Friam

Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47

Classic

List

Threaded

2 messages Options

Nick Thompson

Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47

Robert Holmes writes,

"So if entropy is emergent and gravity is emergent and any other force
mediated by a subatomic particle is emergent, just how useful is it to label
something 'emergent' in this way? If the definition of emergence is so
broad, how can we usefully use it?"

SOOOOOOOOOO, this seems to suggest that emergence is one of those
properties which are not brick wallk properties of the world except in so
far as they are seen from a particular point of view. I.E, intensional
properties. (sorry everybody). . But now, like Robert, I am beginning to
wonder if all properties arent intensional. I mean that was sort of
Einstein's point, wasnt it? I hate it when words I love and concepts I
live by suddenly crumble in my hands.

Rushing,

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
nickthompson at earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson

> [Original Message]
> From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Date: 7/26/2006 12:30:17 AM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam at redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> friam-request at redfish.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> friam-owner at redfish.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Definition of Complexity (Russell Standish)
> 2. Re: Definition of Complexity (Phil Henshaw)
> 3. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us?
> (Tom Johnson)
> 4. Re: Definition of Complexity (Robert Holmes)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:26:54 +1000
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <20060725012654.GB790 at hells-dell.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 06:46:12PM -0600, Robert Holmes wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >One can certainly start from the partition function. But the partition
> > >function is something that is additional to the microscopic
> > >description, hence emergent. Indeed, the partition function is
> > >different depending on whether you are using microcanonical, canonical
> > >or grand canonical ensembles, each of which is a thermodynamic, not
> > >microscopic concept.
> >
> >
> > I'm surprised that you consider the partition function as being "in
> > addition" to the microscopic description. Is this the common view in
> > statistical mechanics? Just to be specific, if I've got a system of
> > distinguishable particles and the energy levels aren't degenerate, the
> > single particle partition function Zsp is given by:
> >
> > Zsp = sum( exp( -ei/k.T ) )
> > where ei is the energy of the energy level i, the sum is over all i

(i.e.
> > over all energy levels), k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the
> > temperature.
> >
> > Now that seems about as microscopic description of a system as you can
get.

> > Could you explain why it's not please?
> >
> > Thanks for your patience!
> >
> > Robert
>
> You have just written the canonical partition function. This assumes
> that the universe is divided into two parts, the system, and its
> environment, and that these are in thermal contact with each other.
>
> If you further assume that particles can move between the system and
> environment, then you get the grand canonical partition function:
>
> Z=\sum_{N=0}^{\infty}\sum_{{n_i}}\prod_i exp(-n_i(E_i-\mu)/kT)
>
> These assumptions are not microscopic in nature, but how we choose
> to divide up physical reality. (The choice is needn't be arbitrary - in
> most stat phys situations, there is a clear "best choice", and choosing
> any other way of looking at the system is crazy, but you must
> recognise that it is still a choice independent of microscopic dynamics).
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
> virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
> email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
> may safely ignore this attachment.
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au
> Australia
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:24:48 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <002f01c6b063$0d1c30c0$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> perhaps because it's a sum?
>
>
>
> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040
> tel: 212-795-4844
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf Of Robert Holmes
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:46 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity
>
>
>
>
> One can certainly start from the partition function. But the partition
> function is something that is additional to the microscopic
> description, hence emergent. Indeed, the partition function is
> different depending on whether you are using microcanonical, canonical
> or grand canonical ensembles, each of which is a thermodynamic, not
> microscopic concept.
>
>
> I'm surprised that you consider the partition function as being "in
> addition" to the microscopic description. Is this the common view in
> statistical mechanics? Just to be specific, if I've got a system of
> distinguishable particles and the energy levels aren't degenerate, the
> single particle partition function Zsp is given by:
>
>
> Zsp = sum( exp( -ei/k.T ) )
>
> where ei is the energy of the energy level i, the sum is over all i
> (i.e. over all energy levels), k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the
> temperature.
>
> Now that seems about as microscopic description of a system as you can
> get. Could you explain why it's not please?
>
> Thanks for your patience!
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/2cface75/attachment-0001.h
tml

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:24:25 -0600
> From: "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done
> for us?
> To: sy at synapse9.com, "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group" <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <e04090490607252124r72642f29q94291ff0f925db69 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Laura:
>
> In the course of your research this summer, have you run across any

examples
> that would suggest some standard (old fashioned?) Project Management
efforts

> (ideally, files) that were created BEFORE the decision was made to invade
> Iraq? You know, a Gantt chart here, a PERT diagram there. Maybe even,
> gasp, a calendar?
>
> -Tom
>
>
>
> To follow on Mike's comments: what SFI, NECSI, UCLA, and other hotbeds of
> > complex thinking have in common is some luxury to consider complexity,
> > modeling, and social evolution, to creatively push the application of
> > complex systems studies to culture and society.
> >
> > And here I go on my soapbox (with apologies to those of you who've heard
> > me
> > rant about this before): what's disturbing is the number of people in
> > government (go figure) who are touting agent based models and complexity
> > as
> > predictive tool and theory, respectively, for making decisions about
> > wickedly complex quagmires in places like... oh, maybe Iraq...? I'm
> > spending the summer studying computational modeling and simulation
> > technologies in the DoD and the level of interest in complexity theory

as
> > the holy grail of social theory is both remarkable and worrisome. This
> > being Washington, I've seen more than a few contractors grabbing at DoD
> > money to get that grail up and running, without considering the manifold
> > issues involved. My Sandia colleague, Tim Trucano, and I are gearing up
to
> > write about this issue and will likely be at FRIAM quite a bit to toss
> > ideas
> > around with y'all.
> >
> > Lurking in the discourse about complexity, computational modeling, and
> > society is epistemological question, I think, that requires us to
consider
> > how we use modeling and simulation tools to produce knowledge about the
> > world we live in. In academia, we have a great deal of latitude in the
> > purpose of knowledge-making activities; we're engaged in discovery over
> > the
> > long run. Inside the Beltway, it's a different story entirely: they want
> > decision tools, and they want them yesterday.
> >
> > Of course, this begs the question of why common sense is so utterly
absent

> > in our nation's fine capitol...
> >
> > Laura
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
> ==========================================
> J. T. Johnson
> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> www.analyticjournalism.com
> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
> http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.com
>
> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> existing model obsolete."
> -- Buckminster Fuller
> ==========================================
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060726/3c5a76d6/attachment-0001.h
tml

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:30:07 -0600
> From: "Robert Holmes" <robert at holmesacosta.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <857770150607252130q1930403nde137ee7ca678aa9 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> OK, I think I'm getting it. It really is down to whether the microlanguage
> is the same as the macrolanguage (no emergence) or different (emergence).
>
> But doesn't that lead to an extraordinarily broad definition of emergence?
> For example, my macrolanguage for describing gravity involves mass and G

and
> inverse square laws. But my microlanguage either involves gravitons (if
I'm
> a particle physicist) or curved spacetime (if I'm a general relativist).
The
> fact that either of these microlanguages give the same results as the
> macrolanguage in the classical limit in no way implies that the micro-and
> macro-languages are the same (exactly as with the micro- and
macro-language
> descriptions of entropy). So gravity is emergent.
>
> So if entropy is emergent and gravity is emergent and any other force
> mediated by a subatomic particle is emergent, just how useful is it to
label

> something 'emergent' in this way? If the definition of emergence is so
> broad, how can we usefully use it?
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> On 7/24/06, Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 06:46:12PM -0600, Robert Holmes wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >One can certainly start from the partition function. But the

partition
> > > >function is something that is additional to the microscopic
> > > >description, hence emergent. Indeed, the partition function is
> > > >different depending on whether you are using microcanonical,
canonical

> > > >or grand canonical ensembles, each of which is a thermodynamic, not
> > > >microscopic concept.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm surprised that you consider the partition function as being "in
> > > addition" to the microscopic description. Is this the common view in
> > > statistical mechanics? Just to be specific, if I've got a system of
> > > distinguishable particles and the energy levels aren't degenerate, the
> > > single particle partition function Zsp is given by:
> > >
> > > Zsp = sum( exp( -ei/k.T ) )
> > > where ei is the energy of the energy level i, the sum is over all i

(i.e

> > .
> > > over all energy levels), k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the
> > > temperature.
> > >
> > > Now that seems about as microscopic description of a system as you can
> > get.
> > > Could you explain why it's not please?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your patience!
> > >
> > > Robert
> >
> > You have just written the canonical partition function. This assumes
> > that the universe is divided into two parts, the system, and its
> > environment, and that these are in thermal contact with each other.
> >
> > If you further assume that particles can move between the system and
> > environment, then you get the grand canonical partition function:
> >
> > Z=\sum_{N=0}^{\infty}\sum_{{n_i}}\prod_i exp(-n_i(E_i-\mu)/kT)
> >
> > These assumptions are not microscopic in nature, but how we choose
> > to divide up physical reality. (The choice is needn't be arbitrary - in
> > most stat phys situations, there is a clear "best choice", and choosing
> > any other way of looking at the system is crazy, but you must
> > recognise that it is still a choice independent of microscopic

dynamics).

> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > --
> > *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> > is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
> > virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
> > email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
> > may safely ignore this attachment.
> >
> >
> >

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> > Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au
> > Australia
> > http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > 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
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060726/ba85b295/attachment.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47
> *************************************

Russell Standish

Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47

Sort of like I say in my paper "The Importance of the Observer in
Science" you mean? Or in my book "Theory of Nothing".

(Assuming I have correctly grokked your word "intensional").

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 10:40:24AM -0400, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> Robert Holmes writes,
>
> "So if entropy is emergent and gravity is emergent and any other force
> mediated by a subatomic particle is emergent, just how useful is it to label
> something 'emergent' in this way? If the definition of emergence is so
> broad, how can we usefully use it?"
>
> SOOOOOOOOOO, this seems to suggest that emergence is one of those
> properties which are not brick wallk properties of the world except in so
> far as they are seen from a particular point of view. I.E, intensional
> properties. (sorry everybody). . But now, like Robert, I am beginning to
> wonder if all properties arent intensional. I mean that was sort of
> Einstein's point, wasnt it? I hate it when words I love and concepts I
> live by suddenly crumble in my hands.
>
> Rushing,
>
> Nick
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> nickthompson at earthlink.net
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson
>

--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au
Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------