about Aristotle's four causes - this is the origin
of the term efficient causation.

"closed to efficient causation" in my mind simply says that something
is its own cause. If we ask why does this chicken exist, the answer is
because of an egg existing. When we ask why did the egg exist, the
answer is because a chook exists (adult chicken). Causation in this
sense is closed.

When you ask any question about the causation of life, you ultimately
come back on youself. The meaning of life is life itself. It exists
because it can.

I hope this explanation makes some kind of sense. I beleive that much
of Rosen's tortured explanation was trying to formalise this fairly
simple and obvious idea. It is worth comparing and contrasting it with
the notion of autopoiesis, which is a little better developed.

Cheers

-- 


A/Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics  
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen

[sy]

I missed the implication people are finding in Rosen's idea of "non-computable 
models". Can someone offer some examples of instances where that matters.  It 
sounds like it means something other than 'insoluable'.  Could it perhaps 
include 'internalized' & so therefore not accessible?  

Phil

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Gus Koehler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:43:31 
To:"'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen


 A Living System Must Have Noncomputable Models
A. H. Louie

Abstract: Chu and Ho's recent paper in Artificial Life is riddled with
errors. In particular, they
use a wrong definition of Robert Rosen's mechanism. This renders their
"critical assessment" of
Rosen's central proof null and void.
http://www.panmere.com/rosen/Louie_noncomp_pre_rev.pdf

Gus Koehler, Ph.D.
President and Principal
Time Structures, Inc.
1545 University Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-564-8683, Fax: 916-564-7895
Cell: 916-716-1740
www.timestructures.com
Save A Tree - please don't print this unless you really need to.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Joost Rekveld
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 5:34 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen

Hi,

apparently these articles have given rise to rebuttals, see http://
www.panmere.com/?cat=18 for a survey of this discussion.

I read 'Life Itself' a while ago, found it extremely interesting but not an
easy read either. Later I read some of the essays from 'Essays on Life
Itself", which helped. The biggest problem with Rosen's writing was for me
that it is very concise; for a layman (like me) it would have been good to
have a bit more flesh around his central argument, in the form of historical
references and examples.

Later I discovered the writings of Howard Pattee (an essay in the first
Artificial Life proceedings) and Peter Cariani (his thesis from
1989 
and a later article for example .
I found both their writings more digestible.

hope this helps,

Joost.

On Dec 29, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

> By all means have a discussion. Rosen is not an easy read, nor easy to 
> talk about even. I have some grumbles with Rosen, which I mention in 
> my paper "On Complexity and Emergence", but these are fairly muted. 
> There've been some interesting articles recently in Artificial Life by 
> Chu & Ho that appear to disprove Rosen's central theorem. I suspect 
> their rather more rigourous approach crystalises some of my grumbles, 
> but I haven't found the time yet to try out the analysis more formally 
> myself.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:41:43PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> On the recommendation of somebody on this list, I started reading 
>> Rosen's Life Itself.  It does indeed, as the recommender suggested, 
>> seem to relate to my peculiar way of looking at such things as 
>> adaptation, motivation, etc.  The book is  both intriguing and 
>> somewhat over my head.  Pied Piperish in that regard.  So I am 
>> wondering if there are folks on the list who wold like to talk about 
>> it.  By the way, does the fact that I am attracted to Rosen make me a 
>> category theorist?  I am told that that is somewhat to the left of 
>> being an astrologer.
>>
>> Nick
>>


---

  Joost Rekveld
---http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld

---

"This alone I ask you, O reader, that when you peruse the
account of these marvels that you do not set up for yourself
as a standard human intellectual pride, but rather the great
size and vastness of earth and sky; and, comparing with
that Infinity these slender shadows in which miserably and
anxiously we are enveloped, you will easily know that I have
related nothing which is beyond belief."
(Girolamo Cardano)

---







FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality

[sy]

Glen,
Nearly all you say fits closely with my approach, except the word 'any' in the 
following quote.

" To the contrary, I assume every actual system has an inherent
"hierarchicability" (following the word "extensibility") with respect to
any observer(s).  In other words, a system can be projected onto any
ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by the projection."

If you insert 'an' there instead, the combination of the possible and 
discovered orderings will reveal an image of other things.

Phil

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:51:12 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Günther Greindl on 11/21/2007 04:48 PM:
> So you probably won't even support sup/inf hierarchy, I gather; I'm no 
> Relativity pundit - do you think that follows from SR or is it a 
> philosophical view?

It's somewhere in between.  But I don't derive the principle from SR.  I
derive it from everyday experience.  I tend to believe that any measure
(including relative ones like ordering and sup/inf) are mere aspects of
the underlying relations.  So, it's not that I don't support hierarchy.
 To the contrary, I assume every actual system has an inherent
"hierarchicability" (following the word "extensibility") with respect to
any observer(s).  In other words, a system can be projected onto any
ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by the projection.

No single ordering will tell us much about the system because (assuming
it's accurate) it only shows us one aspect (interpretation, usage) of
the system.  In order to make a claim that we've identified a
cause-effect graph, we have to make several (in some cases infinite)
projections based on various imputed attributes.

>> Such distinctions do NOT require one to consider [in]determinism.  But,
>> they do require one to consider historical accumulation and canalization
>> of causes, i.e. where and how ignorance (particularly of "negligible"
>> influences e.g. events very FAR away in space or time) affects causality.
> 
> Ok, I see what you mean - but just to be careful with terminology: I 
> guess you mean "affects the process under investigation causally" and 
> not "affects causality" (last two words above paragraph)
> Former interpretation: we agree. Latter interpretation: we should 
> discuss ;-))

Hmmm.  At first blush, I'd say I agree with _both_ phrasings.  I'd say
(weakly) that ignorance -affects the process under investigation
causally-.  And I'd say (strongly) that ignorance -affects causality-.
How do those phrases make a difference to you?

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly
enforced. -- Frank Zappa

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHSrMwZeB+vOTnLkoRAnBEAKDUVstCXsAVcclg8ASwwkT7B3peXACeLKzm
uExfuxs71G/8vLHcUXzu2fM=
=02+D
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality

[sy]

Nick,
I'm glad you clarified, and it's a valid poit. My reply wasn't too far off. The 
problem is that to study what IS happeniing rather than what SHOULD BE 
(locating cause where it occurs rather than in unobservable imaginery events) 
requires a new method.

Phil
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:10:11 
To:"friam" 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality


Friends, 

Darn it!  I cant get anybody to tangle with the fundamental thing I am
saying here.  Anytime we embody something that is true of the aggregate of
observables in a single unobservable case, we are committing a fallacy.  
The locus classicus of this fallacy is mental causation, where we hypostize
our awareness of a  pattern of a person's behavior and lodge it in an
unobservable event with in his "mind" (or brain, it really doesn't matter).
Here the problem is at its most obscene, but it lurks elsewhere.  

I am puzzling here how to put the point in the MOST ANNOYING WAY POSSIBLE,
so that SOMEBODY will feel obligated to address it.  

Let's try this:   To say that a probability attaches to an event at an
instant is to commit this fallacy.  What we know is a past relative
frequency of relevant conditions and relevant consequences.  Instantaneous
probability is a fiction.  

OK.  so perhaps it's a heuristic fiction.  Well, not if it directs
attention away from the evaluation of our knowledge, concerning the
relative frequency of events.Perhaps another way make this point is
that "cause" is an emergent.  

"Cause" is just another one of those misattributions.  We saw the hammer
hit the nail, but to say that the Hammer caused the nail to penetrate the
wood is to invent an unobservable, an instantaneous "cause".

Like most  people, I would prefer to be stoned to death than be ignored. 

Nick  


> [Original Message]
> From: Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group 
> Date: 11/12/2007 1:29:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> I assume you already know about the work Judea Pearl did to define a
> notion of causality in the context of inference on Boolean networks?
> I don't have citations on this, because I only learned about it
> recently in someone's talk, but I gather it is fairly widely known.
> Happily it doesn't claim to address all questions in which a given
> kind of word appears, so it probably contributed something concrete to
> answering a single class of them.
>
> What is that old folk saying, said with a sigh?  
> "Always a physicist, never a philosopher."
>
> Best,
>
> Eric




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality

[sy]

Sure, data is good to have, but what would past behavior tell you about the 
novel aspects of new behavior, and how would you be able to tell that from 
incomplete data on the past, anyway?  For original behavior it would seem the 
usual tools don't help much, unless you do what I do and. turn models around to 
study what about individual behaviors they miss.

Phil
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:17:06 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],   "caleb.thompson" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality


Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> To say that X is the cause of Y is to accuse X of Y.   Given my 
> current belief that story-telling is at the base of EVERYTHING, I 
> think you convince somebody that X is the cause of Y just by telling 
> the most reasonable story in which it seems obvious that Y would not 
> have occurred had not X occurred.
>
I'm skeptical of the tradition that says we should have predictive
models before measuring things in the world or interpreting data.
Where does a hypothesis come from?   I'd say it is little more than the
prior expectations we have about how the world molded into a compact 
if/then type of story.   And just because a model says to measure 
certain things (out a large universe of possible things to measure) 
doesn't mean the prescribed measurements are really independent samples, 
as there is some bias from a scientific culture.

Given the advanced technology that exists for automated data collection,
let's put aside the story telling (and  the dogma that often underlies
it) to see if the priors look very promising.  For example, using
machine learning techniques, infer models from partial data, and then
predict the rest.

Human experts are often wrong or in conflict, and not always a good
source for setting prior expectations.  Machines can help with that, by
considering thousands or millions of possible explanations for phenomena
based on a small number features found in a larger space of observables. 
  When so found using a simple, statistically-sound metric, I really 
think the `experts' need to look at that result pretty hard.

Marcus



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] the maximizers!

[sy]

Maybe the flaw of maximizing the throughput of systems is that you go to a lot 
of effort to remove all. the resiliences and duplicate routines you wouldn't 
know were necessary!

Phil

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] sometimes is pays to read the definitions

[sy]

Of course. I didn't think I was precluding that. You are assuming that 100% 
permanent sequestration for continuing growing energy uses, regularly doubling, 
is both the most profitable direction of development and won't just transfer 
multiplying impacts elsewhere.  Isn't that abs. decoupling too?

Phil 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 09:21:16 
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED],   The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] sometimes is pays to read the definitions


On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 03:21:23PM -0400, Phil Henshaw wrote:
> 
> Absolute decoupling is needed for CO2 stabilization because CO2 in the
> atmosphere is  largely accumulative, not recycling.  The odd thing is

Not true. Some processes bury CO_2 on the mantle, or the ocean floor,
or in carbonate deposits, or oil and cola deposits. Its all about a
balance - for CO_2 stabilisation to occur, generation of CO_2 must
balance the rate of removal. 

However to retain economic growth, absolute decoupling must occur, in
order for economic growth not to increase the rate of CO_2 production.

-- 


A/Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics  
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex

[sy]

Mikhail,
I grant one can look at and dwell on the mysterious relation between well 
crafted understandings and the realitiies they connect with that are beyond 
understanding.  I also like taking thoughts in that direction sometimes.  It's 
the opposite direction I'm more interested in learning, though, where complex 
things are just things, and no kind of confusion with our  explanations for 
them is required...

Phil

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:49:39 
To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,   "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee 
Group'" 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex


Phil, I think it's a method of two Zen Buddhists checking each other by asking 
koans (that are inaccessible to rational understanding, yet that may be 
accessible to intuition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koan) about the subject. 
? –Mikhail 
  
To understand is to invent. --J. Piaget 
You cannot change a reality if you remain in the same consciousness that made 
it. --G. Braden 
- Original Message - 
From: Phil Henshaw   
To: 'Mikhail Gorelkin'   ; 'The Friday Morning 
  Applied Complexity Coffee Group'   
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:10 PM 
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] When is something complex 

 
Mikhail, 
  
Well, I was perhaps including that sort of natural category that is known only 
by the experiential step of 'entering', like stepping into someone else's shoes 
and the indefinable change of consciousness that always seems to produce.   I 
was more thinking about distinguishing between the systems we see forming in 
our minds, and the systems we see forming in the physical world outside our 
minds.   There are many many different ways a mental system can form to 
or reflect a physical system.   The trick is to find a method that two minds 
can check each other on.  That's a tough performance standard to meet. 
  
  

Phil Henshaw   .·´ ¯ `·.
~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave 
NY NY 10040   
tel: 212-795-4844 
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]    
explorations: www.synapse9.com      
 
-Original Message-
From: Mikhail Gorelkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex

 
 
>...so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient 
>method where definition is impossible. 
  
 
Phil, I like this example: "categories" in those astral worlds that we can 
enter only ***unconsciously***, and where, therefore, we lose our ability even 
to ***define*** :-)  --Mikhail 
 
- Original Message - 
From: Phil Henshaw   
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity 
  Coffee Group'   
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:37 PM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex 

 
Well, one of the most fascinating things about observation is rolled up in that 
question.  It turns out to be naturally difficult to tell whether your 
data reflects behaviors of the environment or of your method of collecting 
information.The point is that observation is always a matter of  dealing 
with 2 complexities each of which is indescribably complex and neither of which 
can be used as a general standard reference.   
  
Both the process of the observer and the process observed are uncalculable, 
and most particularly because they are real physical processes, each displaying 
the behavior of the whole indescribable network of distributed independent 
complex processes of nature from which they arise, including all the features 
and scales of order we have not yet found a way to observe in detail and 
have no clue as to how to begin to describe! One of my favorites in that 
area is molecular light, all the photons being emitted and absorbed in particle 
interactions all the time.   I understand it's real, but molecular light is 
just another subject on a long list of 'dark matters', for our 
understanding.    
  
So...complexity means in part that not everything (actually not 
any physical thing) can be abstractly defined and so we need some way to 
capture and relate categories by an efficient method where definition is 
impossible. 
  
Phil 

  
On 9/19/07, Mikhail Gorelkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]  > 
wrote: > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent 
property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the 
> system

The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex 
thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so completely.
Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less 

Re: [FRIAM] Overshoot self-correction to collapse in theS&P 500Mar-Aug 07

[sy]

I do take your point, but just because independent behaviors of emergent 
natural systems are not susceptible to deterministic analysis of the usual sort 
doesn't mean they're not observable, dangerous and generally predictable by 
other more general means, right?


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:50:43 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Overshoot self-correction to collapse in the
 S&P500Mar-Aug 07


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, the counter example shows no systemicity at all, so perfectly well 
> behaved.  Markets are not supposd to display, as the example, emergent 
> systemicity of any kind, let alone dramatic self-destructive behavior
>   
I suggest you get a time series trading dataset and state exactly what 
you think the dynamic signature is and what you think it is caused by.   
Then filter the data down to periods at and after a finite period after 
those causes (e.g. news events), and look for the signature for a finite 
period of time within which you posit the signature should occur.Do 
the same for all other times and see how often the signature occurs, 
taking care not to double count overlapping periods, which could easily 
if you defined the signature to merely occur `someday'.   You should see 
enrichment of the signature to the cause.If you see it for both the 
`caused' and `non-caused' periods, then all you have is a story.

Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Overshoot self-correction to collapse in the S&P 500Mar-Aug 07

[sy]

Well, the counter example shows no systemicity at all, so perfectly well 
behaved.  Markets are not supposd to display, as the example, emergent 
systemicity of any kind, let alone dramatic self-destructive behavior
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:47:41 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Overshoot self-correction to collapse in the S&P 500
 Mar-Aug 07


Phil Henshaw wrote:
> What's it look like to you?
> The price swings in the S&P 500 over the last 4 months seem to display 
> the natural complex system self-controls of the financial 
> system 'fishtailing' to the point of failure. 

Shrug.  On the left of this five year S&P 500 plot is a similar variation.

http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/intchart.asp?symb=%24SPX&time=12&freq=1&comp=&compidx=a%7E0&compind=&uf=0&ma=&maval=&lf=1&lf2=&lf3=&type=2&size=1&txtstyle=&style=&submitted=true&intflavor=basic&origurl=%2Ftools%2Fquotes%2Fintchart.asp




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[sy]

Note, of course, that he directly defines the possible number of sub-groups in 
a network as its 'utility' or as in the first line of the link defining that, 
the 'hapiness' of the net! 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:00:12 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Interesting to see that David Reed's Law is now in Wikipedia:
   
Its all about beyond Metcalf's value of the network being n^2,  
bringing in the power set of subgroups networks can form, thus  
valuing the network as 2^n.

Stephen has the insight that Reed's Law is quite important and  
explains the web 2.0 explosion and a will be a/the major component of  
a web 3.0 future.

Nice to see its now pretty fully on the radar.

 -- Owen




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics

[sy]

And to fill in 80% of the gaps read Jane Jacobs on N. Sys. econ.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: David Mirly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:45:25 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics


In 1993, Paul Hawken wrote a good book on externalities titled "The  
Ecology of Commerce".

I imagine most of the readers of this list already know of this book,  
but for those who don't it's
a decent work.

On Aug 12, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

> On Aug 12, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
>> On 8/12/07, David Mirly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a
>>> complex system when we don't even partially understand the
>>> consequences.
>>
>> Just to beat on the defenders of the status quo some more, their
>> rationale
>> for denying climate change and not messing with the economy is
>> essentially
>> the same:  it, the economy, is a complex system where we don't even
>> partially understand the consequences of even small changes, so it
>> would be
>> wise to minimize our impacts on it.
>>
>> So we have the same rhetoric of conservatism on both sides of the
>> question.
>
> One of the best retorts against the status quo is "total cost" of a
> product, including its entire life cycle.  Many opportunistic
> capitalists "cheat" by leaving much of the cost of their products to
> others.
>
> The computer industry is improving in this regard: offering
> responsible recycling for every product, included in the original
> cost.  Apple lets you send computers back to them at their end of
> life.  HP includes ink jet recycling envelopes.  This is at least
> hopeful.  And Gore, for all his faults, is doing an astounding job of
> raising awareness.
>
>  -- Owen
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics

[sy]

A surprisingly well founded measure of global enniron impact of anything is 
$1=8000btu, across the board!  It's valid measure of a global system property!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:26:32 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics


On Aug 12, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> On 8/12/07, David Mirly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a
>> complex system when we don't even partially understand the  
>> consequences.
>
> Just to beat on the defenders of the status quo some more, their  
> rationale
> for denying climate change and not messing with the economy is  
> essentially
> the same:  it, the economy, is a complex system where we don't even
> partially understand the consequences of even small changes, so it  
> would be
> wise to minimize our impacts on it.
>
> So we have the same rhetoric of conservatism on both sides of the  
> question.

One of the best retorts against the status quo is "total cost" of a  
product, including its entire life cycle.  Many opportunistic  
capitalists "cheat" by leaving much of the cost of their products to  
others.

The computer industry is improving in this regard: offering  
responsible recycling for every product, included in the original  
cost.  Apple lets you send computers back to them at their end of  
life.  HP includes ink jet recycling envelopes.  This is at least  
hopeful.  And Gore, for all his faults, is doing an astounding job of  
raising awareness.

 -- Owen




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics

[sy]

If multiplying our impacts has unexpected effects, maybe we shouldn't mess with 
that then Shouldn't interfear in the plan?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Roger Critchlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:07:54 
To:"The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics


On 8/12/07, David Mirly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]  > wrote: 
2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a
complex system when we don't even partially understand the consequences.

Just to beat on the defenders of the status quo some more, their rationale for 
denying climate change and not messing with the economy is essentially the 
same:  it, the economy, is a complex system where we don't even partially 
understand the consequences of even small changes, so it would be wise to 
minimize our impacts on it. 

So we have the same rhetoric of conservatism on both sides of the question.

-- rec --


 
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics

[sy]

An interesting corollary to that is that is that exponentials exceed even their 
own internal response times,...
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: David Mirly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:33:24 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics


I can't remember the source (sorry) but I do remember some "expert"  
saying that the problem isn't just that the climate
is warming.  We've already pointed out the the Earth has been much  
hotter than it is now.  He said the problem is that
it is warming up too fast (because of human activity) and the  
ecosystem isn't able to adapt as fast.  He gave specific examples
including the current average temperature rate change at various  
latitudes and correlated that with the migration speed of plants,
insects, etc. and said the additional velocity we have added makes  
the temperature change outpace the migration speed of the
organisms.

On the other hand, the Earth has gone through significant climate  
changes before and life has a way of adapting and surviving.  The  
problem
from some peoples perspective is that the surviving organisms may not  
include humans.  For others, that might not be a problem.  ;)

Personally I have enough "evidence" to have the following conclusions.

1) The Earth's climate is changing at a rate that we can observe in  
our lifetime or at least observe within a couple of generations or so.
2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a  
complex system when we don't even partially understand the consequences.
3) As a whole we are not interested and/or too stupid to minimize our  
impact.  At least until it's too late.



On Aug 12, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> Robert Holmes wrote:
>> But then the rational part of me recognizes that you probably do get
>> far more bang for your buck (in social welfare terms) with these
>> problems: they are (relatively) well understood and interventions  
>> have
>> a rapid effect on a huge number of people. In contrast, climate
>> control is poorly understood and it takes decades to measure the
>> effect. Where would you put your limited $$?
> It depends what's measured.  Climate control may be hard to measure  
> and
> correlate to mitigation efforts but output of CO2 can be identified,
> measured, and mitigated.
> Further it matters what the question is.   For example, if someone  
> owns
> valuable coastal property that risks being underwater in a century,  
> they
> might well care about the impact on their grandkids more than what
> happens to someone they don't know on the other side of the planet.
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics

[sy]

Yes, that's one of the tightly reasoned paths, but how do you stop growth 
without wrecking everything??
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: David Breecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:50:35 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics


I am frankly mystified by the conversation. No one I know of who is 
legitimately evaluating the data pretends to have any certainty as to the 
anthropogenic component.  The issues have to do with the likelihood of 
continued warming; the effects that that trend would have; the risks and 
rewards of inaction (supposing that we are a primary cause); and the risks and 
reward of action (same supposition).


And I haven't seen a legitimate analysis within that framework that comes out 
anywhere but here: 


Act now, because if it is anthropogenic, the risk/reward profile of action is 
overwhelmingly positive, and that of inaction potentially (or even probably) 
catastrophic.


Surely folks don't think we need certainty before acting, especially when we 
know we won't be certain until it's (probably) too late to act, if we are the 
cause?  That kind of thinking could give scientists a bad name ;-)
db






On Aug 11, 2007, at 9:15 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

Indeed!


BTW: Just as a pointer:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology 
 
.. has an overview of Paleoclimatology


Note the quote:
   Changes in the atmosphere may also exert an important influence  
over climate change. The establishment of CO2-consuming (and oxygen- 
producing) photosythesizing organisms in the Precambrian led to the  
production of an atmosphere much like today's, though for most of  
this period it was much higher in CO2 than today.  Similarly, the  
Earth's average temperature was also frequently higher than at  
present, though it has been argued that over very long time scales  
climate is largely decoupled from carbon dioxide variations (Veizer  
et al. 2000).


BTW: I really do hedge my bets .. and I am thinking about various  
means of minimizing my personal impact.  But I sure don't think we  
understand this critter.  The whole damn earth, fer heaven sakes!   
Talk about Gaia!
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis 
 


     -- Owen




On Aug 11, 2007, at 8:01 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

 
Owen,


I find it quite refreshing to hear someone express the viewpoint  
that we
simply don't know to what extent human activity effects global  
warming.  My
left-wing-nut friends all go batty on the subject, falling down on  
their
knees to worship Al Gore when the subject comes up.  Even the smart  
ones are
totally sold on the concept that humans caused the current global  
warming
trend.


Anyone who claims to have figured out this particular global  
complex system
and is stating with absolute certainty that humans are The Cause of  
the
current climate trend goes down in my book as just a tad gullible.


I concede that it is possible, perhaps even likely that humans are  
affecting
the global climate.  But we certainly don't understand the global/ 
celestial
climate dynamic well enough to prove it.  I mean come on, for  
crying out
loud:  we just discovered that neutrinos have mass.  We think.


--Doug


-- 
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell


On 8/11/07, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]  > 
wrote: 




I have to agree .. in the sense that a SFI climate paleontologist
couched the issue:
   There is certainly a very recent correlation between CO2 and an
upward trend in temperature.  But when one looks at multi-million
year variations, we are actually in a cool area, and that the cause/
effect between any human activity pales in comparison to things like
meteor impacts and volcanic action.  Thus much of the buzz is likely
very inaccurate and unfounded.  BUT, personally, there is certainly
no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment.


I think when the dust settles (so to speak!) we'll find that we
simply currently have no idea why the earth goes through ice ages and
hot ages.  We may get hints if we really honestly try.  But I go
along with the SFI researcher: it doesn't hurt to be cautious.


Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice
caps.  Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay?
Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core activities
that contribute a great deal to oil.


     -- Owen



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org 
 

 
=

Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics

[sy]

Yea,... The"re better, but have you juit shot in the dark again or used the 
equation??
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:33:24 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics


On Aug 11, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Phil Henshaw wrote:

> ...
> Of the three main energy sources, fossil, nuclear, and competition for
> land, which would you recommend for providing exponential increases of
> energy forever, without consequences?

I'm a (modified) nuke kinda guy.

By modified, I mean the new sub-critical nuclear reactors which use  
accelerator technologies to create a dual energy reactor.  The safety  
is obvious: if either device fails, the total system simply goes sub- 
critical.  But the wonderful gain is that they use "spent" reactor  
wastes to considerably increase their yield, thus emptying the  
caverns full of nuclear waste.
   http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.html
   http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1999/venneri.htm
Heck, you can even get a book on it on amazon!
   http://tinyurl.com/25nztp

But the trouble is that most folks are terrified of the word  
Nuclear.  (George can't even say it!)  But its possibly the most  
useful of our current high tech energy systems.  And the US could be  
a technology leader in the field if we'd just try.  But I think Italy  
is getting their first, followed by France.

Naturally there needs to be a LOT of diversity in energy production.   
But sub critical systems offer a lot if we can rid ourselves of the  
political correct disease.

 -- Owen



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] perfect info (was Global Slum: ...)

[sy]

Or reaity...! No?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:04:41 
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] perfect info (was Global Slum: ...)


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
>> If we had access to perfect information, there'd be no need for morality. 
>
> Why?  Having perfect information says nothing about the distribution of 
> power.

I'll explain my rhetoric; but I'll trust that you realize I can't really
_ground_ my rhetoric in data.  I do believe there are valid scientific
experiments that could arise from the rhetoric, though.

My claim is that things like emotions, perceptions of "good",
perceptions of "pornography" (can't define it but I know it when I see
it), etc. are actually a culmination of physiological processes rather
than ontologically extant things out the world.  I.e. there is no such
thing as "good behavior", "love", "trepidation", "pornography", etc. out
there in reality.  These are all just figments of human imagination.  If
we could correlate states of the body (including but not limited to the
brain) with the body's environmental context, then we would see that
things like "goodness" are dynamic attractors within the body that
represent a kind of sensor fusion.  They're merely high-level roll-ups
of data we've taken from our environment.

Morality is the individual's organization of, grammar for, and use of
such high-level culminations.

When such organizations, grammars, and usage patterns are communicable
to many people and are actually communicated (i.e. some form of
collective morality obtains), the individuals who are successful at
manipulating the morality have the opportunity to take some measure of
power over that collective.  For example, a televangelist manipulates
the morality of Christianity to acquire and hoard money.  That's where
power enters the picture.

However, if all humans had access to perfect information, such a
collective morality could not obtain because each individual could
actually perceive reality as it is ... _without_ the culminated rules of
thumb that are necessary for the ignorant to navigate an uncertain reality.

Stated directly, because we only have imperfect information, we have to
resort to heuristics to navigate the world.  Such heuristics make us
vulnerable to opportunists who happen to be more facile with
manipulating such heuristics.  If we could perceive the world as it
actually is (i.e. had access to perfect info), we would not be
vulnerable in this way.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know
what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be
president. -- Kurt Vonnegut

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGvHB5ZeB+vOTnLkoRAkDEAKCU2YbjylyBxEB3oxkUADL1yzBw3ACgitEG
eoURig9fs5ctYGs/x9o5c6c=
=Do6c
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org