Robert, Why do you hope my answer is not true?
-- Russ A
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:10 PM, russell standish
r.stand...@unsw.edu.auwrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 08:21:08PM -0600, Robert Holmes wrote:
Wow, I post a question, go on a 6-hour hike and this is what I come back
to...
I
Something for the meteorologists:
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/17-10/st_clouds
-- R
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps
russell standish wrote:
OSX on a VM partition would be fantastic news for me, if the price is
right.
If that comes to fruition, there won't be any more $25 OSX upgrades from
Apple, that's for sure.
Fedora 11 and Ubuntu 9.10 work on MacBooks, but not on external
drives. The hybrid GPT/MBR
Merely an expression of a personal preference: if there is no point is
true, it tells me that emergence is and can only ever be pure science. As a
practitioner, I prefer my science applied -- R
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert, Why do you hope
Robert,
Great clouds. Spectacular example of what we see fairly often in the hours
following a sharp cold front passage when one looks up through the cold air to
the bottom surface of the warm air above. Right?
By the way. We NEED meteorologists on FRIAM.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
By definition science isn't applied. Whether or not new scientific results
have application is a different question.
My claim is that understanding the underlying mechanisms of emergence is a
scientific question in the same way that understanding the underlying
mechanisms of what makes some
Thus spake Owen Densmore circa 10/10/2009 11:47 AM:
To FRIAM: how would you answer this question by Dennett: Are centers of
gravity in your ontology? .. i.e. are they real, do they exist?
My answer is: Yes, centers of gravity are real. But I qualify it with
as real as anything else we _use_ as
From my perspective, which is probably a minority, your question makes very
little sense.
The basic conditions for emergence were laid down by Mill in 1843,
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27942/27942-h/27942-h.html#toc53, and there's
not much to it: when you combine some things, the properties of
Warning: Rant!
Robert wrote:
I still don't feel that I've got a straight answer to my question,
other than Doug's (which I suspect is the most accurate) and
Russ's (which I really hope isn't true). So let me try again:
once I've established that a phenomenon is emergent by using
a
I find it odd that we're arguing about the value of creating a theory
for emergence. Follow me back just a few years.
irony
Lets see: why would we want a theory about Chaos. Its just when
things are messy, right? Poor Lorenz and his weather equations .. if
only he had be better with
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger, Well said.
But there is a further question. Can anything be added to your (Mill's)
statement that when you combine some things (e.g., combining a bunch of cows
into a herd) the result has properties that the
With aggregativity defined that way, Wimsatt notes that Very few system
properties are aggregative. Then what? Is the point that emergence,
defined as failure of aggregativity has now been fully characterized?
Problem solved? I wouldn't agree with that. I think there is more to say
than just a
What's everyone's favorite modern/abstract algebra book? By that I
mean a book on algebraic structures, including:
(From Wikipedia)
Algebraic structures
Magma
Set S with binary operation +
Semigroup
Associativity of +
Monoid
Existence of identity element for + in S
Group
Existence of inverse
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote:
With aggregativity defined that way, Wimsatt notes that Very few system
properties are aggregative. Then what? Is the point that emergence,
defined as failure of aggregativity has now been fully characterized?
Problem
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.comwrote:
An interesting example to which this approach might be applied is an ideal
gas. Such a gas satisfies all the aggregativity conditions. Yet it has
properties (the gas laws) that the individual components lack.
I read
I. N. Herstein Topics in Algebra
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net wrote:
What's everyone's favorite modern/abstract algebra book? By that I mean a
book on algebraic structures, including:(From Wikipedia)
*Algebraic
Far, far removed, thankfully, from the topic of 'should, or should not
FRIAMers be encouraged to ramble enthusiastically about [pick your topic] in
the never ending goal of advancing science'. Topic du Jour, for those who
have lost count: emergence, and should we (or not) expect anything of
Roger, I've lost track of what your point is.
I said that the attempt to find the appropriate abstractions to characterize
emergence is valid science. Are you agreeing? Disagreeing? Neither? Both?
And what does Winsatt have to do with it? Are you saying that his
aggregativity has captured the
Robert,
(Building a bit off of Roger and
Owen...) Not to be trite, but the answer is obviously that different
people have different reasons for wanting to discuss emergence. Some of the
reasons would match your criterion
for usefulness, others wouldn't. One reason for doing this, that receives
Actually, I suspect that before any of that happens we will have a
discussion about how bandwidth is in an emergent property not fully
determined by any single piece of hardware (as the bottleneck analogy would
lead one to believe). Of course, I know less about that than many on the lists,
so I
I read this to my MythBuntu server, and it's only comment was: ow, butthead.
-- rec --
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote:
Far, far removed, thankfully, from the topic of 'should, or should not
FRIAMers be encouraged to ramble enthusiastically about
Damn, no respect from every quarter. Sadly, I'm used to that.
--DJR
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Roger Critchlow r...@elf.org wrote:
I read this to my MythBuntu server, and it's only comment was: ow,
butthead.
-- rec --
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Douglas Roberts
Dear all,
I am clearly being shunned. I keep trying to answer robert and nobody pays the
slight attention to my attempts at answering. Next I will find my porch light
shot out. After that my barn will be burned.
Answer #1
let me take a quick whack at this. Before the recent epigenic
That was a quick whack?
We operate on different plateaus. In different dimensions, more likely. On
different planets, certainly.
I was hoping for something more along the lines of
Once I've attached the 'emergent' label to a phenomenon, I now know that I
can apply the following scientific
roger will give a more complete answer, but let me just say that I think
wimsatt would say that in point of fact, the idealness of ideal gasses exists
only in the models. Aggregativity is for him a useful fiction. How a fiction
can be a fiction and still useful, is the kind of issue dennett
Ah can I change the requested line a small amount?
Once I've
attached the 'emergent' label to a phenomenon, I now know that I CANNOT apply
scientific methodologies to the problem that treat the phenomenon as
if:
A) it is a simple aggregate of the ingredients
B) its final state
was
Doug,
you wrote
Once I've attached the 'emergent' label to a phenomenon, I now know that I can
apply the following scientific methodologies to solve my problem:
Well, the experimental method or the comparative method, depending upon the
domain we are dealing with. One has to tease
27 matches
Mail list logo
