Any non-biological complex systems?

[Steve Smith]

SG -

Better answers I think.

Is it time to spawn a new thread that addresses the (I think) closely related questions of "what is information?" and what might be complex systems which are not biological life?

My leanings come from the ALife movement to simply think of any non-biological complex systems with life-like properties as "proto-life" or maybe more aptly since I can't know that they will continue to evolve to become "life itself", "meta-life".

Prefixing weasel words (proto/meta) to a vague word (life) doesn't necessarily help... I'm just reporting my tendencies.

- SS

On 5/28/17 10:39 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:

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

============================================================
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]

Though there are times, like in the context of machine learning, when we program algorithms to define ensembles of random systems along with ensembles of random models and select amongst them based on how well they fit observed data to find novel explanations for data for uses in prediction or classification. This might be related to past discussions on abductiion at FRIAM. Genetic Programming would be a related example.

Even though the systems in this case are defined randomly, given that they are selected for against some fitness function, the final systems used would probably still not constitute "arbitrary".

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Stephen writes:

 

“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”

 

Steve writes:

 

“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. “ 

 

In Glen’s example there is a compressor and there are at least two compartments with distinct temperatures.  If aliens encountered a functioning refrigerator (including the Jello) and studied it as a black box and failed to rationalize these components and their distinct roles, they would have missed the most important things about it.  This is not to say that there isn’t also insight to be gained by modeling as a single physical system to understand thermal inefficiencies.  But without the idea that the compartments that *ought* to be at different temperatures, the concept of inefficiency is meaningless.

 

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

[Steve Smith]

SG

I think of this particular exercise as a deliberate sampling/searching of the infinite (or staggeringly large) phase space of a system as you described it earlier.   Since you invoke "random systems along with random models", I think I therefore mean my System to be a system of systems from which you randomly select promising examples?

SS

On 5/28/17 11:00 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote:

Though there are times, like in the context of machine learning, when we program algorithms to define ensembles of random systems along with ensembles of random models and select amongst them based on how well they fit observed data to find novel explanations for data for uses in prediction or classification. This might be related to past discussions on abductiion at FRIAM. Genetic Programming would be a related example.

Even though the systems in this case are defined randomly, given that they are selected for against some fitness function, the final systems used would probably still not constitute "arbitrary".

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

============================================================
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 Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

What about my revised question. Can we think of anything that is non-biological, non-human, and not a biological or human artifact that would qualify as an agent based system?

Let me take a stab at what this could mean - but I first have to understand what you mean by agent-based system.

To me, "agent-based system" is an interesting mashup between two research disciplines - "Multi-Agent Systems (MAS)" from the Distirbuted AI community and "Agent-Based Modeling (ABM)" from the Complexity research community.

In MAS, systems and models are one and the same. It is a deployed system comprised of agents. It is not trying to model anything.

In our use, an agent-based model is one possible modeling formalization of a system. A coupled differential equation would be an alternative. Or a discrete-event queuing model a potential third way to model a system.

To make the distinction at the office, when we deploy systems with agents we are not modeling anything. Here, I try to consistently use the term "agent-oriented programming" or "agent-based system" instead of "agent-based model". And in these cases, the agents are semi-autonomous when compared to "object-oriented programming" or "object-oriented systems" where there is a greater reliance on a centralized "main()" thread that is controlling all the objects. I don't think this is what you mean by agent-based system.

Stu Kauffman introduced the term "Autonomous Agent" which I'll always use in capitals, as it really captures something greater than merely "semi-autonomous agents" which I think of as simple interacting finite state machines. Autonomous Agents by contrast, are approaching living systems with the use of energy gradients, sensing of gradients using informational kinematic flows vs mass-based force interactions and the constructions of constraints (equivalent with information btw) to extract work as well as applying work to maintain constraints to realize work-cycles.

So I'm guessing, Russ, that you're asking "can we think of any non-biological examples of Autonomous Agents?" - my answer would initially say "no, I can't".

And if I had beer with you I'd give a subtler murkier answer. I would say there's a more complete definition of living systems than Autonomous Agents that looks at the whole breakdown channels of mass and energy flows as Harold Morowitz and Eric Smith have been describing. Life is a property of the process in the full ecological interactions and not a property of a given entity. It ceases to make sense to ask if a virus or an Autonomous Agent is alive or dead. Life is not a property of an individual. (apologies for butchering this, Eric). I would add to Harold and Eric's description that all Autonomous Agents have a dual in their ecological interactions that is seeking to dissipate their gradients as much as the Autonomous Agent is seeking to extract work from theirs. I'm guessing the interactions of chloroplasts and mitochondria in an autotrophic plant cell are close to this.

As you get systems of coupled complex systems that are all dissipating gradients that are generated by the other and all complex systems are open to matter and energy flows, the boundary of a living system continues to expand out to the point that I start to sound like a pantheist and the world as a whole system is alive. I choose to take it on faith that it is. At that point, what does a non-biological system mean in our world :-)

-S

============================================================
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]

“As you get systems of coupled complex systems that are all dissipating gradients that are generated by the other and all complex systems are open to matter and energy flows, the boundary of a living system continues to expand out to the point that I start to sound like a pantheist and the world as a whole system is alive. I choose to take it on faith that it is.”

 

To be a truly autonomous agent, and above the fray, one would have the option of not dissipating an evident gradient.   To do that would be to be more alive -- actions need not be taken because their consequences are already understood.

 

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

[Russ Abbott]

I'm wondering whether the message below got lost. Our did no one think it worth mentioning?

On May 28, 2017 6:35 PM, "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> wrote:

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]

Mathematica is built on nothing more conceptually complex than relays, and relays (or their modern refinements) work on the principles of physics.  I don’t see why you are making the distinction.

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:59 PM
To: FRIAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

I'm wondering whether the message below got lost. Our did no one think it worth mentioning?

 

On May 28, 2017 6:35 PM, "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

[Steve Smith]

I find that an astute (yet obvious in retrospect) observation.  This suggests "consciousness" or "intelligence" or "wisdom", no??

On 5/28/17 12:38 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

“As you get systems of coupled complex systems that are all dissipating gradients that are generated by the other and all complex systems are open to matter and energy flows, the boundary of a living system continues to expand out to the point that I start to sound like a pantheist and the world as a whole system is alive. I choose to take it on faith that it is.”

 

To be a truly autonomous agent, and above the fray, one would have the option of not dissipating an evident gradient.   To do that would be to be more alive -- actions need not be taken because their consequences are already understood.

 

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

============================================================
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]

Russ -

I think your message got lost in the "uncanny valley"... the conversation has been so rich that this contribution (by the instigating author of the thread) did get lost to it's relative obviousness.   I know *I* read through it and nodded my head but instead felt compelled to respond to SG's post which *was* (I think) in response to this.

I have suggested a new thread and this type of question (dual-worldness) would probably be central to it.   I do hope others weigh in.

- Steve

On 5/28/17 1:58 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

I'm wondering whether the message below got lost. Our did no one think it worth mentioning?

On May 28, 2017 6:35 PM, "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

============================================================
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]

SS,

 

This whole conversation is going so fast I can’t really follow it, but I do want to follow this sub thread with you and SS. See Larding, below.

 

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 12:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

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 ;-)

[NST==>Ok, but the question before us is, Does the system itself “get to participate” in determining its own boundaries.  <==nst]

 

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

[NST==>This is an extraordinarily narrow definition of a model.  I wish mathematicians hadn’t adopted it, because I really think it’s misleading.  I wish mathematicians had talked about mathematical “renderings” or even, just simply, “mathematical formalizations”.  The word, model, with all its rich associations, is just too “rich” for the use to which mathematicians put it.

 

To me, a model, is a scientific metaphor, (e.g., “natural selection”) that affords suggestions concerning potential observations.  It does so by connecting in the mind of scientists familiar phenomena with less familiar ones. 

 

Now sometimes use the word in an ambiguous sense referring simultaneously to a mathematical formalization and to the metaphor on which it is based.   Thus people often speak of mathematical models of evolution, when what there are really referring to is mathematical formalizations of the selection metaphor.  Similarly, the Schelling “model” is a computational formalization of a metaphor in which a neighborhood is conceived of as consisting in adjacent equally sized house lots laid out like cells on a piece of graph paper.

 

I would urge that both mathematicians and computer folk use the word model only to refer to the rendering or conception that makes their formalization possible, not to the formalization itself.  I am hoping my friend, the mathematician John Kennison, is lurking here so he can comment on this suggestion.<==nst]

 

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.",

[NST==>Well, then we continue to disagree.  In arguing for my position, I would argue that yours in internally inconsistent because it claims arbitrariness and usefulness at the same time.  But I love you anyway.  <==nst]

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

[Nick Thompson]

Again, apologies for getting into this discussion so tardily?  

 

Is a hurricane a “complex 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 Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 11:37 PM
To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

Russ -

I think your message got lost in the "uncanny valley"... the conversation has been so rich that this contribution (by the instigating author of the thread) did get lost to it's relative obviousness.   I know *I* read through it and nodded my head but instead felt compelled to respond to SG's post which *was* (I think) in response to this.

I have suggested a new thread and this type of question (dual-worldness) would probably be central to it.   I do hope others weigh in.

- Steve

 

On 5/28/17 1:58 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

I'm wondering whether the message below got lost. Our did no one think it worth mentioning?

 

On May 28, 2017 6:35 PM, "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

 

============================================================
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]

 Nick asks:

Is a hurricane a “complex system”? 

It depends. What is your metaphor (model) of a hurricane? 

If I wanted to understand how a hurricane forms, I might model dissipative structure formation in the presence of temperature and pressure gradients. I would call this a complex system.

If I needed to add a hurricane track simulation to our Simtable, for the purposes of how my customers would use it for emergency planning, it would probably be enough to model its track as a random walker biased by global winds and a curve parameter to represent the Coriolis effect. I would not call this a complex system.

============================================================
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]

NST -

This is the kind of richness I trust you to always add to the conversation... a different (but similarly useful) splitting of hairs about language.   I realize that your broader use of the term "model" is fundamental and correct, and that the short-cut use of "model" for "mathematical model" has perhaps lead to sloppy thinking.  Or does it merely reflect it?   I suspect that many of us here do not have the practice or experience in using "model" in this larger sense well.

I suppose that the term "mathematical formalization of a model" might be most precise, but I think "mathematical model" is an acceptable contraction since I think "formalization" is implicit (redundant) when invoking "mathematical" in this sense.

I don't know if your (broader) definition of "model" would be more accurate if we prefixed it with "intuitive" or "mental" or even "metaphorical" model.

FWIW, when I talk with my daughter who is deeply embedded in the biosciences, they regularly use the shorthand of "model" to mean the invocation of a fairly formal analogy between one species and another.  e.g.   "a mouse model of xxx" or "a mosquito model of yyy", indicating that they do experimental studies on one species for various reasons (practical/ethical) to try to draw conclusions in another species.  I'm sure there is a very precise and elaborate practice involved.   I find the use of "model" very unnerving, possibly the same feeling you get when "simulants" use "model".  

Glen claims the title (appellation?) "simulant" which I find apt for *many* here who make their living (current or previous) by rendering mathematical models into computer simulations.  This task often requires thoughtfully choosing or developing the appropriate model TO render into code and place in the context of a series of experiments-by-simulation.   I am sometimes appalled at the lack of rigor brought to this whole process, but often the results are still useful for enhanced understanding if not rigorous advancement of the scientific domain they are exploring.

I believe that your contribution to the game theoretic model of human cooperation/defection known as "the iterated prisoner's dilemma" which we know as MOTH (My way Or The Highway) is a perfect example within the larger milieu.   I don't know what the higher level "model" the specific mathematical formulation we know as "prisoner's dilemma" defers to.

I myself have done a bit of this work but more often have been in a support role in trying to help "simulants" and the "modelers" they represent to develop more intuitive perspectives or understandings of the phenomena in question through a chain of analogical relations from the loosest of metaphor to the tightest of formal modeling.

In any case, I appreciate your asking of these questions.

And to your specific question of "is a Hurricane a Complex System", I think SG's answer was very good and hopefully helped to disambiguate the common use of "Complex System" in this forum.

Carry on,
- SS

On 5/28/17 11:10 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:

 Nick asks:

Is a hurricane a “complex system”? 

It depends. What is your metaphor (model) of a hurricane? 

If I wanted to understand how a hurricane forms, I might model dissipative structure formation in the presence of temperature and pressure gradients. I would call this a complex system.

If I needed to add a hurricane track simulation to our Simtable, for the purposes of how my customers would use it for emergency planning, it would probably be enough to model its track as a random walker biased by global winds and a curve parameter to represent the Coriolis effect. I would not call this a complex system.

============================================================
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]

Minor edit to my recent post:

This is the kind of richness I trust you to always add to the conversation... a different (but similarly useful) splitting of hairs about language from that which Glen often provides us.

On 5/29/17 4:18 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

NST -

This is the kind of richness I trust you to always add to the conversation... a different (but similarly useful) splitting of hairs about language.   I realize that your broader use of the term "model" is fundamental and correct, and that the short-cut use of "model" for "mathematical model" has perhaps lead to sloppy thinking.  Or does it merely reflect it?   I suspect that many of us here do not have the practice or experience in using "model" in this larger sense well.

I suppose that the term "mathematical formalization of a model" might be most precise, but I think "mathematical model" is an acceptable contraction since I think "formalization" is implicit (redundant) when invoking "mathematical" in this sense.

I don't know if your (broader) definition of "model" would be more accurate if we prefixed it with "intuitive" or "mental" or even "metaphorical" model.

FWIW, when I talk with my daughter who is deeply embedded in the biosciences, they regularly use the shorthand of "model" to mean the invocation of a fairly formal analogy between one species and another.  e.g.   "a mouse model of xxx" or "a mosquito model of yyy", indicating that they do experimental studies on one species for various reasons (practical/ethical) to try to draw conclusions in another species.  I'm sure there is a very precise and elaborate practice involved.   I find the use of "model" very unnerving, possibly the same feeling you get when "simulants" use "model".  

Glen claims the title (appellation?) "simulant" which I find apt for *many* here who make their living (current or previous) by rendering mathematical models into computer simulations.  This task often requires thoughtfully choosing or developing the appropriate model TO render into code and place in the context of a series of experiments-by-simulation.   I am sometimes appalled at the lack of rigor brought to this whole process, but often the results are still useful for enhanced understanding if not rigorous advancement of the scientific domain they are exploring.

I believe that your contribution to the game theoretic model of human cooperation/defection known as "the iterated prisoner's dilemma" which we know as MOTH (My way Or The Highway) is a perfect example within the larger milieu.   I don't know what the higher level "model" the specific mathematical formulation we know as "prisoner's dilemma" defers to.

I myself have done a bit of this work but more often have been in a support role in trying to help "simulants" and the "modelers" they represent to develop more intuitive perspectives or understandings of the phenomena in question through a chain of analogical relations from the loosest of metaphor to the tightest of formal modeling.

In any case, I appreciate your asking of these questions.

And to your specific question of "is a Hurricane a Complex System", I think SG's answer was very good and hopefully helped to disambiguate the common use of "Complex System" in this forum.

Carry on,
- SS

On 5/28/17 11:10 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:

 Nick asks:

Is a hurricane a “complex system”? 

It depends. What is your metaphor (model) of a hurricane? 

If I wanted to understand how a hurricane forms, I might model dissipative structure formation in the presence of temperature and pressure gradients. I would call this a complex system.

If I needed to add a hurricane track simulation to our Simtable, for the purposes of how my customers would use it for emergency planning, it would probably be enough to model its track as a random walker biased by global winds and a curve parameter to represent the Coriolis effect. I would not call this a complex system.

============================================================
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]

Hurricanes are an instances of multiscale fluid dynamics, or set of problems (cyclogenesis, heat engine, cyclolysis).   They are all complicated coupled systems, but it is not clear to me what extra insight is gained by calling them complex systems. 

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 10:07 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

Again, apologies for getting into this discussion so tardily?  

 

Is a hurricane a “complex system”? 

 

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 Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 11:37 PM
To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

Russ -

I think your message got lost in the "uncanny valley"... the conversation has been so rich that this contribution (by the instigating author of the thread) did get lost to it's relative obviousness.   I know *I* read through it and nodded my head but instead felt compelled to respond to SG's post which *was* (I think) in response to this.

I have suggested a new thread and this type of question (dual-worldness) would probably be central to it.   I do hope others weigh in.

- Steve

 

On 5/28/17 1:58 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

I'm wondering whether the message below got lost. Our did no one think it worth mentioning?

 

On May 28, 2017 6:35 PM, "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

 

============================================================
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]

Hurricanes are interesting because they are naturally occurring dissipative systems. 

On May 29, 2017 5:28 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hurricanes are an instances of multiscale fluid dynamics, or set of problems (cyclogenesis, heat engine, cyclolysis).   They are all complicated coupled systems, but it is not clear to me what extra insight is gained by calling them complex systems. 

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 10:07 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

Again, apologies for getting into this discussion so tardily?  

 

Is a hurricane a “complex system”? 

 

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 Steven A Smith
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 11:37 PM
To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

Russ -

I think your message got lost in the "uncanny valley"... the conversation has been so rich that this contribution (by the instigating author of the thread) did get lost to it's relative obviousness.   I know *I* read through it and nodded my head but instead felt compelled to respond to SG's post which *was* (I think) in response to this.

I have suggested a new thread and this type of question (dual-worldness) would probably be central to it.   I do hope others weigh in.

- Steve

 

On 5/28/17 1:58 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:

I'm wondering whether the message below got lost. Our did no one think it worth mentioning?

 

On May 28, 2017 6:35 PM, "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

 

============================================================
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 think the sophistry around the defn of "model" is important, but a distraction from this conversation.  (I've got a few publications that target it almost directly if anyone cares.)  As Russ and Nick point out, this conversation is about the boundary and its ontological status.  Russ is leaping a bit further ahead and focusing on an _effect_ of the boundary while Nick (and I) are focusing on the prerequisite for symbol machines.

My claim is that Stephen's 3 examples are _not_ systems, much less complex systems at all because they are idealized out of their context.  In order to be systems, they have to have some sort of objectively determined boundary (like a petri dish).  Any bounded gob of goo can be thought of as a system.  An agent, however, must be _closed_ under some operation.  Hence, all agents are systems.  But not all systems are agents.  Whether the agent's boundary is loopy, self-defining, or not is the subject of Rosen's work (from which Kauffman's is derivative).

Whether a symbol machine can be merely a system (with an objectively determined boundary) or must be an agent (with some form of closure) is an important question.


On 05/28/2017 08:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> [NST==>Ok, but the question before us is, Does the system itself “get to participate” in determining its own boundaries.  <==nst]

On 05/28/2017 08:35 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:>
> 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.


--
␦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

[Steve Smith]

Glen -
> I think the sophistry around the defn of "model" is important, but a distraction from this conversation.  (I've got a few publications that target it almost directly if anyone cares.)
Yes, it was an aside, but I think an important one to help Nick
follow/focus with us.
>    As Russ and Nick point out, this conversation is about the boundary and its ontological status.  Russ is leaping a bit further ahead and focusing on an _effect_ of the boundary while Nick (and I) are focusing on the prerequisite for symbol machines.
I appreciate your stating it this way.  I did hear Nick ask if a system
could (somehow?) choose it's own boundaries and dismissed it as (yet
another) distraction but would now like to hear more.   It felt like an
anthropomorphism to suggest a system could "choose" it's own boundaries,
but I'm open to having that explored if anyone can/will.

Similarly, your and Stephen's sparring about boundaries (compartments in
a refrigerator?) and the distinction of systems/subsystems, etc.    was
not something I felt able to parse out completely, so I'm hoping your
post here leads to more elaboration of that question.

>
> My claim is that Stephen's 3 examples are _not_ systems, much less complex systems at all because they are idealized out of their context.  In order to be systems, they have to have some sort of objectively determined boundary (like a petri dish).  Any bounded gob of goo can be thought of as a system.  An agent, however, must be _closed_ under some operation.  Hence, all agents are systems.  But not all systems are agents.  Whether the agent's boundary is loopy, self-defining, or not is the subject of Rosen's work (from which Kauffman's is derivative).
>
> Whether a symbol machine can be merely a system (with an objectively determined boundary) or must be an agent (with some form of closure) is an important question.
I'm waiting with 'bated breath, and trying to guess if this is directly
relevant to Russ's comment/question about "living in two worlds" of
symbol AND energy processing (if I understood his point correctly).

I wish I had more to contribute myself, perhaps I should study Rosen
again, some more.

- Steve

>
>
> On 05/28/2017 08:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> [NST==>Ok, but the question before us is, Does the system itself “get to participate” in determining its own boundaries.  <==nst]
> On 05/28/2017 08:35 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:>
>> 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.
>

============================================================
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

[Owen Densmore]

@guerin: thanks for the great discussion, I gotta sort my mail by "from" & "time".

I like the use of Phase Space, Control variable and Order variable.

Let me make sure of the usage:

Phase Space: an axis-per-variable describing a system

Control variables: the values held constant during an experiment/model run

Order variable: a value derived from the phase space, given the control set?

.. i.e. I'm not sure how Order variable is being used.

   -- Owen

============================================================
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