ABMs and Plays

[Jochen Fromm-4]

I am currently reading the Shakespeare
biography from Peter Ackroyd. While reading this
interesting work, I wondered if agent based models
and plays can be considered as two extremes on
one scale. In both we witness the outcome of a
small number of agents or actors interacting
with each other in a particular environment
according to certain rules and intentions.
Shakespeares' plays are basic "models" for the
complexity which arises through "love in hate"
(Romeo and Juliet), "hesitation in action" (Hamlet)
or "striving against destiny" (Macbeth). In
Shakespeares' words "Though this be madness,
yet there is method in't." Is it?


-J.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Hugh Trenchard]

Having recently finished playing a role in a run of Shakespeare's Julias
Caesar, the question is of particular interest to me, and one I have given
some thought to in the past.

As I see it, a play performance generally is constrained by the dialogue
flow and whatever stage directions the playwright has written in, which
represent the primary rules from which the final performance emerges.  From
there the directors and choreagraphers establish further rules that
constrain the dynamics of the play.  The actors are the components who,
after being given directions and stage choreagraphy, interpret their lines
and movements and deliver them a little differently every time.  And where
there are multiple scenes and actors, each actor need only know his or her
own cues and lines, and need not know those of every other actor.  In this
way the final performance, while highly constrained, remains not precisely
predictable and is emergent. Also, it is quite possible none of the actors
has a wholistic perception of the total performance - only the audience can
see that.  And indeed the audience, as an external environmental factor, can
have a great influence on the performance dynamics, and the total system
includes the audience as one its components.

Every performance is different as actors' inflections, rhythms, pacings and
choreagraphed dynamics constantly shift, but each performance is highly
robust with a high degree of negative feedback (the actors' recollection of
the play as it has been blocked and rehearsed) which dampens any possibility
that dropped lines, miscues, or interruptions (perturbations) will spiral
out of control.   These differences from performance to performance are what
distinguish an "organic" play from re-running a video, for example, which
will be precisely the same each time it is played.

Under this description, the "living" play would seem to be at the farther
extreme of a highly constrained system with a high number of rules with
emerging patterns that are generally predictable but not precisely so, as
compared to a system with few rules which give rise to plenty of unpredicted
emergent patterns or functionality.

Further along those lines, I would tend to think that themes such as "love
in hate" are actually emergent rather than constituting additional rules
from which the dynamics of the play emerge (if the latter is what you were
suggesting, though it isn't entirely clear to me).  It seems quite possible
that Shakespeare did not indend for these themes to exist at all when he
wrote his plays, and that we see them now as central to the dynamics only
because the interactions of the characters and actors (and Shakespeare's
genius) allow such themes to emerge.

- Hugh Trenchard





----- Original Message -----
From: "Jochen Fromm" <[hidden email]>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 1:06 PM
Subject: [FRIAM] ABMs and Plays

>I am currently reading the Shakespeare biography from Peter Ackroyd. While
>reading this
> interesting work, I wondered if agent based models and plays can be
> considered as two extremes on one scale. In both we witness the outcome of
> a small number of agents or actors interacting with each other in a
> particular environment
> according to certain rules and intentions. Shakespeares' plays are basic
> "models" for the complexity which arises through "love in hate" (Romeo and
> Juliet), "hesitation in action" (Hamlet)
> or "striving against destiny" (Macbeth). In Shakespeares' words "Though
> this be madness, yet there is method in't." Is it?
>
>
> -J.
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Jochen Fromm-4]

Yes, every performance of a play is in fact a
bit different, but the outcome is always the same.
I was more interested in the question if plays
can be considered as a kind of model for systems
with complex BDI agents and abstract rules.

If a developer programs an object-oriented system,
he determines in detail what every object should do,
step by step, in every possible situation, see
http://4loc.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/longing-for-world-domination/
What happens if we write advanced programs for agent-
oriented systems, would they look like plays from
a playwright? Or would we have to program
beliefs, desires, emotions and intentions?

In plays, the actors are driven by basic emotions
and intentions. One theme is "love in hate" or
"desire in vengeance" which appears in "Romeo and
Juliet". Among others, the "desire in vengeance"
theme can also be found in Hamlet: Ophelia and
Hamlet love each other, but Hamlet kills her
father accidentally, she kills herself, then her
brother Laertes takes revenge, and in the end
they are all dead.

The playwright usually describes one of many
possible plots or outcomes for a certain theme,
here for instance what could happen if love and
hate collide. The basic motives are as simple as
the rules in basic ABMs. This is why I said
that ABMs and plays can be considered as two
extremes on one scale:

ABMs:
- simple agents, driven by basic rules
- outcome (the sequence of actions) is not determined

Plays:
- complex actors, driven by basic emotions and intentions
- outcome (the sequence of actions) is determined

-J.


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org