Glen,
It's interesting how you're approaching this whole thing coming to many of
the same questions with different branches. That's what independent
learning processes do. If I mostly divide things in more pieces, like
having 'sensing' before 'acting' as two steps in sequence, it's just
phil henshaw wrote:
not being acknowledged. Did you look a bit at either of my new short
papers on how to use our more visible fixations (blinders) to help us see
where the others are, and help reveal the amazing world that's been hidden
from us by them?
Less formal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
phil henshaw wrote:
[ph] why make it so complicated? You don't need to explain why it's good to
survive. It's good to survive. The agility only makes a difference in that
*before* being swallowed, when you have an ability to respond to the
information of *approaching danger*. No info, no
Günther Greindl wrote:
That is a very interesting question. Do you have some good references
which look at this?
No, not really. My favorite reference is Vicious Circles by Barwise
and Moss. But it doesn't talk too much about practical application,
which is necessary to get a handle on the
Glen,
...
You're right that agility helps one avoid an avoidable change ... e.g.
like a big fish snapping at a small fish. And you're right that such
avoidable changes are only avoidable if one can sense the change
coming.
But, what if the change is totally unavoidable? I.e. it's going
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 friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED
Glen wrote:
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.
It's very effective if the population is large enough.
Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
phil henshaw wrote:
Glen wrote:
I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a
good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to
state
(as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
phil henshaw wrote:
Ok, 'find a function' assumes there is one to find, but the problem set is
running into behavior which has already had major consequences (like
starvation for 100million people because of an unexpected world food price
level shift) and the question is what 'function' would
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 10:45 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
phil henshaw wrote:
Ok, 'find a function' assumes there is one to find
phil henshaw wrote:
No, that does not work at all. Patching together a model to suite a symptom
in retrospect does not help you with being ready for unexpected eventfulness
in nature that you previously had no idea that you should be looking for.
Never said anything about symptoms. I did
OK. So RR makes a prohibitive claim ... something like living systems
cannot be accurately modeled with a UTM because MR systems cannot be
realized. And you are refuting that claim by a counter-claim that MR
systems _can_ be realized, emphasizing that the recursion theorem is
crucial to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Günther Greindl wrote:
OK. So RR makes a prohibitive claim ... something like living
systems cannot be accurately modeled with a UTM because MR systems
cannot be realized. And you are refuting that claim by a
counter-claim that MR systems _can_
How does that
phil henshaw wrote:
Self-consistent models represent environments very well, just
omitting their
living parts, mind without matter.
Would any of the things you guys suggested fix that?
I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a
good
Only simple machines. More complex machines (eg the Intel Pentium
processor) show definite signs of evolutionary accretion, as no one
person can design such a complex thing from scratch, but rather
previous designs are used and optimised.
[ph] Right! Layered design is sort of a universal
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:07 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russell Standish
phil henshaw wrote:
Can a self-consistent model have independently behaving parts, like
environments do?
If the independently behaving parts don't have some underlying common
physics (e.g. they could in principle become different from time to time
according to some simple rules, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
phil henshaw wrote:
Can a self-consistent model have independently behaving parts, like
environments do?
If the independently behaving parts don't have some underlying common
physics (e.g. they could in principle
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
Even if the parts don't have a common, underlying physics
(Truth/Reality), as long as they can interact _somehow_ and if they
interact a lot (highly connected), then a common physics may cohere
after a time so that a forcing structure limits the degrees of freedom.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 07:06:34AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:29PM +0200, Günther Greindl wrote:
But, as said above, it seems that RR defines mechanism differently. This
is of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G
Dear Glen,
[grin] That's not an answer to my query. You said that the recursion
theorem _refutes_ RR's claim. You can't just say I don't see how RR's
claim is justified. That's not a refutation. It's just a simple
statement that you don't know the justification.
Sorry, I did not answer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Günther Greindl wrote:
Of course, you have to be careful when criticising Rosen, as most
critics are then countered by that is not how RR uses that and that word.
Yes, I know. [grin] I've been arguing with Rosenites for years and
that is, by
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:29PM +0200, Günther Greindl wrote:
But, as said above, it seems that RR defines mechanism differently. This
is of course very unfortunate, as it will have people talking past each
other. Unfortunate also because mechanism is indeed a word which can be
given a
There's a curious reversal that occurred to me in reading an article by
Boschetti on the computability of nature in relation to Rosen's Evolution
of life is not the construction of a machine, the deep problems of why math
can't do nature. I'm writing a piece on how self-consistent models don't
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of phil henshaw
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:06 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
There's a curious reversal that occurred to me in reading an
article by Boschetti on the computability of nature
Hi Ken,
in the context of Rosen's objections to course of mathematics since
pythagoras, in what respect would CPPN's be any better than 'rules
centered agent based modelling' ?
I never heard about CPPN's; it seems interesting, but I can't really
find any examples of something they're
Hi,
I still do not see why nature should not be mathematical, or even
(stronger) computable.
See for instance Max Tegmark's (MIT) Mathematical universe:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646
The principal claim of Rosen - that life is not mechanically emulable -
is shown to be false by the second
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Günther Greindl wrote:
I still do not see why nature should not be mathematical, or even
(stronger) computable.
I agree.
The principal claim of Rosen - that life is not mechanically emulable -
is shown to be false by the second recursion
PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
Hi Ken,
in the context of Rosen's objections to course of mathematics since
pythagoras, in what respect would CPPN's be any better than 'rules
centered agent based modelling' ?
I never heard about
31 matches
Mail list logo
