Nick, hi,
I can't really summon the energy to be part of the emergence thread,
but for this particular post, you may wish to keep an eye on
publications coming out from Flack, deWaal, Krakauer, and
collaborators including Ay and deDeo, on primate interactions. They
have some very strong analysis
Thus spake ERIC P. CHARLES circa 10/11/2009 09:13 PM:
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:
Excellent modification. I do have a (speculative) positive answer,
though.
Nice. That sort of turns Bedau on his head without rearranging his features
much. Where he is saying that an emergent process cannot be compressed into
a smaller computation than a full simulation, you're saying for given
computational resource the full simulation of an emergent process gives
Robert: Just to help untangle the discussion: Are you saying a
theoretical grounding for Complexity .. or even just Modeling ..
appears to have no concrete use for you?
To be even more specific: Chaos has at least one definition:
divergence. It uses the Lyapunov exponent to define chaotic
Message]
From: Eric Smith desm...@santafe.edu
To: nickthomp...@earthlink.net; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group friam@redfish.com
Date: 10/12/2009 8:58:45 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
Nick, hi,
I can't really summon the energy to be part
Actually I think the thread is heading into some interesting and (for me)
useful directions. Several contributors (Eric, Glen, Russell et al.) are
explicitly filling in the blank in the sentence if a phenomenon is
identified as emergent then blank (and thanks to Doug for the clear
statement of my
Morning Applied
Complexity
Coffee Group friam@redfish.com
Date: 10/12/2009 8:58:45 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
Nick, hi,
I can't really summon the energy to be part of the emergence thread,
but for this particular post, you may wish to keep an eye
: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
Thus spake ERIC P. CHARLES circa 10/11/2009 09:13 PM:
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:
Excellent
It's actually quite simple to me. Phenomena are the outputs of
operators. (Phenomenon means to appear, it is perceived, observable.)
By contrast, a property is inherent in the system and exists regardless
of any perspective (a.k.a stance) from which it may appear, be
perceived, or be observed.
Thus spake glen e. p. ropella circa 09-10-12 04:41 PM:
By contrast, a property is inherent in the system and exists regardless
of any perspective (a.k.a stance) from which it may appear, be
perceived, or be observed.
Just to be clear, I get this (perhaps peculiar) definition of property
from
Glen, I have questions about your version of operators and properties.
1. *Operators.* What do you mean by an operator? Would you give a few
examples.
2. *Properties. *It seems to me that one of the most basic properties is
mass. Another is electric charge. Do you not see these as
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 10/12/2009 05:48 PM:
1. *Operators.* What do you mean by an operator? Would you give a few
examples.
It's nothing special. It's defined as: a mapping between two function
spaces.
1) The perception of a glider while watching the game of life.
2) Square root:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 08:57:08AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
Note that the above is about emergent phenomena, not emergent
properties. I still think the concept of an emergent property is either
useless, self-contradictory, or just confused.
Eh? What's the difference between a
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
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
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
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
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
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
: 10/10/2009 12:28:36 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
All,
Following wimsatt, the puffiness of pancakes is emergent because it depends
on the order of mixing the ingredients. You mix the dry ingredients together,
you mix the set incredients together
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
/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
- Original Message -
From: Russ Abbott
To: Roger Critchlow
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 10/11/2009 4:45:59 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
With aggregativity defined that way, Wimsatt notes
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
/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
- Original Message -
From: Douglas Roberts
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 10/11/2009 8:43:13 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
Once I've attached the 'emergent' label to a phenomenon, I now know
What's the point of determining whether a phenomenon is emergent or not?
What useful stuff can I actually do with that knowledge?
In other areas of my life, classification can have actionable consequences.
For example, I can use the sophisticated pattern-matching algorithms and
heuristics embedded
Robert,
It's supposed to be *my* job to ask embarrassing practical questions.
The answer, of course, is to provide a vehicle around which to hold
at-length discussions on whether, or not, the term emergence applies to
said phenomenon.
Silly. You should have known that.
--Doug
On Sat, Oct 10,
: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
What's the point of determining whether a phenomenon is emergent or not? What
useful stuff can I actually do with that knowledge?
In other areas of my life, classification can have actionable consequences. For
example, I can use
:37 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
Robert,
It's supposed to be *my* job to ask embarrassing practical questions.
The answer, of course, is to provide a vehicle around which to hold at-length
discussions on whether, or not, the term emergence applies to said
Robert's original question was What's the point of determining whether a
phenomenon is emergent or not? I don't think there is a point. That's not
the issue. The point of the discussion is that some properties seem to exist
at a macro-level (every time I use that word now, I worry that Glen will
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com
Date: 10/10/2009 11:26:11 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
On Oct 10, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
What's the point of determining whether a phenomenon is emergent or
not? What useful stuff can
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 10/10/2009 12:06:14 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
Robert's original question was What's the point of determining whether a
phenomenon is emergent or not? I don't think there is a point. That's
...@backspaces.net
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com
Date: 10/10/2009 11:26:11 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
On Oct 10, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:
What's the point of determining whether a phenomenon is emergent
/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
- Original Message -
From: Robert Holmes
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 10/10/2009 8:00:42 AM
Subject: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
What's the point of determining whether a phenomenon is emergent
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Robert Holmes rob...@holmesacosta.comwrote:
What's the point of determining whether a phenomenon is emergent or not?
What useful stuff can I actually do with that knowledge?
In other areas of my life, classification can have actionable consequences.
For
I read this entire thread to my psittascenes. None of them had much to say,
except, of course, one of the African Greys.
After a moment of deliberation (Opus, the Grey *never* speaks without
deliberation) he fixed me with one of his beady little eyes and said, Ow,
Butthead.
I emerged from the
Complexity
Coffee Group friam@redfish.com
Date: 10/10/2009 12:47:42 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for the emergentists among you
To Nick: How about replying to the core observation on a theoretical
approach? Forgive the sentence saying the book is OK.
Simply stated, we may come
I'll buy that: the particular model space may not have to be a single
one. And our readings hopefully will lead to the good ones.
A model does, however, have to satisfy Timothy Cowers's notion of
abstraction: that after the intuition drives you to an abstraction,
you can cut the cord to
Wow, I post a question, go on a 6-hour hike and this is what I come back
to...
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
Robert,
Just FYI: You did not get an answer to your question (other than mine,
FWIW).
Please keep pushing for one, though. I want to hear the answer myself.
Don't let them bog you down in words. Settle for nothing less than an
actual, concise, precise answer to your very concise, precise, and
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 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
46 matches
Mail list logo
