Formalizing the concept of design
Locked
Formalizing the concept of design
 
|
Dear Frank, Jon, Eric, and anybody else, OK. Let me be blunt. I wish that the mathematically inclined among you would help me. As I have told you all before, my brother was a mathematician and I got one of his two math genes, which was enough to give me vague mathematical intuitions but not enough that I could actually make good on more than a few of them. I have long been carrying around in my head the notion of “design arrays" which I have offered as a kind of universal way of looking at such troublesome concepts as adaptation, motivation, communication, learning, development, etc., where our explanatory concepts seem to be fatally entangled with our descriptive ones. A design co-array is a co-listing of circumstances and adaptive techniques, with all the pairings leading to a common outcome. I guess I am wondering, Is this way of thinking about telic phenomena a mathematical way? It seems to me to relate to the idea of mapping. The motivated animal maps his behavior onto his circumstances and thence, convergently, onto outcomes. But I am also wondering, aside from making my deceased big brother proud, is there any benefit to formalizing it. It is my understanding of mathematics that the benefit of formalization is the capacity to be led, through the formalization to some unexpected prediction concerning the phenomenon. It’s hard for me to see what benefits such a formalization would provide. To make it as easy for you to think about this problem, I have ocr-ed its most lucid and concise description among my papers, cleaned it up, and attached it above. I am eager for anybody’s thoughts. 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 Frank Wimberly Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 5:24 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Open Letter, draft #2 Well, I'm not a sequential machine although my wife has her doubts. Thanks for the algebraic geometry suggestions. Jon Zingale and I will try to master the subject. Others may join us on Saturday mornings if they wish. Frank ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://wacsequentisl mww.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 5:16 PM John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi Frank, I didn't realize it was supposed to be a joke --it seemed like a relevant example. I'm not an algebraic geometer but: . . . there is a historical survey in https://www.ime.usp.br/~pleite/pub/artigos/abhyankar/abhyankar.pdf Historical Ramblings in Algebraic Geometry and Related Algebra www.ime.usp.br Historical Ramblings in Algebraic Geometry and Related Algebra Author(s): Shreeram S. Abhyankar Source: The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 83, No. 6 (Jun. - Jul ... If you read that you can tell if you like Ahbyankar's style. He wrote a more thorough survey in 295 pages called "Algebraic Geometry for Scientists and Engineers'' (including computer scientists. --John ________________________________________ From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 5:53:53 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Open Letter, draft #2 Sorry, John. It was a weak attempt to be humorous. Also, I mistyped. I meant "algebraic geometry" when I was asking for a book recommendation. Frank ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 12:56 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: John writes: “Is there something that animals, or more particularly humans, can do which we can prove cannot be duplicated by a sequential machine?” A sequential computer program could simply be a loop that sampled random numbers and indexed into the address space of the computer program itself (not its memory). One could make a specialized computer using a FPGA that even had an instruction to do that random dispatching. To counter the arguments of Penrose, one could do the same using quantum states. https://www.springer.com/us/book/9781402078941 There are all kinds of physical processes that are simulated on classical supercomputers, of course. 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 ============================================================ 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 |
design snippet3.docx (62K)
|
This description suffers from the same criticism I made before: you're assuming a *strict* hierarchy, where the higher order can only operate over whole components from the lower order. I.e. the gun's algorithm 1st chooses the type/medium of target (ballistic, air, water), then uses that type to select the specific tracking sub-algorithm.
And while this is mostly how it's done in artificial systems, I suspect biology does NOT use strict hierarchies. A higher order function can operate over a mixture of operands, some complex wholes in that higher order and some from the lower orders. E.g. if the gun's higher order selection is based not only on the 3 types (ballistic, air, water), but also on a lower order measure like *speed*, then it may well use he same sub-algorithm for both air and water. So, it takes both high order constructs and low order constructs as its operands. You see your assumption of a strict hierarchy peeking through when you say sex is the only motive that is ESSENTIALLY social. What do you mean by "essentially"? Couldn't we say that *all* the behavior of all the social animals is, in part, social? ... including following others to the water hole? So, these functions would be mixed ... do not obey a strict hierarchy. On 10/27/18 11:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > But the function that connects the two arrays will be different in the two kinds of gun because a surface target is capable of different sorts of motion from an aerial target. > [...] > So, the gun would display two levels of design, the lower level that relates trajectory to firing and the higher level that relates the lower level design to target type. > [...] > This conception of multiple hierarchical layers of design is a useful way to describe many of the phenomena that ethologists and socio-biologists are required to explain. … -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ 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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Formalizing the concept of design
|
|
Bob Shaw has spend a good chunk of his career trying to do this at what I would call a "lower level of analysis" even though that might not be the right term. His "intentional dynamics" are about trying to use dynamic-systems math to try to say what "intentionality" looks like in the topology of an action. Thus, when I say "lower level" I mean that he is interested in how one moves through the room to accomplish a goal, rather than that one is doing a move-through-the-room option, which is what Nick tends to focus on. That said, both approaches connect strongly, I believe, with E.B. Holt's assertion that a central task of psychology is to determine what aspects of the world our behavior is a function of, i.e., the assertion that one is "trying to leave the room" is a description about how one is acting, contextualized by an array of actions that would result in an array of various outcomes. Bob's work might really appeal to some on the list, which is why I have linked both to his webpage and a talk from a few years ago. Differential geometry, Feynman path integral, system dynamics, etc. If you want to skip the less contextualized technical stuff and get to the big picture of his effort, regarding the relation between the math he is using and psychology, you could start at minute 50 and watch for about 10 minutes. For a touch more context: Bob was a crucial player in the second generation of "ecological psychologists", those who kept James J. Gibson's work alive after his death. Gibson's work is now extremely influential in the emerging fields of "embodied cognition" (often called "enactivisim" in European contexts). That said, most researchers in the field aren't mathematically sophisticated enough to connect with Bob's work, and it is technically challenging to implement in experiments, as such, few are working on the project besides Bob, which is unfortunate. ----------- Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. Supervisory Survey Statistician U.S. Marine Corps On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 6:53 AM ∄ uǝʃƃ <[hidden email]> wrote: This description suffers from the same criticism I made before: you're assuming a *strict* hierarchy, where the higher order can only operate over whole components from the lower order. I.e. the gun's algorithm 1st chooses the type/medium of target (ballistic, air, water), then uses that type to select the specific tracking sub-algorithm. ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Formalizing the concept of design
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Hi, glen,
Thanks for writing ... and reading. You clearly have a point. Is hierarchical analysis just my tool, or is it something that my tool reveals. I would be interested in a clear example of a partial hierarchy to think about. You got one in your back pocket? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ? u??? Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 4:53 AM To: FriAM <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Formalizing the concept of design This description suffers from the same criticism I made before: you're assuming a *strict* hierarchy, where the higher order can only operate over whole components from the lower order. I.e. the gun's algorithm 1st chooses the type/medium of target (ballistic, air, water), then uses that type to select the specific tracking sub-algorithm. And while this is mostly how it's done in artificial systems, I suspect biology does NOT use strict hierarchies. A higher order function can operate over a mixture of operands, some complex wholes in that higher order and some from the lower orders. E.g. if the gun's higher order selection is based not only on the 3 types (ballistic, air, water), but also on a lower order measure like *speed*, then it may well use he same sub-algorithm for both air and water. So, it takes both high order constructs and low order constructs as its operands. You see your assumption of a strict hierarchy peeking through when you say sex is the only motive that is ESSENTIALLY social. What do you mean by "essentially"? Couldn't we say that *all* the behavior of all the social animals is, in part, social? ... including following others to the water hole? So, these functions would be mixed ... do not obey a strict hierarchy. On 10/27/18 11:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > But the function that connects the two arrays will be different in the two kinds of gun because a surface target is capable of different sorts of motion from an aerial target. > [...] > So, the gun would display two levels of design, the lower level that relates trajectory to firing and the higher level that relates the lower level design to target type. > [...] > This conception of multiple hierarchical layers of design is a useful > way to describe many of the phenomena that ethologists and > socio-biologists are required to explain. … -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Formalizing the concept of design
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles-2
Eric, Your two posts are very interesting. And very well written and tactful. I think I am going to let them lie for a bit and see if others comment, before I start mucking about in my big boots. Well done! Do you own Rosen? If you did, I would direct your attention to something in it. 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 Eric Charles Bob Shaw has spend a good chunk of his career trying to do this at what I would call a "lower level of analysis" even though that might not be the right term. His "intentional dynamics" are about trying to use dynamic-systems math to try to say what "intentionality" looks like in the topology of an action. Thus, when I say "lower level" I mean that he is interested in how one moves through the room to accomplish a goal, rather than that one is doing a move-through-the-room option, which is what Nick tends to focus on. That said, both approaches connect strongly, I believe, with E.B. Holt's assertion that a central task of psychology is to determine what aspects of the world our behavior is a function of, i.e., the assertion that one is "trying to leave the room" is a description about how one is acting, contextualized by an array of actions that would result in an array of various outcomes. Bob's work might really appeal to some on the list, which is why I have linked both to his webpage and a talk from a few years ago. Differential geometry, Feynman path integral, system dynamics, etc. If you want to skip the less contextualized technical stuff and get to the big picture of his effort, regarding the relation between the math he is using and psychology, you could start at minute 50 and watch for about 10 minutes. For a touch more context: Bob was a crucial player in the second generation of "ecological psychologists", those who kept James J. Gibson's work alive after his death. Gibson's work is now extremely influential in the emerging fields of "embodied cognition" (often called "enactivisim" in European contexts). That said, most researchers in the field aren't mathematically sophisticated enough to connect with Bob's work, and it is technically challenging to implement in experiments, as such, few are working on the project besides Bob, which is unfortunate.
U.S. Marine Corps On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 6:53 AM ∄ uǝʃƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
Re: Formalizing the concept of design
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Hi, Glen, I am continuing to think about what you say below. I guess, in my defense, I would say that this a statement about what natural designs means, not a claim that all animals behave in this highly schematized way. After all, even in the course of orgiastic sex, the organism continues to breath (well mostly) so the different activities can be simultaneous as well as switched between. For real examples, have a look at some of the diagrams in Tinbergen’s Study of Instinct. See below I just reread Rosen's chapter on epistemology: God what a hot mess! But exciting, still. I wish somebody would sit down and read it with me. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
-----Original Message----- This description suffers from the same criticism I made before: you're assuming a *strict* hierarchy, where the higher order can only operate over whole components from the lower order. I.e. the gun's algorithm 1st chooses the type/medium of target (ballistic, air, water), then uses that type to select the specific tracking sub-algorithm. And while this is mostly how it's done in artificial systems, I suspect biology does NOT use strict hierarchies. A higher order function can operate over a mixture of operands, some complex wholes in that higher order and some from the lower orders. E.g. if the gun's higher order selection is based not only on the 3 types (ballistic, air, water), but also on a lower order measure like *speed*, then it may well use he same sub-algorithm for both air and water. So, it takes both high order constructs and low order constructs as its operands. You see your assumption of a strict hierarchy peeking through when you say sex is the only motive that is ESSENTIALLY social. What do you mean by "essentially"? Couldn't we say that *all* the behavior of all the social animals is, in part, social? ... including following others to the water hole? So, these functions would be mixed ... do not obey a strict hierarchy. On 10/27/18 11:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > But the function that connects the two arrays will be different in the two kinds of gun because a surface target is capable of different sorts of motion from an aerial target. > [...] > So, the gun would display two levels of design, the lower level that relates trajectory to firing and the higher level that relates the lower level design to target type. > [...] > This conception of multiple hierarchical layers of design is a useful > way to describe many of the phenomena that ethologists and > socio-biologists are required to explain. … -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Formalizing the concept of design
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles-2
Eric, Thanks for forwarding Bob Shaw's work to the list. I had the honor of sharing a few pints with Bob at "Sweet Williams" Pub, in Michael Turvey's and Claudio Carello's basement :-) Nick, check out the video Eric linked to and then maybe this paper: "Hints of Intelligence From First Principles" with his son Jeff. http://commons.trincoll.edu/robertshaw/files/2016/02/first_principles.pdf As we've discussed over the last few years, The Action Principle (energy * time) and least (stationary) action may provide a more fundamental selection principle in biology than natural selection and could be a mathematical formulation you're asking for. Many applied problems in complexity like ant algorithms using dual pheromone fields, level-set methods, and route search on a road network using simultaneous floodflill from both origins and destinations might be considered least action path selection. I make the claim on intuition - I expect Eric Smith would reject or accept this based on more formal understanding. On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:32 PM Eric Charles <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
My silence is due to my attempts to unplug on the weekends. I think examples abound. So my next question was to ask what type of example would you care about? I can't give an example in "natural design" because I don't know what that phrase means. But Marcus has already mentioned ADFs in genetic programming. We've just mentioned social (high order) and physiological (low order) influences on sexual behavior. Intercellular "communication" can happen via molecule diffusion and extracellular vesicles. Etc.
It seems similar to that aphorism: "Nonlinear systems is like non-elephant zoology" ... or somesuch, misquoted from somebody somewhere. 8^) On October 28, 2018 11:20:52 PM PDT, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >Hi, Glen, > > > >I am continuing to think about what you say below. I guess, in my >defense, I would say that this a statement about what natural designs >means, not a claim that all animals behave in this highly schematized >way. After all, even in the course of orgiastic sex, the organism >continues to breath (well mostly) so the different activities can be >simultaneous as well as switched between. For real examples, have a >look at some of the diagrams in Tinbergen’s Study of Instinct. See >below > > > >I just reread Rosen's chapter on epistemology: God what a hot mess! >But exciting, still. I wish somebody would sit down and read it with >me. > >Nick > > > >Nicholas S. Thompson > >Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > >Clark University > >http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ? u??? >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 4:53 AM >To: FriAM <[hidden email]> >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Formalizing the concept of design > > > >This description suffers from the same criticism I made before: you're >assuming a *strict* hierarchy, where the higher order can only operate >over whole components from the lower order. I.e. the gun's algorithm >1st chooses the type/medium of target (ballistic, air, water), then >uses that type to select the specific tracking sub-algorithm. > > > >And while this is mostly how it's done in artificial systems, I suspect >biology does NOT use strict hierarchies. A higher order function can >operate over a mixture of operands, some complex wholes in that higher >order and some from the lower orders. E.g. if the gun's higher order >selection is based not only on the 3 types (ballistic, air, water), but >also on a lower order measure like *speed*, then it may well use he >same sub-algorithm for both air and water. So, it takes both high >order constructs and low order constructs as its operands. > > > >You see your assumption of a strict hierarchy peeking through when you >say sex is the only motive that is ESSENTIALLY social. What do you >mean by "essentially"? Couldn't we say that *all* the behavior of all >the social animals is, in part, social? ... including following others >to the water hole? So, these functions would be mixed ... do not obey >a strict hierarchy. > > > >On 10/27/18 11:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > >> But the function that connects the two arrays will be different in >the two kinds of gun because a surface target is capable of different >sorts of motion from an aerial target. > >> [...] > >> So, the gun would display two levels of design, the lower level that >relates trajectory to firing and the higher level that relates the >lower level design to target type. > >> [...] > >> This conception of multiple hierarchical layers of design is a useful > > >> way to describe many of the phenomena that ethologists and > >> socio-biologists are required to explain. … > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >∄ uǝʃƃ > > > >============================================================ > >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> >http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > >FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> >http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove -- 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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Formalizing the concept of design
|
|
Hi Nick,
I would like to grapple with your challenge to mathematicians, but I need a clearer idea of what the challenge is. Here are some possibilities:
(1) Recently, I have been trying to find some kind of mathematical entity that produces a "chronicle" (i.e. a sequence of outcomes in response to various stimuli) but is not equivalent to a sequential machine. Is this search for such an entity a reasonable response (or a partial response) to your challenge?
(2) Are you specifically interested in a mathematical model of motives?
(3) Or would you like a mathematical discussion of what Rosen was searching for and what he accomplished?
(4) Or are you looking for something else?
--John From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of glen <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:50:15 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Formalizing the concept of design My silence is due to my attempts to unplug on the weekends. I think examples abound. So my next question was to ask what type of example would you care about? I can't give an example in "natural design" because I don't know what that
phrase means. But Marcus has already mentioned ADFs in genetic programming. We've just mentioned social (high order) and physiological (low order) influences on sexual behavior. Intercellular "communication" can happen via molecule diffusion and extracellular
vesicles. Etc.
It seems similar to that aphorism: "Nonlinear systems is like non-elephant zoology" ... or somesuch, misquoted from somebody somewhere. 8^) On October 28, 2018 11:20:52 PM PDT, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >Hi, Glen, > > > >I am continuing to think about what you say below. I guess, in my >defense, I would say that this a statement about what natural designs >means, not a claim that all animals behave in this highly schematized >way. After all, even in the course of orgiastic sex, the organism >continues to breath (well mostly) so the different activities can be >simultaneous as well as switched between. For real examples, have a >look at some of the diagrams in Tinbergen’s Study of Instinct. See >below > > > >I just reread Rosen's chapter on epistemology: God what a hot mess! >But exciting, still. I wish somebody would sit down and read it with >me. > >Nick > > > >Nicholas S. Thompson > >Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > >Clark University > >http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ? u??? >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 4:53 AM >To: FriAM <[hidden email]> >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Formalizing the concept of design > > > >This description suffers from the same criticism I made before: you're >assuming a *strict* hierarchy, where the higher order can only operate >over whole components from the lower order. I.e. the gun's algorithm >1st chooses the type/medium of target (ballistic, air, water), then >uses that type to select the specific tracking sub-algorithm. > > > >And while this is mostly how it's done in artificial systems, I suspect >biology does NOT use strict hierarchies. A higher order function can >operate over a mixture of operands, some complex wholes in that higher >order and some from the lower orders. E.g. if the gun's higher order >selection is based not only on the 3 types (ballistic, air, water), but >also on a lower order measure like *speed*, then it may well use he >same sub-algorithm for both air and water. So, it takes both high >order constructs and low order constructs as its operands. > > > >You see your assumption of a strict hierarchy peeking through when you >say sex is the only motive that is ESSENTIALLY social. What do you >mean by "essentially"? Couldn't we say that *all* the behavior of all >the social animals is, in part, social? ... including following others >to the water hole? So, these functions would be mixed ... do not obey >a strict hierarchy. > > > >On 10/27/18 11:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > >> But the function that connects the two arrays will be different in >the two kinds of gun because a surface target is capable of different >sorts of motion from an aerial target. > >> [...] > >> So, the gun would display two levels of design, the lower level that >relates trajectory to firing and the higher level that relates the >lower level design to target type. > >> [...] > >> This conception of multiple hierarchical layers of design is a useful > > >> way to describe many of the phenomena that ethologists and > >> socio-biologists are required to explain. … > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >∄ uǝʃƃ > > > >============================================================ > >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> >http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > >FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> >http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: Formalizing the concept of design
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Hi Nick, and others,
I am going to wait until I receive my copy of Rosen's "Life Itself" which I ordered, and which is due art the end of this week. I want to take another look at what Rosen promised (or seemed to promise) and what he delivered.
--John From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 2:32 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Cc: 'Jon Zingale' Subject: [FRIAM] Formalizing the concept of design Dear Frank, Jon, Eric, and anybody else,
OK. Let me be blunt. I wish that the mathematically inclined among you would help me. As I have told you all before, my brother was a mathematician and I got one of his two math genes, which was enough to give me vague mathematical intuitions but not enough that I could actually make good on more than a few of them. I have long been carrying around in my head the notion of “design arrays" which I have offered as a kind of universal way of looking at such troublesome concepts as adaptation, motivation, communication, learning, development, etc., where our explanatory concepts seem to be fatally entangled with our descriptive ones. A design co-array is a co-listing of circumstances and adaptive techniques, with all the pairings leading to a common outcome.
I guess I am wondering, Is this way of thinking about telic phenomena a mathematical way? It seems to me to relate to the idea of mapping. The motivated animal maps his behavior onto his circumstances and thence, convergently, onto outcomes. But I am also wondering, aside from making my deceased big brother proud, is there any benefit to formalizing it. It is my understanding of mathematics that the benefit of formalization is the capacity to be led, through the formalization to some unexpected prediction concerning the phenomenon. It’s hard for me to see what benefits such a formalization would provide.
To make it as easy for you to think about this problem, I have ocr-ed its most lucid and concise description among my papers, cleaned it up, and attached it above.
I am eager for anybody’s thoughts.
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 Frank Wimberly Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 5:24 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Open Letter, draft #2
Well, I'm not a sequential machine although my wife has her doubts.
Thanks for the algebraic geometry suggestions. Jon Zingale and I will try to master the subject. Others may join us on Saturday mornings if they wish.
Frank ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly
My memoir: https://wacsequentisl mww.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
Phone (505) 670-9918
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 5:16 PM John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi Frank,
I didn't realize it was supposed to be a joke --it seemed like a relevant example. I'm not an algebraic geometer but:
. . . there is a historical survey in https://www.ime.usp.br/~pleite/pub/artigos/abhyankar/abhyankar.pdf Historical Ramblings in Algebraic Geometry and Related Algebra www.ime.usp.br Historical Ramblings in Algebraic Geometry and Related Algebra Author(s): Shreeram S. Abhyankar Source: The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 83, No. 6 (Jun. - Jul ...
If you read that you can tell if you like Ahbyankar's style. He wrote a more thorough survey in 295 pages called "Algebraic Geometry for Scientists and Engineers'' (including computer scientists.
--John
________________________________________ From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 5:53:53 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Open Letter, draft #2
Sorry, John. It was a weak attempt to be humorous.
Also, I mistyped. I meant "algebraic geometry" when I was asking for a book recommendation.
Frank ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly
My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly
My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
Phone (505) 670-9918
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 12:56 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: John writes:
“Is there something that animals, or more particularly humans, can do which we can prove cannot be duplicated by a sequential machine?”
A sequential computer program could simply be a loop that sampled random numbers and indexed into the address space of the computer program itself (not its memory). One could make a specialized computer using a FPGA that even had an instruction to do that random dispatching. To counter the arguments of Penrose, one could do the same using quantum states.
https://www.springer.com/us/book/9781402078941
There are all kinds of physical processes that are simulated on classical supercomputers, of course.
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 ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
FWIW, "Life Itself" is inadequate for me to read Rosen with any sympathy. I would also recommend a copy of Anticipatory Systems. E.g. o, Rosen seems to cite [†] this from von Neumann [‡]:
>> All these are very crude steps in the direction of a systematic theory of automata. They represent, in addition, only one particular direction. This is, as I indicated before, the direction towards forming a rigorous concept of what constitutes "complication." They illustrate that "complication" on its lower levels is probably degenerative, that is, that every automaton that can produce other automata will only be able to produce less complicated ones. There is, however, a certain minimum level where this degenerative characteristic ceases to be universal. At this point automata which can re produce themselves, or even construct higher entities, become possible. This fact, that complication, as well as organization, below a certain minimum level is degenerative, and beyond that level can become self - supporting and even increasing, will clearly play an important role in any future theory of the subject. [†] Rosen, "Anticipatory Systems", pp 321-322. Pergamon Press, 1985. [‡] von Neumann, "The General and Logical Theory of Automata", p 318. In Taub, "Collected Works". On 10/30/18 6:27 AM, John Kennison wrote: > I am going to wait until I receive my copy of Rosen's "Life Itself" which I ordered, and which is due art the end of this week. I want to take another look at what Rosen promised (or seemed to promise) and what he delivered. -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ 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
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Formalizing the concept of design
|
|
Thanks Glen,
I will look into "Anticipatory Systems".--John From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of ∄ uǝʃƃ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 9:38:44 AM To: FriAM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Formalizing the concept of design FWIW, "Life Itself" is inadequate for me to read Rosen with any sympathy. I would also recommend a copy of Anticipatory Systems. E.g. o, Rosen seems to cite [†] this from von Neumann [‡]:
>> All these are very crude steps in the direction of a systematic theory of automata. They represent, in addition, only one particular direction. This is, as I indicated before, the direction towards forming a rigorous concept of what constitutes "complication." They illustrate that "complication" on its lower levels is probably degenerative, that is, that every automaton that can produce other automata will only be able to produce less complicated ones. There is, however, a certain minimum level where this degenerative characteristic ceases to be universal. At this point automata which can re produce themselves, or even construct higher entities, become possible. This fact, that complication, as well as organization, below a certain minimum level is degenerative, and beyond that level can become self - supporting and even increasing, will clearly play an important role in any future theory of the subject. [†] Rosen, "Anticipatory Systems", pp 321-322. Pergamon Press, 1985. [‡] von Neumann, "The General and Logical Theory of Automata", p 318. In Taub, "Collected Works". On 10/30/18 6:27 AM, John Kennison wrote: > I am going to wait until I receive my copy of Rosen's "Life Itself" which I ordered, and which is due art the end of this week. I want to take another look at what Rosen promised (or seemed to promise) and what he delivered. -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ 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 |
Re: Formalizing the concept of design
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephen Guerin-5
Steve, hi,
> As we've discussed over the last few years, The Action Principle (energy * time) and least (stationary) action may provide a more fundamental selection principle in biology than natural selection and could be a mathematical formulation you're asking for. Many applied problems in complexity like ant algorithms using dual pheromone fields, level-set methods, and route search on a road network using simultaneous floodflill from both origins and destinations might be considered least action path selection. I make the claim on intuition - I expect Eric Smith would reject or accept this based on more formal understanding. I don’t want to just drop this, but I don’t know how to respond to it usefully. I think of the two (principle of least action (PoLA) and natural selection (NS)) in completely decoupled thoughts. For me, PoLA in the classical form is equivalent in content to dynamical equations, but because it formulates them as an extremization principle it more readily exposes consequences of symmetry. In quantum mechanics, I can find the same thing as a stationary-path consequence of interference of phase advances over many paths. In statistical mechanics I can find a “stochastic effective action” that captures stationarity through a similar kind of interference, but no longer among quantum phases, rather in some interaction of distributions with the shadows of late-time questions we might ask about them. (Sorry that formulation is so cryptic; for those who prefer that one just show what one means by calculating, there is this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3938 ) For me, NS comes up in response to a completely different collection of questions (which may or may not be about the same phenomena). I think of NS as being about whatever it is that makes time different from just another dimension of space, so that there is always something falling apart that can only be maintained by being passed through a filter. I would prefer to use NS (or maybe, better, “Darwinian selection”) as a subset of the previous general sentence, to refer to phenomena that are organized in architectures of individuals and populations, as distinct from simple kinetic phenomena in general. Of course one does not have to draw the boundary there, but I find it a good way to use a new word to distinguish individual/population-based phenomena from general kinetic organization, for which we have other terms already. Also NS is about information in the same sense (exactly) as Bayesian filtering is about information. Sometimes effects of any of these, as they act in populations, can be expressed in terms of actions, but I don’t think of the service that action gives in displaying the nature of a calculation as being the same thing as NS does in declaring what kinds of phenomena we are talking about. Sorry I could not offer better, or more likely I am not understanding where the conversation is. Best, Eric > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:32 PM Eric Charles <[hidden email]> wrote: > Bob Shaw has spend a good chunk of his career trying to do this at what I would call a "lower level of analysis" even though that might not be the right term. His "intentional dynamics" are about trying to use dynamic-systems math to try to say what "intentionality" looks like in the topology of an action. Thus, when I say "lower level" I mean that he is interested in how one moves through the room to accomplish a goal, rather than that one is doing a move-through-the-room option, which is what Nick tends to focus on. That said, both approaches connect strongly, I believe, with E.B. Holt's assertion that a central task of psychology is to determine what aspects of the world our behavior is a function of, i.e., the assertion that one is "trying to leave the room" is a description about how one is acting, contextualized by an array of actions that would result in an array of various outcomes. > > https://commons.trincoll.edu/robertshaw/ > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om0HV5TQkXw > > Bob's work might really appeal to some on the list, which is why I have linked both to his webpage and a talk from a few years ago. Differential geometry, Feynman path integral, system dynamics, etc. If you want to skip the less contextualized technical stuff and get to the big picture of his effort, regarding the relation between the math he is using and psychology, you could start at minute 50 and watch for about 10 minutes. > > For a touch more context: Bob was a crucial player in the second generation of "ecological psychologists", those who kept James J. Gibson's work alive after his death. Gibson's work is now extremely influential in the emerging fields of "embodied cognition" (often called "enactivisim" in European contexts). That said, most researchers in the field aren't mathematically sophisticated enough to connect with Bob's work, and it is technically challenging to implement in experiments, as such, few are working on the project besides Bob, which is unfortunate. > > > ----------- > Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. > Supervisory Survey Statistician > U.S. Marine Corps > > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 6:53 AM ∄ uǝʃƃ <[hidden email]> wrote: > This description suffers from the same criticism I made before: you're assuming a *strict* hierarchy, where the higher order can only operate over whole components from the lower order. I.e. the gun's algorithm 1st chooses the type/medium of target (ballistic, air, water), then uses that type to select the specific tracking sub-algorithm. > > And while this is mostly how it's done in artificial systems, I suspect biology does NOT use strict hierarchies. A higher order function can operate over a mixture of operands, some complex wholes in that higher order and some from the lower orders. E.g. if the gun's higher order selection is based not only on the 3 types (ballistic, air, water), but also on a lower order measure like *speed*, then it may well use he same sub-algorithm for both air and water. So, it takes both high order constructs and low order constructs as its operands. > > You see your assumption of a strict hierarchy peeking through when you say sex is the only motive that is ESSENTIALLY social. What do you mean by "essentially"? Couldn't we say that *all* the behavior of all the social animals is, in part, social? ... including following others to the water hole? So, these functions would be mixed ... do not obey a strict hierarchy. > > On 10/27/18 11:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > But the function that connects the two arrays will be different in the two kinds of gun because a surface target is capable of different sorts of motion from an aerial target. > > [...] > > So, the gun would display two levels of design, the lower level that relates trajectory to firing and the higher level that relates the lower level design to target type. > > [...] > > This conception of multiple hierarchical layers of design is a useful way to describe many of the phenomena that ethologists and socio-biologists are required to explain. … > > > > > > -- > ∄ uǝʃƃ > > ============================================================ > 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 |
Re: Formalizing the concept of design
|
|
Thanks, Eric! Eric writes: I think of the two (principle of least action (PoLA) and natural selection (NS)) in completely decoupled thoughts. Yes, but can they both be understood as "selection" principles? The principle of least action is the basic variational principle of particle and continuum systems. In Hamilton's formulation, a true dynamical trajectory of a system between an initial and final configuration in a specified time is found by imagining all possible trajectories that the system could conceivably take, computing the action (a functional of the trajectory) for each of these trajectories, and selecting one that makes the action locally stationary (traditionally called "least"). True trajectories are those that have least action.For now, not wanting to get hung up on technical use of principle vs law or theory nor that NS has more mechanism/algorithm defined in its principle than PoLA. If you're cool with PoLA as a selection principle, I have a follow up email question. -Stephen On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:58 PM Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: Steve, hi, ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: Formalizing the concept of design
|
|
Hi Steve,
Of course, my first rule is that people should do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else, so far be it from me to pass judgment on anyone’s choice of ways to scope words. That can be guided by what you want the conversation to do in which you use them. That said:
This just seems like a application of the common-language use of “selection” to give a very wide scope. Fine, but to what purpose? Essentially, any correct scientific description, principle, or law, is meant to be a basis for distinguishing a correct from an incorrect answer to some question. If we then “select” the correct answer, that scientific description, principle, or law becomes a “selection principle” under a comparable common-language usage. Any term that is so wide it applies to any correct statement within science is coextensive with the phrase “correct statement within science”, so I would not have spent such a term to repeat another term that already exists. It is a bit interesting that George Price wanted to use the common-language term to distinguish what is from what is not selection, in an article not published while he was alive but exhumed and published 20-some years later by Steve Frank, with Steve’s own introductory paper: author = "Price, George R.", title = "The nature of selection", journal = JTB, volume = "175", pages = "389--396", year = "1995" author = "Frank, Steven A.", title = "George Price's contributions to evolutionary genetics", journal = JTB, volume = "175", pages = "373--388", year = "1995" Price makes rather explicit use of the notion of “selection” to define a maximal generalization of the Price equation (and within it, Fisher’s fundamental theorem) to what he calls “corresponding sets”, thus generalizing the notion of individual to which selection had been applied since Darwin. I think the corresponding-sets definition is quite useful as it uses the Price equation to formalize the exact scope of the concept of fitness as a class of summary statistics. I disagree with Price’s choice to define NS as being all-and-only what can go through the conduit of fitness — I am willing to argue that a more natural boundary can be placed at a different point — but the way he makes the choice makes it easy to construct a larger statistical reduction program around fitness, and show what is included and what left out in Price’s scheme. If I ever submitted papers any more, that construction would be in one of them. So there is precedent in doing something like what you propose, though I think Price’s paper gives an example of how one could go further than an all-encompassing term to show how invoking “selection” might yield specific category distinctions. All best, Eric
============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eric Smith
It seems to me you're still directly on topic. Nick's emphasis on hierarchy leads directly to (forgive me, here) the *flatness* or flattenability of dynamical systems equations versus whatever units multi-level selection might operate over.
It's probably just another fit of apophenia. But I just finished my incompetent reading of McShea and Brandon's "Biology's First Law", wherein they criticize the Hardy-Weinberg "law" (at least as a universal biological law) and, later in the book, assert that their ZFEL is strictly hierarchically applicable. They go on to reference Bouchard 2008 (http://www.fredericbouchard.org/textes/BOUCHARDcausal_persistence_fitnessPHILSCI08.pdf) and say: McShea and Brandon, § A Generalized ZFEL for Physical Systems: > "In this more general understanding, reproduction would be just one route to persistence, the route biology employs in a world of mortal organisms. It is a mechanism that increases the probability that a given phenotype in existence at some time will also be present at some later time. The organisms die but the lineage persists." This hearkens back to Nick's attempt to paraphrase Rosen with: On 10/25/18 2:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > We need a science of biology that is materialistic but NOT mechanistic. > [...] > But if life is an organization of things from another organization, the question becomes, “What kind of an organization could scaffold the organization we call life. Rosen specifically targets operational closure and material openness. But McShea and Brandon seem to argue obliquely against that earlier in the book: McShea & Brandon § Forces and Null Expectations: > "... Newman and Müller (2000) have argued that accurate inheritance (...) is an evolutionary achievement, the result of natural selection, and is not evolutionarily primitive (...). We agree. But heritability, in the evolutionarily relevant sense, does not require anything like what Newman and Müller have in mind. As Griesemer (2000) has emphasized, biological reproduction involves material transfer; that is, the parent transfers not simply information, not jut a 'blueprint,' but an actual bit of matter that used to be parent and that now becomes offspring. ... And this material transfer ensures some degree, even if low, of fidelity of reproduction." Anyway, there are 2 questions that this apophenic fit lead me to: 1) Are the "higher order" constructs (including your interfering distributions, M&B's "lineages", units of selection, etc.) reducible to "lower order" constructs -- i.e. what I infer as John's implicit assertion that a sequential machine should be able to reproduce *any* chronicle? And 2) Are material and organization *actually* separable or do they always remain at least a tiny bit dependent? Regardless of any of that, though, I'd also appreciate any and all opinions about M&B's ZFEL. In my googling, I failed to find criticisms of it. My skeptical homunculus refuses to remove the handcuffs from my gullible homunculus *until* I find a scathing criticism. On 11/6/18 11:58 AM, Eric Smith wrote: > On 10/29/18 12:25 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote: >> As we've discussed over the last few years, The Action Principle (energy * time) and least (stationary) action may provide a more fundamental selection principle in biology than natural selection and could be a mathematical formulation you're asking for. Many applied problems in complexity like ant algorithms using dual pheromone fields, level-set methods, and route search on a road network using simultaneous floodflill from both origins and destinations might be considered least action path selection. I make the claim on intuition - I expect Eric Smith would reject or accept this based on more formal understanding. > > I don’t want to just drop this, but I don’t know how to respond to it usefully. I think of the two (principle of least action (PoLA) and natural selection (NS)) in completely decoupled thoughts. For me, PoLA in the classical form is equivalent in content to dynamical equations, but because it formulates them as an extremization principle it more readily exposes consequences of symmetry. In quantum mechanics, I can find the same thing as a stationary-path consequence of interference of phase advances over many paths. In statistical mechanics I can find a “stochastic effective action” that captures stationarity through a similar kind of interference, but no longer among quantum phases, rather in some interaction of distributions with the shadows of late-time questions we might ask about them. (Sorry that formulation is so cryptic; for those who prefer that one just show what one means by calculating, there is this: > https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3938 > ) > > For me, NS comes up in response to a completely different collection of questions (which may or may not be about the same phenomena). I think of NS as being about whatever it is that makes time different from just another dimension of space, so that there is always something falling apart that can only be maintained by being passed through a filter. I would prefer to use NS (or maybe, better, “Darwinian selection”) as a subset of the previous general sentence, to refer to phenomena that are organized in architectures of individuals and populations, as distinct from simple kinetic phenomena in general. Of course one does not have to draw the boundary there, but I find it a good way to use a new word to distinguish individual/population-based phenomena from general kinetic organization, for which we have other terms already. Also NS is about information in the same sense (exactly) as Bayesian filtering is about information. Sometimes effects of any of these, as they act in populations, can be expressed in terms of actions, but I don’t think of the service that action gives in displaying the nature of a calculation as being the same thing as NS does in declaring what kinds of phenomena we are talking about. > > Sorry I could not offer better, or more likely I am not understanding where the conversation is. 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Formalizing the concept of design
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephen Guerin-5
I am WAY out of my depth here. In fact, you guys have dragged my original thought out beyond its depth and are in danger of drowning it. My point is a descriptive one: however we come to explain it, there is (or perhaps isn’t) a holistic property of natural systems called design which, if we are to play the science game honest, has to be identified before the explanations begin. People like Rosen and Sommerhoff are trying to identify that holistic property. (By the way, having introduced you to Sommerhoff I now find that he was a thoroughly vile human being, a serial child molester of the worst sort. I don’t know what to do about that.) But since you have drowned my thread (note mixed metaphor) let me comment on yours: Haven’t you both agreed to give up on emergence? Why cannot one principle work at one level of organization while the other works at another? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin Thanks, Eric! Eric writes:
Yes, but can they both be understood as "selection" principles? with PoLA as a "selection principle" in this sense:
For now, not wanting to get hung up on technical use of principle vs law or theory nor that NS has more mechanism/algorithm defined in its principle than PoLA. If you're cool with PoLA as a selection principle, I have a follow up email question. -Stephen On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:58 PM Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |