Any non-biological complex systems?

[gepr]

Yeah, but you're relying on the ambiguity of the concept.  A system that is only complex for very short spans of time, or under very special conditions wouldn't fit with _most_ people's concept of "complex".  To boot, unadulterated oscillation wouldn't satisfy it either.  And, as has been said earlier in the thread, allowing any an all physical systems to be called "complex" when they're placed under special circumstances defeats the purpose of the concept.

So, I agree with Russ' _gist_ in that the 3rd requirement is necessary for at least a large band of types of complexity. But I would relax his 3rd requirement from symbolic information to a more objective characterization of a boundary, with distinct sides/regions.  Then you could make it even more specific and close a region; so you get something akin to an agent, with an inside vs outside.  And whether one calls transduction across that boundary "information" or not becomes a discussion of the properties of the boundary (what it is and isn't closed under).

Of course, whether such a boundary has an ontological status of its own, or whether it's identified/attributed by onlookers is another question.

On 05/25/2017 09:08 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> Practically any physical system that transacts forms of energy can have
> critical regimes of phase transitions and would all qualify as complex
> systems.


--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Stephen Guerin-5]

Glen,

Let me take one claim at a time. 

Do you agree that at least one of these is an example of a non-biological complex system?

• ferromagnetic system (described with ising model)
  
• Bénard cell formation (convection)
• Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:40 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yeah, but you're relying on the ambiguity of the concept.  A system that is only complex for very short spans of time, or under very special conditions wouldn't fit with _most_ people's concept of "complex".  To boot, unadulterated oscillation wouldn't satisfy it either.  And, as has been said earlier in the thread, allowing any an all physical systems to be called "complex" when they're placed under special circumstances defeats the purpose of the concept.

So, I agree with Russ' _gist_ in that the 3rd requirement is necessary for at least a large band of types of complexity. But I would relax his 3rd requirement from symbolic information to a more objective characterization of a boundary, with distinct sides/regions.  Then you could make it even more specific and close a region; so you get something akin to an agent, with an inside vs outside.  And whether one calls transduction across that boundary "information" or not becomes a discussion of the properties of the boundary (what it is and isn't closed under).

Of course, whether such a boundary has an ontological status of its own, or whether it's identified/attributed by onlookers is another question.

On 05/25/2017 09:08 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> Practically any physical system that transacts forms of energy can have
> critical regimes of phase transitions and would all qualify as complex
> systems.


--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

Heh, you're not going to make an empathetic attempt to listen to Russ' intent? 8^)

My answer is either or both "yes" and/or "no", because your words are too ambiguous. Both "complex" and "system" are left to the audience's imagination.  I would say that each of those _can_ exhibit complex phenomena when constrained, by a controlling [sub]system, to particular regimes of their behavior space.  So, yes.  But I would also say that each of those does not normally or naturally remain in such states for very long or under a wide range of circumstances.  So, no.

I suppose you get to choose which of my answers you accept.


On 05/26/2017 04:16 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> Do you agree that at least one of these is an example of a non-biological
> complex system?
>
>    - ferromagnetic system (described with ising model)
>    - Bénard cell formation (convection)
>    - Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction


--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Stephen Guerin-5]

> Heh, you're not going to make an empathetic attempt to listen to Russ' intent? 8^)

I am listening to Russ. I do think he's defining a sub-class of complex systems (eg living systems). I would like to keep the definition of "complex systems" broader than that though.

I understand the subtle distinction your trying to make. I would say the full phase space of a *complex system* has narrow critical regimes in their behavior (phase) space where *complex behavior* is observed as the control parameters are swept through the phase transition. In the critical regime we see complex behavior like sensitivity to initial conditions, critical slowing down, critical fluctuations, power law statistics, long-range correlations, etc. On either side of the phase transition (eg sub-critical and super-critical) regimes, these statistics and behaviors are not present.

That said, while the critical regime may be narrow in phase space many of these system "self-tune" to the critical point but that's another thread.

Agreed?

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:30 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Heh, you're not going to make an empathetic attempt to listen to Russ' intent? 8^)

My answer is either or both "yes" and/or "no", because your words are too ambiguous. Both "complex" and "system" are left to the audience's imagination.  I would say that each of those _can_ exhibit complex phenomena when constrained, by a controlling [sub]system, to particular regimes of their behavior space.  So, yes.  But I would also say that each of those does not normally or naturally remain in such states for very long or under a wide range of circumstances.  So, no.

I suppose you get to choose which of my answers you accept.


On 05/26/2017 04:16 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> Do you agree that at least one of these is an example of a non-biological
> complex system?
>
>    - ferromagnetic system (described with ising model)
>    - Bénard cell formation (convection)
>    - Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

On 05/26/2017 04:54 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> I am listening to Russ. I do think he's defining a sub-class of complex
> systems (eg living systems). I would like to keep the definition of
> "complex systems" broader than that though.

OK.  But I don't think he's necessarily _asserting_ that only living systems are complex systems.  He's just asking the question and engaging in a discussion wherein we might be able to refine his sub-category so that it includes physical systems.

> I understand the subtle distinction your trying to make. I would say the
> full phase space of a *complex system* has narrow critical regimes in their
> behavior (phase) space where *complex behavior* is observed as the control
> parameters are swept through the phase transition. In the critical regime
> we see complex behavior like sensitivity to initial conditions, critical
> slowing down, critical fluctuations, power law statistics, long-range
> correlations, etc. On either side of the phase transition (eg sub-critical
> and super-critical) regimes, these statistics and behaviors are not present.
>
> That said, while the critical regime may be narrow in phase space many of
> these system "self-tune" to the critical point but that's another thread.
>
> Agreed?

Not quite.  If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems.  They are "subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity".  So, no.  They are not complex systems in isolation.  Russ' question, I think, targets naturally occurring, whole complex systems.

Now, if we add the experimental apparatus that, eg, maintains a ZB reaction for a long time, then that _whole_ system can be called a complex system.  But there's significant meat to the controlling subsystem ... and we biological creatures instantiated it.  The case is the same with, say, glycolysys.

All you need do is identify the circumstances where those three processes (ferromag, benard cells, BZ reactions) occur in nature and then we might be able to identify the systems in which they sit.  Then we can test them against whatever predicate we want.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Frank Wimberly-2]

My app that reads emails aloud, as they arrive, says "a new email has arrived from Glen biohazard".  I finally see why.

On May 26, 2017 6:08 PM, "glen ☣" <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 05/26/2017 04:54 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> I am listening to Russ. I do think he's defining a sub-class of complex
> systems (eg living systems). I would like to keep the definition of
> "complex systems" broader than that though.

OK.  But I don't think he's necessarily _asserting_ that only living systems are complex systems.  He's just asking the question and engaging in a discussion wherein we might be able to refine his sub-category so that it includes physical systems.

> I understand the subtle distinction your trying to make. I would say the
> full phase space of a *complex system* has narrow critical regimes in their
> behavior (phase) space where *complex behavior* is observed as the control
> parameters are swept through the phase transition. In the critical regime
> we see complex behavior like sensitivity to initial conditions, critical
> slowing down, critical fluctuations, power law statistics, long-range
> correlations, etc. On either side of the phase transition (eg sub-critical
> and super-critical) regimes, these statistics and behaviors are not present.
>
> That said, while the critical regime may be narrow in phase space many of
> these system "self-tune" to the critical point but that's another thread.
>
> Agreed?

Not quite.  If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems.  They are "subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity".  So, no.  They are not complex systems in isolation.  Russ' question, I think, targets naturally occurring, whole complex systems.

Now, if we add the experimental apparatus that, eg, maintains a ZB reaction for a long time, then that _whole_ system can be called a complex system.  But there's significant meat to the controlling subsystem ... and we biological creatures instantiated it.  The case is the same with, say, glycolysys.

All you need do is identify the circumstances where those three processes (ferromag, benard cells, BZ reactions) occur in nature and then we might be able to identify the systems in which they sit.  Then we can test them against whatever predicate we want.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

Frank -

That is a sweet thing to share with us.  I enjoyed the implications of it when I first noticed it rendered as a symbol vague or ambiguous (intentionally or not) as it is.   I'm sure hearing it blurted out by a machine voice just adds another level of fun for me.  I helps that he seemed to add that to his e-mail addy just as I was building a large circular garden with labarynthine paths in a pattern suggestive of a biohazard symbol..  This was in honor of my daughter who is a molecular biologist planning to get married in said garden.  

I think the current discussion that Russ provoked (on his way out the door for vacation?!!) has been a good one in the sense of my own whining that there was not more actual discussion of Complexity on this list.   Especially auspicious when someone can get Stephen to weigh in so seriously.  

- Steve

On 5/26/17 6:11 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

My app that reads emails aloud, as they arrive, says "a new email has arrived from Glen biohazard".  I finally see why.

On May 26, 2017 6:08 PM, "glen ☣" <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 05/26/2017 04:54 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> I am listening to Russ. I do think he's defining a sub-class of complex
> systems (eg living systems). I would like to keep the definition of
> "complex systems" broader than that though.

OK.  But I don't think he's necessarily _asserting_ that only living systems are complex systems.  He's just asking the question and engaging in a discussion wherein we might be able to refine his sub-category so that it includes physical systems.

> I understand the subtle distinction your trying to make. I would say the
> full phase space of a *complex system* has narrow critical regimes in their
> behavior (phase) space where *complex behavior* is observed as the control
> parameters are swept through the phase transition. In the critical regime
> we see complex behavior like sensitivity to initial conditions, critical
> slowing down, critical fluctuations, power law statistics, long-range
> correlations, etc. On either side of the phase transition (eg sub-critical
> and super-critical) regimes, these statistics and behaviors are not present.
>
> That said, while the critical regime may be narrow in phase space many of
> these system "self-tune" to the critical point but that's another thread.
>
> Agreed?

Not quite.  If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems.  They are "subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity".  So, no.  They are not complex systems in isolation.  Russ' question, I think, targets naturally occurring, whole complex systems.

Now, if we add the experimental apparatus that, eg, maintains a ZB reaction for a long time, then that _whole_ system can be called a complex system.  But there's significant meat to the controlling subsystem ... and we biological creatures instantiated it.  The case is the same with, say, glycolysys.

All you need do is identify the circumstances where those three processes (ferromag, benard cells, BZ reactions) occur in nature and then we might be able to identify the systems in which they sit.  Then we can test them against whatever predicate we want.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

Heh, truth in advertising!

On May 26, 2017 5:11:25 PM PDT, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
>My app that reads emails aloud, as they arrive, says "a new email has
>arrived from Glen biohazard".  I finally see why.

--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Stephen Guerin-5]

Glen writes:

Not quite.  If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems.  They are "subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity".  So, no.  They are not complex systems in isolation.  Russ' question, I think, targets naturally occurring, whole complex systems.

We disagree on the use of systems and subsystems in the context of phase space then. To me, there is one system and that system has a phase space - There are not multiple subsystems in the phase space. And as there are multiple use of phase space I mean it in this sense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space

The phase space can also refer to the space that is parametrized by the macroscopic states of the system, such as pressure, temperature, etc. For instance, one may view the pressure-volume diagram or entropy-temperature diagrams as describing part of this phase space. A point in this phase space is correspondingly called a macrostate. There may easily be more than one microstate with the same macrostate. For example, for a fixed temperature, the system could have many dynamic configurations at the microscopic level. When used in this sense, a phase is a region of phase space where the system in question is in, for example, the liquid phase, or solid phase, etc.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:08 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 05/26/2017 04:54 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> I am listening to Russ. I do think he's defining a sub-class of complex
> systems (eg living systems). I would like to keep the definition of
> "complex systems" broader than that though.

OK.  But I don't think he's necessarily _asserting_ that only living systems are complex systems.  He's just asking the question and engaging in a discussion wherein we might be able to refine his sub-category so that it includes physical systems.

> I understand the subtle distinction your trying to make. I would say the
> full phase space of a *complex system* has narrow critical regimes in their
> behavior (phase) space where *complex behavior* is observed as the control
> parameters are swept through the phase transition. In the critical regime
> we see complex behavior like sensitivity to initial conditions, critical
> slowing down, critical fluctuations, power law statistics, long-range
> correlations, etc. On either side of the phase transition (eg sub-critical
> and super-critical) regimes, these statistics and behaviors are not present.
>
> That said, while the critical regime may be narrow in phase space many of
> these system "self-tune" to the critical point but that's another thread.
>
> Agreed?

Not quite.  If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems.  They are "subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity".  So, no.  They are not complex systems in isolation.  Russ' question, I think, targets naturally occurring, whole complex systems.

Now, if we add the experimental apparatus that, eg, maintains a ZB reaction for a long time, then that _whole_ system can be called a complex system.  But there's significant meat to the controlling subsystem ... and we biological creatures instantiated it.  The case is the same with, say, glycolysys.

All you need do is identify the circumstances where those three processes (ferromag, benard cells, BZ reactions) occur in nature and then we might be able to identify the systems in which they sit.  Then we can test them against whatever predicate we want.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Frank Wimberly-2]

For what it’s worth, a linear space can have a subspace that is a linear space.  Both the larger and smaller spaces are linear spaces.  Of course “linear space” is much more precisely defined than “system”.

 

Frank

 

 

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

 

[hidden email]     [hidden email]

Phone:  [phone]      Cell:  [phone]

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 6:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

Glen writes:

Not quite.  If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems.  They are "subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity".  So, no.  They are not complex systems in isolation.  Russ' question, I think, targets naturally occurring, whole complex systems.

 

We disagree on the use of systems and subsystems in the context of phase space then. To me, there is one system and that system has a phase space - There are not multiple subsystems in the phase space. And as there are multiple use of phase space I mean it in this sense:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space

The phase space can also refer to the space that is parametrized by the macroscopic states of the system, such as pressure, temperature, etc. For instance, one may view the pressure-volume diagram or entropy-temperature diagrams as describing part of this phase space. A point in this phase space is correspondingly called a macrostate. There may easily be more than one microstate with the same macrostate. For example, for a fixed temperature, the system could have many dynamic configurations at the microscopic level. When used in this sense, a phase is a region of phase space where the system in question is in, for example, the liquid phase, or solid phase, etc.

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]

CEO, Simtable  http://www.simtable.com

1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505

office: [phone] mobile: [phone]

twitter: @simtable

 

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:08 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 05/26/2017 04:54 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> I am listening to Russ. I do think he's defining a sub-class of complex
> systems (eg living systems). I would like to keep the definition of
> "complex systems" broader than that though.

OK.  But I don't think he's necessarily _asserting_ that only living systems are complex systems.  He's just asking the question and engaging in a discussion wherein we might be able to refine his sub-category so that it includes physical systems.

> I understand the subtle distinction your trying to make. I would say the
> full phase space of a *complex system* has narrow critical regimes in their
> behavior (phase) space where *complex behavior* is observed as the control
> parameters are swept through the phase transition. In the critical regime
> we see complex behavior like sensitivity to initial conditions, critical
> slowing down, critical fluctuations, power law statistics, long-range
> correlations, etc. On either side of the phase transition (eg sub-critical
> and super-critical) regimes, these statistics and behaviors are not present.
>
> That said, while the critical regime may be narrow in phase space many of
> these system "self-tune" to the critical point but that's another thread.
>
> Agreed?

Not quite.  If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems.  They are "subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity".  So, no.  They are not complex systems in isolation.  Russ' question, I think, targets naturally occurring, whole complex systems.

Now, if we add the experimental apparatus that, eg, maintains a ZB reaction for a long time, then that _whole_ system can be called a complex system.  But there's significant meat to the controlling subsystem ... and we biological creatures instantiated it.  The case is the same with, say, glycolysys.

All you need do is identify the circumstances where those three processes (ferromag, benard cells, BZ reactions) occur in nature and then we might be able to identify the systems in which they sit.  Then we can test them against whatever predicate we want.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Stephen Guerin-5]

Yes, and systems can have subsystems.

In my comment to Glen, my point was that a phase space is a description of a single system. 

-S

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

For what it’s worth, a linear space can have a subspace that is a linear space.  Both the larger and smaller spaces are linear spaces.  Of course “linear space” is much more precisely defined than “system”.

 

Frank

 

 

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

 

[hidden email]     [hidden email]

Phone:  <a href="tel:(505)%20995-8715" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]      Cell:  <a href="tel:(505)%20670-9918" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 6:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

Glen writes:

Not quite.  If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems.  They are "subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity".  So, no.  They are not complex systems in isolation.  Russ' question, I think, targets naturally occurring, whole complex systems.

 

We disagree on the use of systems and subsystems in the context of phase space then. To me, there is one system and that system has a phase space - There are not multiple subsystems in the phase space. And as there are multiple use of phase space I mean it in this sense:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space

The phase space can also refer to the space that is parametrized by the macroscopic states of the system, such as pressure, temperature, etc. For instance, one may view the pressure-volume diagram or entropy-temperature diagrams as describing part of this phase space. A point in this phase space is correspondingly called a macrostate. There may easily be more than one microstate with the same macrostate. For example, for a fixed temperature, the system could have many dynamic configurations at the microscopic level. When used in this sense, a phase is a region of phase space where the system in question is in, for example, the liquid phase, or solid phase, etc.

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]

CEO, Simtable  http://www.simtable.com

1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505

office: <a href="tel:(505)%20995-0206" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone] mobile: <a href="tel:(505)%20577-5828" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

twitter: @simtable

 

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:08 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 05/26/2017 04:54 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> I am listening to Russ. I do think he's defining a sub-class of complex
> systems (eg living systems). I would like to keep the definition of
> "complex systems" broader than that though.

OK.  But I don't think he's necessarily _asserting_ that only living systems are complex systems.  He's just asking the question and engaging in a discussion wherein we might be able to refine his sub-category so that it includes physical systems.

> I understand the subtle distinction your trying to make. I would say the
> full phase space of a *complex system* has narrow critical regimes in their
> behavior (phase) space where *complex behavior* is observed as the control
> parameters are swept through the phase transition. In the critical regime
> we see complex behavior like sensitivity to initial conditions, critical
> slowing down, critical fluctuations, power law statistics, long-range
> correlations, etc. On either side of the phase transition (eg sub-critical
> and super-critical) regimes, these statistics and behaviors are not present.
>
> That said, while the critical regime may be narrow in phase space many of
> these system "self-tune" to the critical point but that's another thread.
>
> Agreed?

Not quite.  If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems.  They are "subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity".  So, no.  They are not complex systems in isolation.  Russ' question, I think, targets naturally occurring, whole complex systems.

Now, if we add the experimental apparatus that, eg, maintains a ZB reaction for a long time, then that _whole_ system can be called a complex system.  But there's significant meat to the controlling subsystem ... and we biological creatures instantiated it.  The case is the same with, say, glycolysys.

All you need do is identify the circumstances where those three processes (ferromag, benard cells, BZ reactions) occur in nature and then we might be able to identify the systems in which they sit.  Then we can test them against whatever predicate we want.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

In a simple Ising model example, the quadratic terms can be thought of as edges in an undirected graph.  Depending on which J values are zero, there can one phase space or many independent phase spaces depending on how many disconnected components there are.   

A real material would be subject to environmental magnetic fields and would also require a more complicated energy function with terms for other axes.  The environmental fields and/or more complex spins change the probability of finding various ground states even if they are members of disconnected components in the simple formulation.  So it also depends on the fidelity of the modeling as to whether systems are decomposable into subsystems or not.

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 7:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

Yes, and systems can have subsystems.

 

In my comment to Glen, my point was that a phase space is a description of a single system. 

 

-S

_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]

CEO, Simtable  http://www.simtable.com

1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505

office: [phone] mobile: [phone]

twitter: @simtable

 

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

For what it’s worth, a linear space can have a subspace that is a linear space.  Both the larger and smaller spaces are linear spaces.  Of course “linear space” is much more precisely defined than “system”.

 

Frank

 

 

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz

Santa Fe, NM 87505

 

[hidden email]     [hidden email]

Phone:  <a href="tel:(505)%20995-8715" target="_blank" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;">[phone]      Cell:  <a href="tel:(505)%20670-9918" target="_blank" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;">[phone]

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 6:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

Glen writes:

Not quite.  If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems.  They are "subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity".  So, no.  They are not complex systems in isolation.  Russ' question, I think, targets naturally occurring, whole complex systems.

 

We disagree on the use of systems and subsystems in the context of phase space then. To me, there is one system and that system has a phase space - There are not multiple subsystems in the phase space. And as there are multiple use of phase space I mean it in this sense:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space

The phase space can also refer to the space that is parametrized by the macroscopic states of the system, such as pressure, temperature, etc. For instance, one may view the pressure-volume diagram or entropy-temperature diagrams as describing part of this phase space. A point in this phase space is correspondingly called a macrostate. There may easily be more than one microstate with the same macrostate. For example, for a fixed temperature, the system could have many dynamic configurations at the microscopic level. When used in this sense, a phase is a region of phase space where the system in question is in, for example, the liquid phase, or solid phase, etc.

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________
[hidden email]

CEO, Simtable  http://www.simtable.com

1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505

office: <a href="tel:(505)%20995-0206" target="_blank" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;">[phone] mobile: <a href="tel:(505)%20577-5828" target="_blank" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;">[phone]

twitter: @simtable

 

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:08 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 05/26/2017 04:54 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
> I am listening to Russ. I do think he's defining a sub-class of complex
> systems (eg living systems). I would like to keep the definition of
> "complex systems" broader than that though.

OK.  But I don't think he's necessarily _asserting_ that only living systems are complex systems.  He's just asking the question and engaging in a discussion wherein we might be able to refine his sub-category so that it includes physical systems.

> I understand the subtle distinction your trying to make. I would say the
> full phase space of a *complex system* has narrow critical regimes in their
> behavior (phase) space where *complex behavior* is observed as the control
> parameters are swept through the phase transition. In the critical regime
> we see complex behavior like sensitivity to initial conditions, critical
> slowing down, critical fluctuations, power law statistics, long-range
> correlations, etc. On either side of the phase transition (eg sub-critical
> and super-critical) regimes, these statistics and behaviors are not present.
>
> That said, while the critical regime may be narrow in phase space many of
> these system "self-tune" to the critical point but that's another thread.
>
> Agreed?

Not quite.  If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems.  They are "subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity".  So, no.  They are not complex systems in isolation.  Russ' question, I think, targets naturally occurring, whole complex systems.

Now, if we add the experimental apparatus that, eg, maintains a ZB reaction for a long time, then that _whole_ system can be called a complex system.  But there's significant meat to the controlling subsystem ... and we biological creatures instantiated it.  The case is the same with, say, glycolysys.

All you need do is identify the circumstances where those three processes (ferromag, benard cells, BZ reactions) occur in nature and then we might be able to identify the systems in which they sit.  Then we can test them against whatever predicate we want.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

I've struggled to understand your point here. Are you saying that, eg, a phase diagram of a device like a refrigerator, with ice in the freezer part, jello in the fridge part, and coolant in the compressor:

1. violates a definition of 'space',
2. cannot exist,
3. reduces to a common, atomic, phase space, or
4. something else?



On May 26, 2017 5:39:40 PM PDT, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>We disagree on the use of systems and subsystems in the context of
>phase
>space then. To me, there is one system and that system has a phase
>space -
>There are not multiple subsystems in the phase space.

--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Stephen Guerin-5]

Marcos writes;

Depending on which J values are zero, there can one phase space or many independent phase spaces depending on how many disconnected components there are.   

I agree with a small tweak.

Yes, the subgraphs would have their own independent phase spaces (especially if topologies were dissimilar). Though, I would not call the independent subgraphs components as they are no longer part of a larger whole.  If the subgraphs are independent and not interacting you cease to have one system. You have multiple independent systems each with their own phase spaces.

I'll wrap with my position:

• I gave three examples of non-biological complex systems based on Russ's initial question
  
• Russ's additional criteria later in the thread are similar to distinguishing criteria for complex living systems vs complex non-living systems. This is an area of research I'm fascinated with and I encourage this line of discussion
• If I need to use Russ's criteria, I can't think of a non-biological example. To me it's like asking for a non-biological example of a living system.
• I disagree with Russ's claim that all complex systems must satisfy his criteria to be a complex system. It is too limiting.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Russ Abbott]

Greetings from Jerusalem! Quite an amazing city. Never been here before. Quite an amazing discussion too. 

My interest, I think, is not so much in defining what we (want to) mean by a complex system buy in exploring the implications of systems consisting of agents as described earlier. The ability to process symbols seems to me to make all the difference in the world. 

 

Physical entities capable of processing symbols seem to me to live it two worlds: the physical and the symbolic. (The original question was prompted by the notion that complexity requires that sort of dual worldness. But that's not my core concern. You can probably get pretty far wrt complexity in a world that includes switches, where by a switch I mean one energy flow that controls another, a light switch for example. So systems of multiple energy flows where one controls another like weather and geology are good candidates.)

Symbolic processing, including computers, is a step beyond switches. Half a century ago Newell and Simon defined computers as physical symbol machines. We and many biological organisms are  physical symbol machines also. I think that's an important way to look at it.

The thing about physical symbol machines is that the rules of causation they follow are more complex than those of physics. 

That's enough rambling for now on my cell phone.

On May 28, 2017 6:04 PM, "Stephen Guerin" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcos writes;

Depending on which J values are zero, there can one phase space or many independent phase spaces depending on how many disconnected components there are.   

I agree with a small tweak.

Yes, the subgraphs would have their own independent phase spaces (especially if topologies were dissimilar). Though, I would not call the independent subgraphs components as they are no longer part of a larger whole.  If the subgraphs are independent and not interacting you cease to have one system. You have multiple independent systems each with their own phase spaces.

I'll wrap with my position:

• I gave three examples of non-biological complex systems based on Russ's initial question
  
• Russ's additional criteria later in the thread are similar to distinguishing criteria for complex living systems vs complex non-living systems. This is an area of research I'm fascinated with and I encourage this line of discussion
• If I need to use Russ's criteria, I can't think of a non-biological example. To me it's like asking for a non-biological example of a living system.
• I disagree with Russ's claim that all complex systems must satisfy his criteria to be a complex system. It is too limiting.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Stephen writes:

“If I need to use Russ's criteria, I can't think of a non-biological example. To me it's like asking for a non-biological example of a living system.”

It seems to me a question is how does modularity happen.  How can nature combine components in networks to make something more complex?   Is that all that we mean by biology, or do we mean carbon-based life?

Perhaps there are completely foreign ways this kind of order could form in different environments? 

http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-might-have-finally-figured-out-where-the-rarest-crystals-on-earth-formed

Perhaps deep within planets like Jupiter there could be magnetic forms of life that are constantly evolving?   A brain literally the size of a planet?

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Stephen Guerin-5]

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 7:38 AM, gepr <[hidden email]> wrote:

I've struggled to understand your point here. Are you saying that, eg, a phase diagram of a device like a refrigerator, with ice in the freezer part, jello in the fridge part, and coolant in the compressor:

1. violates a definition of 'space',

No. I am using the term "phase space" as one concept - I'm not separating the terms. In a phase space diagram, "space" is defined by the dimensions of the control (independent) variables. In the ferromagnet, space is temperature. In a water phase diagram you could have a 2 dimensional space of pressure and volume. or a one dimensional space by holding one of the control parameters constant.

 

2. cannot exist,

No I'm not saying that. You can have a phase space for the whole refrigerator system. You would need to define the system and the associated control and order parameters. Given that systems are abstractions - there would many you can choose from. Some would be complex systems (eg energy and mass circulation with respect to compressor/fan strength:

or vibrational modes vs fan speed, etc. other system descriptions might not be complex if I would model it as a linear relation (eg. duration of fan activation and my electric bill) . 

3. reduces to a common, atomic, phase space, or

Yes, you can treat the whole refrigerator as a single system.

You can also treat ice, jello and the compressor systems as separate systems. They may be open, closed or isolated with respect to energy and mass flows depending on the description.

Jello alone could have a few complex systems descriptions:

Critical Elasticity of Gelatin Gel
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1143/JJAP.28.1639

Effect of Shear Flow on the Phase Behavior of an Aqueous Gelatin−Dextran Emulsion

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bm0300352?journalCode=bomaf6

Transition to total internal reflection for light paths in gelatin:

https://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/laser-jello

When I gave examples like this in the past and talked about their phase spaces and critical regimes, you said " If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems." I was disagreeing with you on the use of systems in the context of phase space diagrams. The critical regime is not a subsystem in my definitions. The system description and model is not changing in regions of the phase space diagram. There is still only one system. Only the control parameter(s) and the resulting change of the order parameter(s). I would agree that the control parameter could be driven by a coupling to an external gradient or from it's embedding in a larger system. Though that doesn't mean we don't have a complex system.

On May 26, 2017 5:39:40 PM PDT, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>We disagree on the use of systems and subsystems in the context of
>phase
>space then. To me, there is one system and that system has a phase
>space -
>There are not multiple subsystems in the phase space.

--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

S. G.,

 

So, what constitutes a system is arbitrary?  In the mind of the beholder?

 

I remember when we used to argue about this at The Complex.

 

I always wanted to argue that a system is in some sense “self-bounding”.  It consists of a group of entities that are interacting more intimately with one another than they are with entities outside the system. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 10:01 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

 

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 7:38 AM, gepr <[hidden email]> wrote:

I've struggled to understand your point here. Are you saying that, eg, a phase diagram of a device like a refrigerator, with ice in the freezer part, jello in the fridge part, and coolant in the compressor:

1. violates a definition of 'space',

 

No. I am using the term "phase space" as one concept - I'm not separating the terms. In a phase space diagram, "space" is defined by the dimensions of the control (independent) variables. In the ferromagnet, space is temperature. In a water phase diagram you could have a 2 dimensional space of pressure and volume. or a one dimensional space by holding one of the control parameters constant.

 

2. cannot exist,

 

No I'm not saying that. You can have a phase space for the whole refrigerator system. You would need to define the system and the associated control and order parameters. Given that systems are abstractions - there would many you can choose from. Some would be complex systems (eg energy and mass circulation with respect to compressor/fan strength:

 

or vibrational modes vs fan speed, etc. other system descriptions might not be complex if I would model it as a linear relation (eg. duration of fan activation and my electric bill) . 

 

 

3. reduces to a common, atomic, phase space, or

 

Yes, you can treat the whole refrigerator as a single system.

 

You can also treat ice, jello and the compressor systems as separate systems. They may be open, closed or isolated with respect to energy and mass flows depending on the description.

 

Jello alone could have a few complex systems descriptions:

 

Critical Elasticity of Gelatin Gel
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1143/JJAP.28.1639

 

Effect of Shear Flow on the Phase Behavior of an Aqueous Gelatin−Dextran Emulsion

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bm0300352?journalCode=bomaf6

 

Transition to total internal reflection for light paths in gelatin:

https://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/laser-jello

 

When I gave examples like this in the past and talked about their phase spaces and critical regimes, you said " If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems." I was disagreeing with you on the use of systems in the context of phase space diagrams. The critical regime is not a subsystem in my definitions. The system description and model is not changing in regions of the phase space diagram. There is still only one system. Only the control parameter(s) and the resulting change of the order parameter(s). I would agree that the control parameter could be driven by a coupling to an external gradient or from it's embedding in a larger system. Though that doesn't mean we don't have a complex system.

 

On May 26, 2017 5:39:40 PM PDT, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>We disagree on the use of systems and subsystems in the context of
>phase
>space then. To me, there is one system and that system has a phase
>space -
>There are not multiple subsystems in the phase space.

--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Stephen Guerin-5]

So, what constitutes a system is arbitrary?  In the mind of the beholder?

 

I remember when we used to argue about this at The Complex.

 

I always wanted to argue that a system is in some sense “self-bounding”.  It consists of a group of entities that are interacting more intimately with one another than they are with entities outside the system. 

In the context of complex systems research, a system is an abstraction of a set of connected components and its boundary. The system's boundary can be defined as open, closed or isolated to flows of quantities of energy, mass, information, symbols etc. Defining information is a different thread ;-)

A model is the mathematical/computational formalization of the system.

Is what constitutes a system arbitrary?

George Box famously said "all models are wrong, but some are useful". Given that models are formalizations of systems and if arbitrary means: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.", I would say researchers use reason and systemic thought to develop "useful" system descriptions. So, system descriptions are not arbitrary. They are designed to be useful for the question being asked. No system description nor model can answer all questions - they are specifically designed for a problem at hand.

Relatedly, a simulation, in the way we use it, is a single instance of a model run based on initializing  a model's parameters computing next states to observe its behavior/dynamics.

The phase space is the behavior of the model over all possible input states.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

Nick -

S. G.,

 

So, what constitutes a system is arbitrary?  In the mind of the beholder?

 

I remember when we used to argue about this at The Complex.

 

I always wanted to argue that a system is in some sense “self-bounding”.  It consists of a group of entities that are interacting more intimately with one another than they are with entities outside the system. 

I think you answered your own question here?   The beholder (modeler?) decides what dimensions of the system are important/relevant and then chooses some coupling threshold or principle to separate the system from it's suprasystem.  So not "arbitrary" but definitely "conditional"?  In my LANL day job (decision support systems), the standard answer to every question from a client (usually DC types) was "it depends", and a great deal of our task was to help them decide what constraints and assumptions they were willing/able to make on a "simple" question to get down to a meaningfully answerable question where enough conditions were made explicit.

It is the nature of reductionism to find and/or create subsystems of subsystems to study in isolation, or with imaginary steady-state inputs/boundary conditions.   Most models of refrigerators ignore things like the quality of the waveform of the AC source driving the motor that drives the compressor, and even the motor's characteristics itself... the compressor is likely assumed to fire up and wind down instantaneously (On/Off), etc.  The external thermal conditions surrounding the refrigerator, similarly... at most probably an external temperature which varies through the day in a consistent manner with no thought or concern as to whether spikes in temperature come from weather patterns or sunspot activity or someone leaving the AC running all day.

I'll bet YOUR AC is running all day!
 - Steve

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 10:01 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Cc: Stephen Guerin [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

 

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 7:38 AM, gepr <[hidden email]> wrote:

I've struggled to understand your point here. Are you saying that, eg, a phase diagram of a device like a refrigerator, with ice in the freezer part, jello in the fridge part, and coolant in the compressor:

1. violates a definition of 'space',

 

No. I am using the term "phase space" as one concept - I'm not separating the terms. In a phase space diagram, "space" is defined by the dimensions of the control (independent) variables. In the ferromagnet, space is temperature. In a water phase diagram you could have a 2 dimensional space of pressure and volume. or a one dimensional space by holding one of the control parameters constant.

 

2. cannot exist,

 

No I'm not saying that. You can have a phase space for the whole refrigerator system. You would need to define the system and the associated control and order parameters. Given that systems are abstractions - there would many you can choose from. Some would be complex systems (eg energy and mass circulation with respect to compressor/fan strength:

 

or vibrational modes vs fan speed, etc. other system descriptions might not be complex if I would model it as a linear relation (eg. duration of fan activation and my electric bill) . 

 

 

3. reduces to a common, atomic, phase space, or

 

Yes, you can treat the whole refrigerator as a single system.

 

You can also treat ice, jello and the compressor systems as separate systems. They may be open, closed or isolated with respect to energy and mass flows depending on the description.

 

Jello alone could have a few complex systems descriptions:

 

Critical Elasticity of Gelatin Gel
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1143/JJAP.28.1639

 

Effect of Shear Flow on the Phase Behavior of an Aqueous Gelatin−Dextran Emulsion

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/bm0300352?journalCode=bomaf6

 

Transition to total internal reflection for light paths in gelatin:

https://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/laser-jello

 

When I gave examples like this in the past and talked about their phase spaces and critical regimes, you said " If these systems merely contain subsystems capable of exhibiting complexity, then those 3 you listed are not complex systems." I was disagreeing with you on the use of systems in the context of phase space diagrams. The critical regime is not a subsystem in my definitions. The system description and model is not changing in regions of the phase space diagram. There is still only one system. Only the control parameter(s) and the resulting change of the order parameter(s). I would agree that the control parameter could be driven by a coupling to an external gradient or from it's embedding in a larger system. Though that doesn't mean we don't have a complex system.

 

On May 26, 2017 5:39:40 PM PDT, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>We disagree on the use of systems and subsystems in the context of
>phase
>space then. To me, there is one system and that system has a phase
>space -
>There are not multiple subsystems in the phase space.

--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove