Emergence and explanation

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

Thus spake Rikus Combrinck circa 07/10/2009 01:00 AM:
> 1. The number of components in a Newtonian N-body system.  In the
> study of complex systems, the number of components is frequently a
> critical system property.  It is, however, entirely divorced from the
> properties of the components or relationships among them.

I disagree.  The _number_ of components in any system is purely about
relationships between components.

To see this clearly, imagine how you _measure_ the number of components
in a system.  I can think of 2 basic ways: 1) you _count_ them or 2) you
estimate the number.

If you choose (1), then you have to choose 1 from the population.  (Note
 that "population" is a relational term in itself.)  Then you have to
choose another one (without replacement, which is a relational
operator).  Now you have 1+1 = 2.  "+" is a relation.  Then you have to
choose a 3rd, again without replacement and add 2+1=3.  Etc.

If you choose method (2), then you'll have to choose some property like
volume or mass, decide how much of that respective volume or mass is
taken up by any one component (or class of components) and divide up the
volume or mass based on the ratio taken up by each (type of) component.
 Not only is this method fundamentally relational (how much space or
mass is taken up by one component in relation to another); but it's
definitely about the properties of each component as they accumulate
into the systemic property of volume or mass.

No, the number of components in a Newtonian N-body system is
_definitely_ all about the relations and interactions between the
components.  Hence, it is emergent.

> 2. A weaker one: the mass of a Newtonian N-body system.  While it
> depends on component masses, it is independent of interaction among
> components.

As above, the mass of the system is an accumulation of the masses of the
components.  In order to see that it is an emergent characteristic,
consider the methods for measuring the mass.

True, mass is _linear_ as is volume and many other characteristics
(because of the way they're measured).  But if nonlinear == emergent,
then what's the point of the less well-defined term "emergent"?

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


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

[Nick Thompson]

Again, Glen, what appears below is beautifully done.

And, although you don't point it out, you have caught me in an important
inconsistency.  In a sense, you have demonstrated yourself to be a more
faithful New Realist (cf EBHolt) than I.  I have been wanting to argue with
you that the kinds of properties we are talking about are "out there", and
I have been warding off what I saw as your implication that emergence is
[merely] in the eye of the beholder.  Ditto organization.  In thus
polarizing the argument, I have missed the possibility that something can
be BOTH in the eye of the beholder (i.e. the result of how one looks at
something )AND in the thing itself.  This is the New Realist position and
you articulate it beautifully below.

Some further comments below.  

Thanks,

Nick  



Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/




> [Original Message]
> From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 7/10/2009 9:31:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence and explanation
>
> Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 07/09/2009 07:28 PM:
> > I would say that, contra Atkins Physical Chemistry and many other
experts,
> > a system is more than just any old thing  we happen to be talking
about.
> > To be a system, the thing we are talking about must be *organized*.
>
> I don't intend to argue about the meaning of the word "system".  It's OK
> if you (and others) fixate on that; but it's not my intent.  Having said
> that, let me try to get the point I actually want to make formulated in
> your terms.

NST===>But don't you agree that confusion could reign in any discussion in
which the discussants carried two such radically different definitions of
the term?   <===NST

>
> Organization is merely another characteristic of the goo/stuff we
> perceive (identify, carve out) of the ambience.  Organization is no
> different from any other characteristic that obtains when we apply a
> predicate or measure to the ambience.
>
> To see this, think of any system you want, then think about the
> different predicates/measures/perspectives/hats you might adopt in order
> to get at the organization of the system.  E.g. when analyzing a
> corporation, an accountant sees one organization and an entrepreneur
> sees something else.  E.g. when analyzing a condensed gas a string
> theorist sees one organization and a traditional quantum physicist sees
> another.
>
> What you're doing when you say a system must be organized is this:  You
> are _imputing_ an ontological property (organization) into a perceived
> slice of the goo/stuff.  You're saying, assuming objectivity, that
> particular bucket of goo/stuff has, regardless of observer, property X.
>
> > those parts are not internal.   I don't think your critique is specific

in
> > any way to the problem of defining the emergent properties of things  It
> > relates generally to the definition of the primitive, "any old thing".
Is a
> > lens cloud an object?  Is an ocean wave an object?  A sand dune?  An
> > organism, for that matter?    It comes up any time we try to justify the
> > use of any concrete noun.  I believe that "Thing" can be a primitive
and we
> > can still have a useful discussion of what the emergent properties of a
> > thing are, or are not.  An insistence on rigorous closure would be the
end
> > of all conversation, because we never would be able to meet the
standard.
> > Which, come to think of it, may be your point.  You are arguing that the
> > conversation we are trying to have is impossible?
>
> Excellent!  But not quite what I'm arguing.  I'm not arguing that such
> conversation is impossible.  I'm arguing that it is _vague_ and cannot
> be completely resolved.  And the reason it is vague is because it
> depends fundamentally on well-formulating 2 things: 1) the presumed
> objective system and 2) the measures used to observe the system.

NST===> EB Holt would be jumping up and down with delight at this
point!<===NST
>
> You guys have been leaving (2) off and assuming that "emergence" is or
> can be somehow independent of the perspective the observer takes.  It
> can't.  (Note that I'm not claiming emergence is a purely subjective
> thing.  I'm claiming that the concept requires _both_ the objective and
> the subjective.)

NST===>Precisely! But  I would warn you away from the subjective/objective
distinction here because your way of putting it does not correspond to the
way most people use this distinction.  Most people (I would guess) think of
subjective as fallible and objective as infallible.  On your view, truth
about the world is conjured up by the interaction of an observer (subject)
with the world.    <===NST
>
> However, if you explicitly lay out your assumptions about the system
> (with no hidden secret meanings to the word "system") then lay out how
> you intend to _measure_ the system, then and only then can you have a
> (less vague) conversation about emergence.
>
> > Oh by the way:  do you have the Bedau and Phillips book?  

NST===>Sorry.  I always get the second author's name wrong.  It is Paul
Humphreys.  Bedau and HUMPHREYS. <===NST

 Do you think it
> > might be possible to have an international webSeminar on it?
Colloquium?
> > What would that look like?  
>
> No, I don't have the book.  It's possible to have a seminar about it;
> but unless it were about concrete things, particular systems, particular
> methods for measuring those systems, then I don't think its of much use.
>  If you chose a family of systems (perhaps your statics example of
> triangular trusses) and a family of measures (perhaps robustness to
> harmonic oscillation), _then_ it would be interesting to talk about
> emergent characteristics of such systems as measured in that way.

NST===>Right!  Thanks.  I will ponder on it.   <===NST
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



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

[Russell Standish]

Emergence definitely applies to properties.

Of course an object is characterised by its properties.

Is a phonon and emergent property of a lattice, or an object in its
own right? It seems to depend on what level of description is being
employed.

Cheers

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:56:32PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> The first step in any conversation in any sane about emergence is, I think, to decide what sorts of things-that-we-refer-to-with-nouns are going to be candidates for the predicate "emergent".  Objects?  Or properties.  (There are other choices but I forget them).  Once we fix on "properties", I think our job becomes easier, because it seems to me self evident that almost system we might discuss has some emergent and some non-emergent properties.  Breadiness is a wonderful example of an emergent property.   It clearly depends on how you arrange the ingredients (you have to mix them) and the order of the processes you apply to the ingredients (best you should bake them after you mix them).  
>
> So, would agree with you if X is specified as a property in your formula.
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> Clark University ([hidden email])
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ERIC P. CHARLES
> To: Nicholas Thompson
> Cc: friam
> Sent: 7/9/2009 10:39:56 PM
> Subject: [FRIAM] Emergence and word magic
>
>
> Trying to be more succinct than my last post. I am of the opinion that:
>
> "X is emergent.", as a strong claim, is surely word magic. Indeed, everything is emergent (minus the bare contents of some imaginary lowest level), so no insight is gained from the labeling - no explanation is added.
>
> In contrast, "X emerges from the combination of A, B, and C, when conditions P and Q are met," is a great thing to be able to say. It can answer crucial questions, can lead to great research programs, etc.
>
> Of course, one could drop the word entirely. In that case, one would just say "X is the combination of A, B, and C, when conditions P and Q are met." However.... uhm....
> however...
> Damn.
> I thought I could come up with a good "however". Then I deleting seven things that seemed very convincing before I wrote them, but not afterwards. I can only hope someone on the list can come up with one, because I really like talking about emergence.
>
> Hoping for help,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 10:28 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Glen,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts, here.
>
> The correspondence got so untidy below that I thought best to restate the
> position as sharpened by your critique.
>
> I would say that, contra Atkins Physical Chemistry and many other experts,
> a system is more than just any old thing  we happen to be talking about.
> To be a system, the thing we are talking about must be *organized*.
> Another way of saying this is that all systems have emergent properties:
> i.e., properties that arise from the *internal* arrangement or ordering of
> their parts.  Arrangements or ordering of parts that are true of all of
> those parts are not internal.   I don't think your critique is specific in
> any way to the problem of defining the emergent properties of things  It
> relates generally to the definition of the primitive, "any old
> thing". Is a
> lens cloud an object?  Is an ocean wave an object?  A sand dune?  An
> organism, for that matter?    It comes up any time we try to justify the
> use of any concrete noun.  I believe that "Thing" can be a primitive
> and we
> can still have a useful discussion of what the emergent properties of a
> thing are, or are not.  An insistence on rigorous closure would be the end
> of all conversation, because we never would be able to meet the standard.
> Which, come to think of it, may be your point.  You are arguing that the
> conversation we are trying to have is impossible?    
>
> If you want to see the verbal train wreck that preceded this summary, look
> below, but I don't recommend it.
>
> Oh by the way:  do you have the Bedau and Phillips book?   Do you think it
> might be possible to have an international webSeminar on it?  Colloquium?
> What would that look like?  
>
>
>
> Nick
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> Clark University ([hidden email])
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]>
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> > Date: 7/9/2009 11:06:37 AM
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence and explanation
> >
> > Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09-07-09 06:52 AM:
> > > Also, it depends on a clear understanding of what it is to be a
> > > "property of a part".  I think to be a property of a part
> means that
> > > you cannot mention any other part in the description of that part.
> >
> > Excellent!  This demonstrates quite well why it is incoherent to say
> > that a systemic property is non-emergent.
>
> nst==>Right!  But doesnt this mean we have to somehow  get our colleagues
> to stop using word "system" to refer to "whatever we are talking
> about".  
> <==nst
>
>  It is logically impossible to
> > describe a _part_ of a system without describing the context or
> > environment into which that part fits, namely the other parts of the
> system.
> >
> > Further, to describe any _unit_... any object with a boundary around it,
> > you must distinguish that unit from the ambience around it.  I.e. you
> > can't describe the object without at least partially describing the
> > NOT-object.  So, the root of the incoherence of "emergent" lies
> in an
> > inability to define a closure.  (Unleash the Rosenites! ;-)
>
> nst==> Sorry, I didn't follow this last bit.  Let's assume that we can get
> the rest of the world to go along with our understanding of "system".
>  Are
> you arguing here that every object has to be a system?  I.e., every object
> has emergent properties?  Hmm.  I am wondering whether I agree with
> this.....................................
>
> I am tempted to argue that an object is a "pile of stuff that moves around
> together"  Hmmmm.  No, Too weak, because if a bulldozer comes along and
> picks up my pile of stuff and moves it to a new place, I may be tempted  to
> claim that this  object is no object at all because "accidental".  Is
> a
> sand dune an object?  Is a lens cloud an object?  
>
> When I claimed that an emergent property of a whole is one that arises from
> the arrangement or ordering of the presentation of its parts I was not
> speaking of any arrangement that is true of all the parts.  So, for
> instance, if all the parts are accelerating at the same speed relative to
> other wholes, this does not consist of an arrangement or ordering for the
> purposes of the definition.  <===nst.  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > So, "being on the left" or "being added to the pile
> first" are not
> > > properly properties of parts.
> > to
> > And neither is position or momentum because they both have to be defined
> > _relative_ to something, trivially to an arbitrary vector space origin,
> > non-trivially to other particles.
>
> nst==><==nst
>
> e.  Unless you're treating the particle
> > as a system, itself.  And then position and momentum are emergent
> > properties of the sub-particle components.  So, either way, they are a
> > result of the systems organization and the interaction of their
> components.
> >
> > Emergence is a trivial (but not entirely useless) word except in
> the
> > sense of emergency: "A serious situation or occurrence that happens
> > unexpectedly and demands immediate action", which boils down to
> "poorly
> > understood" or, at least, unpredictable.
> >
> > --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> Eric Charles
>
> Professional Student and
> Assistant Professor of Psychology
> Penn State University
> Altoona, PA 16601
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Mathematics                        
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 [hidden email]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 08:25:14AM -0400, James Steiner wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:33 PM, russell standish<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:16:55AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> >> The question was: Is there any identifiable property of a system that is
> >> NOT an emergent property, regardless of how one defines "system"?  If
> >> anyone knows of one, please name it!
> >
> > Absolutely! The positions of the particles in a Newtonian n-body system
> > are not emergent. Of course there are other properties of these
> > systems that are emergent, but position & momenta of the particles are
> > not amongst them, being part of the basic vocabulary of the model.
>
> OK, so aren't the positions and velocities of the particles a
> consequence of the forces affecting the particles? Is saying something

The forces are also part of the basic vocabulary of the system. The
positions and momenta of the particles are uniquely specified for all
time given a set of dynamical equations (\dot{x}=; \dot{p}=), and once
the initial conditions are given. No emergence is involved here.

Where emergence comes into play, is when additional descriptive
elements are added. The concept of orbit, for example, is emergent, as
the original dynamics has no notion of an orbit. The reason "orbit"
works well model with gravitating objects as a is a consequence of the
inverse square force law - with other force laws, the concept of orbit
is not such a good descriptor.

> is a consequence the same as saying it is an emergent property? Or is
> this concequence too well defined, which brings us back to "emergent"
> means "poorly understood"?
>
> I'm not sure why I'm even playing this game, since I don't think its
> helpful to say that everything is an emergent property of something...
> because of course it is... because everything in the universe is made
> of math.
>
> ~~James
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Mathematics                        
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 [hidden email]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:04:53AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
>
> And neither is position or momentum because they both have to be defined
> _relative_ to something, trivially to an arbitrary vector space origin,
> non-trivially to other particles.  

The origin of phase space is arbitrary, but the model is invariant to
translations, so this this is irrelevant.  The properties x_i and p_i are
properties of the individual particles. The dynamics includes a term
F_{ij} which is defined relative to pairs of particles, but force is
not an emergent property of pairs of particles. If force were not
included in the model description, the model would behave completely
differently. The definition of resultant emergence (the very weakest
notion of emergence) is such that the system cannot behave any
differently whether the emergent property is recognised or not (since
the underlying syntactic description of the model is complete).

> Unless you're treating the particle
> as a system, itself.  And then position and momentum are emergent
> properties of the sub-particle components.  So, either way, they are a
> result of the systems organization and the interaction of their components.

There are no sub-particles in Newtonian mechanics. They're point particles.

>
> Emergence is a trivial (but not entirely useless) word except in the
> sense of emergency: "A serious situation or occurrence that happens
> unexpectedly and demands immediate action", which boils down to "poorly
> understood" or, at least, unpredictable.
>

If you are using the word emergence in this way, then you are using a
completely different (and quite probably meaningless, but that's
another story) meaning for the word than how I use it or Mark Bedau or most
of the rest of the complex systems community for that matter. Its not
fair play to use a word in a completely different way, then to go
complaining that the concept is incoherent. That proves nothing, other
than the incoherence of your particular definition! You're better off
attacking other people's definitions, its more productive.

> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Mathematics                        
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 [hidden email]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:11:28AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:

> Thus spake russell standish circa 07/08/2009 05:33 PM:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:16:55AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> >> Well, since my post consisted of questions, I could hardly be wrong. ;-)
> >>
> >> The question was: Is there any identifiable property of a system that is
> >> NOT an emergent property, regardless of how one defines "system"?  If
> >> anyone knows of one, please name it!
> >
> > Absolutely! The positions of the particles in a Newtonian n-body system
> > are not emergent. Of course there are other properties of these
> > systems that are emergent, but position & momenta of the particles are
> > not amongst them, being part of the basic vocabulary of the model.
>
> Excellent!  Thanks Russell.
>
> However, I claim that the positions and momenta (note the plural) of the
> individual components are not properties of the _system_.  Those are
> properties of the individual components.  A systemic property related to
> those component properties might be a centroid or cumulative (averaged,
> summed, etc.) momentum for the system as a whole.

Is not the vector of positions and momenta a systemic property? It
precisely defines the state of the system.

>
> Of course, the position or momentum of an individual particle is a
> systemic property of the system that constitutes that single particle (a
> system of quarks, say).
>
> The question then becomes, is a centroid or cumulative measure of a
> system of particles "emergent"?  Or are the position and momentum of a
> system of quarks "emergent"?
>

I would agree with you that the centre of mass, and the summed momenta
are emergent properties, however - they are what Bedau calls "resultant
emergent", the very weakest, and least interesting of emergent phenomena.

WRT quarks - in the Standard Model, protons and neutrons _are_
emergent, and properties such as their positions and momenta are
emergent.

But in something like Bohr's hydrogen model, the nucleus is a point
particle, so the position of the nucleus is not an emergent property.

Maybe you're wondering why I keep banging on about models - the point
is that emergence is always relative to a model. It has nothing to do
with real systems (except in as much as the models are good
descriptions of the system). In fact I would tend to go further an
claim that the concept of a "real system" is actually flawed, but that
is a whole other debate, as emergence has nothing to do with "real
systems", whether or not real systems really exist.

> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Mathematics                        
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 [hidden email]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 08:28:29PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Another way of saying this is that all systems have emergent properties:
> i.e., properties that arise from the *internal* arrangement or ordering of
> their parts.

I disagree. A model of 0 or 1 part does not have any emergent
properties. A model of 2 parts is borderline - the gap
between the two parts is a resultant emergent property.

Probably any model with at least 3 parts can have meaningful emergent
properties, but maybe someone can prove me wrong on this with a
counterexample. I know of no theorem proving it.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Mathematics                        
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 [hidden email]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Rikus Combrinck]

<BASE href="file://C:\Users\Rikus\Documents\My Stationery\">

Glen wrote:

 

> I disagree.  The _number_ of components in any system is

> purely about relationships between components.

> To see this clearly, imagine how you _measure_ the number

> of components in a system.  I can think of 2 basic ways:

> 1) you _count_ them or 2) you estimate the number.

 

> ...

 

The relatedness you claim is introduced by the counting (measurement) process.  To my mind, the existence and significance of the property (number of components in a system) does not require knowledge of it's value.  Are you saying it does?

 

Regards,

Rikus

--------------------------------------------------
From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 5:43 PM
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence and explanation

Thus spake Rikus Combrinck circa 07/10/2009 01:00 AM:
> 1. The number of components in a Newtonian N-body system.  In the
> study of complex systems, the number of components is frequently a
> critical system property.  It is, however, entirely divorced from the
> properties of the components or relationships among them.

I disagree.  The _number_ of components in any system is purely about
relationships between components.

To see this clearly, imagine how you _measure_ the number of components
in a system.  I can think of 2 basic ways: 1) you _count_ them or 2) you
estimate the number.

If you choose (1), then you have to choose 1 from the population.  (Note
 that "population" is a relational term in itself.)  Then you have to
choose another one (without replacement, which is a relational
operator).  Now you have 1+1 = 2.  "+" is a relation.  Then you have to
choose a 3rd, again without replacement and add 2+1=3.  Etc.

If you choose method (2), then you'll have to choose some property like
volume or mass, decide how much of that respective volume or mass is
taken up by any one component (or class of components) and divide up the
volume or mass based on the ratio taken up by each (type of) component.
 Not only is this method fundamentally relational (how much space or
mass is taken up by one component in relation to another); but it's
definitely about the properties of each component as they accumulate
into the systemic property of volume or mass.

No, the number of components in a Newtonian N-body system is
_definitely_ all about the relations and interactions between the
components.  Hence, it is emergent.

> 2. A weaker one: the mass of a Newtonian N-body system.  While it
> depends on component masses, it is independent of interaction among
> components.

As above, the mass of the system is an accumulation of the masses of the
components.  In order to see that it is an emergent characteristic,
consider the methods for measuring the mass.

True, mass is _linear_ as is volume and many other characteristics
(because of the way they're measured).  But if nonlinear == emergent,
then what's the point of the less well-defined term "emergent"?

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


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

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

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 08:43:27AM -0700, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
>
> True, mass is _linear_ as is volume and many other characteristics
> (because of the way they're measured).  But if nonlinear == emergent,
> then what's the point of the less well-defined term "emergent"?
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
>

Nonlinearity is necessary for stronger forms of emergence than mere
resultant emergence. However, not all nonlinear properties are
emergent properties. Example, the force term in a harmonic oscillator
is definitely nonlinear, but it is part of syntactic structure of the
system, so is definitely not emergent.

BTW - where is Jochen Fromm in this debate?
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Mathematics                        
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 [hidden email]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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