Sorry, the following email should be completely rewritten as a query rather
than an assertion, but I think I am too tired to do it coherently, and I am
hoping that an answer to my question may clarify the conversation.
Hmmm
This email from Grant, the next one, and much of the past discussion
I'm not convinced. Much of his complexity has to do with things breaking
down, which is more like an increase in entropy rather than complexity.
Besides that, it seems less like a "law" than like an observation--similar
to the fact that there are power law relationships all over the place. That
do
Grant, Russ, Glen,
Ok. I think I got it. Paradoxically, it has to do with emergence. You
would think I would have seen it right away. Thanks for your help. More
later when the swirl dies down.
N
From: Grant Holland [mailto:grant.holland...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 20
Russ,
Ok. I will read it again. I am in the swirl of somebody else's vacation
house, so not perhaps focusing as well as I should.
Tx,
n
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 4:10 PM
To: The Fr
Nick,
Maybe let me explain how I use these two "dimensions" together in my
"Organic Complex Systems" theory:
I am interested in 1) the Organization (structure) of organic systems,
and 2) how that organization changes/evolves.
So, yes, Organization is "what is there" as you say. But, also "h
Nick,
Lemme try to present three examples of these two orthogonal dimensions
(Organization/Disorganization dimension vs
Predictability/Unpredictability dimension).
It all boils down to what phenomena one chooses to be interested in.
(Even if both dimensions are arguably present in a particular
But you agree that good prediction requires there to be structure or a
process that provides the frame work in which a prediction can be made.
Minimally, I think we assume that what we see is a feature of what is there.
Not all careful observational techniques reveal the same aspect.
n
Nick,
Did you read what I wrote? I think that explains it.
-- Russ
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Grant
>
>
>
> You see that I am still struggling to understand your original distinction
> between prediction and organization. Clearly
Grant
You see that I am still struggling to understand your original distinction
between prediction and organization. Clearly organization affords
prediction. I was trying to read you as saying that organization is the
thing that's there and prediction is what we make of it. We can use
orga
Introducing another thread, the measure of diversity used in ecology
is Shannon's entropy.
-- rec --
-
http://www.semcoop.com/book/9780226562261
-
Biology's First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to
Increase in Evolutionary Systems (Paperback)
Interesting, and applicable in philosophy to everything else that's
going on, cf Friedman etc.
Tory
On Aug 7, 2010, at 1:44 PM, peter baston wrote:
This from one of the most conservative Telco CEOs in Europe
Or should it be called " why the Iphone - Pad and Android will rule
the world "
That seems to me to be a different point--and one that Glen made about
entropy a while ago. Scientific realists assume that what one sees is what
there is, more or less, that structure in any dimension is presumed to be
part of the universe, and that as observers we just see what is. (I know
that
This from one of the most conservative Telco CEOs in Europe
Or should it be called " why the Iphone - Pad and Android will rule the
world " Get out of telco stocks NOW unless they really get it !!
-
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/06/lombard-micr
On 7 Aug 2010 at 15:14, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Predictibility requires a person to be predicting; organization is there
> even if there is no one there to predict one part from another.
That's hardly obvious, and I don't think it's true.
I happy to concede the statement about "predictabilit
Russ, Nick,
You both make an interesting point about one of these dimensions
(unpredictability) requiring an observer, while the other (organization,
or structure) does not.
However, Heinz von Foerster, I believe, would disagree. I believe he
would say that BOTH require an observer!
Anothe
If you call it behavioral rather than predictable it doesn't require a
predictor. It's just an arrangement in time.
-- Russ
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Grant –
>
>
>
> Glad you are on board, here. I will read this carefully.
>
>
>
Grant -
Glad you are on board, here. I will read this carefully.
Does this have anything to do with the Realism Idealism thing.
Predictibility requires a person to be predicting; organization is there
even if there is no one there to predict one part from another.
N
From: friam-
Comments below .
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 1:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] entropy and uncertainty, REDUX
Is it fair to say that Grant is tal
Russ - Yes.
I use the terms "organizational" and "predictable", rather than
"structural" and "behavioral", because of my particular interests. They
amount to the same ideas. Basically they are two orthogonal dimensions
of certain state spaces as they change.
I lament the fact that the same t
Is it fair to say that Grant is talking about what one might call structural
vs. behavioral entropy?
Let's say I have a number of bits in a row. That has very low structural
entropy. It takes very few bits to describe that row of bits. But let's say
each is hooked up to a random signal. So behavio
20 matches
Mail list logo
