Interesting quote, indeed.
I personally find it challenging to keep up with new mathematical notations.
With every new mathematical concept comes its own new mathematical
notation. I can't remember who said it, but I find it true. I can't quite
decided whether it's the new notation, or the new
Here is a cross-post from Swarm that may be of interest to some.
Ken
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kenneth Lloyd
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 9:33 AM
To: 'Agent-based modeling'
Subject: Re: [Swarm-Modelling] Large scale ABM Simulation on the GPU
Phil,
You speak of causality and why answers as if they ought be deterministic
in some scientific paradigm. Uncle Occam cautions that may be one
assumption too many.
Therefore, I sense that the underlying assumption in your observation is
that science is supposed to be the search for truth from
Ack! Just got back from trip to Illinois and Indiana. Wish I knew about
this, I could have stayed another week or two.
Ken
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 5:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning
Nick,
First, 2 + 2 does not equal 4 in base 3. Second, equality only works in
equilibrium. What if our mathematics rule stated for every day d that
passed, 2 + 2 = n + d? The mathematics would be linearly dynamic.
There are subtle cultural assumptions being imbued upon mathematics that may
?
Phil
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Kenneth Lloyd
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 10:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Wittgenstein
Nick,
First, 2 + 2 does not equal 4 in base 3
Owen,
Complexity science (the study of objective complexity) is only complex
(subjectively complex) if you don't understand how it works. There are a
series of mappings from natural language, through graphical language, to
mathematical languages that help folks understand how complexity works.
If the whole world could have voted 60 years ago, Hitler would have been
Chancellor of England.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:14 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Excellent article!
As complexity wonks, most of us understand that static models are woefully
incomplete, and that dynamical systems modeling is one of the precursors to
understanding complexity. This implies the study of systems at some
distance from equilibrium.
Hopefully, we can encourage
Russell,
You are absolutely right. BioDynamic's Big Dog learned to walk over uneven
ground using evolutionary neural networks. So are ANN's math? Well, yes (my
answer) and no. Actually, it depends on your concept of math - which I
sense is rather rigidly defined within this discussion. ANN's
Sorry, that was Boston Dynamics. My bad.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kenneth Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 5:15 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is programming
I suppose this was triggered within the LHC by the US initiated
International financial melt-down? Short-selling of hadrons perhaps?
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 11:22 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied
Steve,
Good job on the defense of a reductionist position. I utilize a five phase
approach to the study of complex systems.
Definition - Analysis - Normalization - Synthesis - Realization (DANSR)
Reductionism has its place in the analytical phase at equilibrium. Analysis
is normally a
at the
asymmetries?
Apparently too Descartes denied that a vacuum could exist (ibid p119), let
alone 0, but now physicists ideas of what a vacuum is seem to make it
something other than a complete void, possessing zero-point energy. So may
be D had a point?
Robert C
Kenneth Lloyd wrote:
Steve,
Good
Phil,
I disagree re: ignoring the complexities of the system. All extant
complexities are manifest in synthesis and appear in realization. Consider
what actual complexities are manifest in a closed system at absolute zero or
Bose-Einstein Condensate state. The only energy left is potential
Günther,
Examining the English language, reductionism is an ingrained concept. For
example, there are only two kinds of people in the world. Me and you (you
being the collective you all, akin to the French vous).
For the literalists out there, I am being somewhat sarcastic.
Ken
-Original
John,
I tend to be a Prigoginist, see: End of Certainty, Ilya Prigogine. I suggest
you consider the case for thermodynamic non-equilibrium and the problem it
creates for reductionism. Some of us have come to understand complexity by
modeling wavelet perturbations on temporally extended,
, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Kenneth Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I tend to be a Prigoginist, see: End of Certainty, Ilya Prigogine. I suggest
you consider the case for thermodynamic non-equilibrium and the problem it
creates for reductionism. Some of us have come to understand complexity
Nick,
Things that are further away are older (GR). It's just that the light
coming from them has taken so long to get here.
Ken
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:09 AM
To:
Peggy,
After reading NKS, try Roger Penrose's, Road to Reality - A complete guide
to the laws of the universe. I own and have read both, but I consult Penrose
often.
Both are meaningful, Penrose a little more so. Neither are what I would
call amusing.
Ken
_
From: [EMAIL
20 matches
Mail list logo
