Friam Digest, Vol 48, Issue 26

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Friam Digest, Vol 48, Issue 26

Nick Thompson
Merle wrote


> > What's all the fuss about?  Emergence is a property of a system - any
system- resulting from interactions of the constituents following a set of
local rules.


Nick T replies:  

I hate being in the position of defending a fuss, but that seems to be the
position I am in.  A fuss is a  situation in which a whole bunch of people
write "what's the fuss about X?  X is obviously a case of Z!"  Where values
of Z go from Zo to Z infinity and nobody sees any reason to or method by
which to S or have any patience to decide what values of Zi to use, or even
to articulate the differences.  So then we just go merrily along
misunderstanding one another and defending our right to misunderstand.  

So I defend the fuss, because I hope ultimately to get THROUGH it.  But you
as a mediator must know more about this than I do.   I mean, isn't this
sort of like, in a less polarized sort of a way, what happens when
Palestinians and Israelis try to decide what "security" means?  How do we
reach a situation in which every time the word emergence is uttered, we
either have to submit to vagary or down tools for the rest of the day to
try and figure out what the dickens is being said?

Also, there's a fuss because we are HOT here in Santa Fe.  It ill behooves
those basking in the cool of fogshrouded islands to deny us our fuss.

Come Home, Merle!  We need you!

Nick



.  

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:53:57 +1000
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Seminal Papers in Complexity
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <20070620125356.GB1001 at hells-dell.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Then it would be an abuse of terminology. One that would immediately
> mislead the reader, unless you very, very carefully explain that you
> are using nonlinear in an unconventional sense, every single time you
> use the term.
>
> BTW, what exactly do you mean by nonlinear, if not in the sense I
> suggested?
>
> Cheers
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:24:55AM -0600, Michael Agar wrote:
> > Nope, that's not at all what I meant. The centuries old qualitative/
> > quantitative issue, needs revisiting now, but that's a course of  
> > study, not an email.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > When I hear "nonlinear effects of mental health policy" I immediately
> > > think of some variable (eg some measure of social good) that  
> > > depends on
> > > some other variable (eg money) in a nonlinear way (eg social good
> > > varies as the square of money spent).
> > >
> > > Whilst you may be using the term a little imprecisely by not being
> > > quantitative, it is still a perfectly valid use of the term.  
> > > However, if
> > > the above paragraph is not what you mean, then you've immediately lost
> > > one of your readers.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > 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
>
> --
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics                        
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:45:51 -0600
> From: Michael Agar <magar at anth.umd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Seminal Papers in Complexity
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <9510E110-D2C3-4371-878B-6B5A48B8BDF8 at anth.umd.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2007, at 6:53 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > BTW, what exactly do you mean by nonlinear, if not in the sense I
> > suggested?
> >
>
> As described in past posts, that's exactly what I'm trying to figure  
> out--formal math definition doesn't help, metaphorical use too vague.  
> Whatever the solution is, it's likely to be propositional/schematic  
> rather than numeric and involve observer perspective/background  
> knowledge. I'll write more to the list when I think I'm onto a solution.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:45:41 +1000
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence as stop gap
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <20070620144541.GC1001 at hells-dell.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 09:03:55AM -0700, Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> >
> > But, so what?  Taken this way _everything_ is emergent.  I even heard a
> > guy named Terry Bristol claim that the universe is a kind of emergent
> > cycle where the emergent things at the bottom emerge from the emergent
> > things at the top in a kind of ourboros.  And that makes the word
> > "emergent" completely useless.
> >
>
> Only if taken to extremes. Emergence is always relative to a pair of
> models. Since there is no evidence that there is a bedrock of physical
> reductionism, it would seem that all physical phenomena can therefore be
> modelled in such a way that the phenomena in question are emergent.
>
> Yet it is not alway useful to have a pair of models. I have already given
the

> simple archetype of a gravitationally bound pair modelled as point
> masses undergoing Newtonian gavitational attraction. Such a model system
> does not exhibit emergence.
>
> It does mean that emergence is a broader concept than usually
> conceptualised, but I disagree that it is so broad as to be
> useless. Also, there are a number of attempts at refining emergence
> into stronger concepts - eg Bedau's "weak emergence", or Wolfram's
> "computational irreducibility" that go to the heart of your
> criticism. I'm not sure how successful they are, but such is the way
> of philosophical debate.
>
> --
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics                        
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:35:56 -0600
> From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 48, Issue 25
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Message-ID: <380-22007642163556460 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Glenn,
>
> You wrote:
>
> Was that conversation on this list?  I'd like to go back and read it.  A
> > Gmane search turned up nothing.
> >
>
> No, unfortuantely  The Conferesation was at Friday Meeting two weeks ago.
> We have also been working also on a possiblity you raise, that emergence
> might actually be a stage in the transformation of understanding in
PEEPLE.
> A form of surprise:  As, "we say a phenomenon is emergent when what we
know

> about the parts gives us no reason expect the form of the whole".  So
> emegent does refer to something in the world, but only something as seen
> from a particular angle by a person with a particular history.  
>
> am eagerly awaiting the reading of Eric Smith's post which I have not yet
> figured out how to extract from his message.  
>
> Nick
>
>
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:03:55 -0700
> > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence as stop gap
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <46794FEB.9060506 at tempusdictum.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > > any phenomena that we all agreed were cases of emergence.  I began to
> think
> > > we might fail in this way when one of us objected to the example of
> > > Hydrogen, Oxygen making water, which seemed to me about as emergent as
> > > something could get.  At that point, we would still not be skunked,
> because
> >
> > Was that conversation on this list?  I'd like to go back and read it.  A
> > Gmane search turned up nothing.
> >
> > It's odd that one would think of water as emerging from hydrogen and
> > oxygen.  A question for those who believe that is:  "Then does that make
> > all molecules emergent?"  There are plenty of complicated processes that
> > go into the construction of any molecule, many of those are more
> > complicated than water.
> >
> > I suspect the question above will seem to miss the point with many
> > Emergentists (Emergentites?  Emergencies? ... hmmm).  The point being
> > that emergence and perception are intertwined.  Water is perceived in a
> > very different way than masses of hydrogen or oxygen are perceived by
> > humans.  Many people who try to categorize "emergence" will attribute
> > this to some fundamental role of human expectations.  But, I suspect a
> > worm, ant, or tree (were we able to communicate with them) would also
> > grok the difference between water and hydrogen, even without our
> > neocortex.  This leads many others who like to categorize "emergence" to
> > talk of physical states of matter.  Water, in massive aggregation, acts
> > one way.  Water, in isolated molecules, acts another.  Hence "emergence"
> > is defined in terms of some sort of composition operator (e.g.
summation).

> >
> > In the end, it all boils down to whether or not a thing ("water" can be
> > a thing) acts or is acted upon as a unit, distinct from the actions (or
> > reactions) of the things around it or its constituents (water
> > molecules).  Likewise, the water molecule acts different from the other
> > molecules around it and from its constituents.  So, when considering
> > water, there are at least two levels of emergence.
> >
> > But, so what?  Taken this way _everything_ is emergent.  I even heard a
> > guy named Terry Bristol claim that the universe is a kind of emergent
> > cycle where the emergent things at the bottom emerge from the emergent
> > things at the top in a kind of ourboros.  And that makes the word
> > "emergent" completely useless.
> >
> > - --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> > temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin
Franklin

> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFGeU/rZeB+vOTnLkoRAhNTAKCcqrSzOEzUiqcE3gaukqcw6HEA4gCfQOdg
> > off7M1XNCmRaWnxMOBtnZuE=
> > =KWrT
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:24:50 -0600 (MDT)
> > From: Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu>
> > Subject: [FRIAM] reduction and emergence
> > To: friam at redfish.com
> > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0706191718500.19068 at thufir>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Hi Nick and others on this thread,
> >
> > I have been reading this conversation for a while and debating whether
to
> > post anything.  If you will accept the caveat that I am not intending
to
> > address all meanings of the word emergence in all contexts, please feel
> > free to read the attached if you have time to kill.
> >
> > I think there is still some clarity to be gained by understanding
> > carefully the classes of emergent phenomena recognized in statistical
> > mechanics, not because they are representative of everything, but
because
> > they contain enough variation to help us clarify certain aspects of the
> > topic.
> >
> > The main assertion of the attached, which it may be too poorly written
to
> > make obvious, is that the science of emergence should be understood as
an
> > outgrowth of the science of compression, and this is what makes its
> > essence distinct from the particular sciences of many processes to
which

> > the concept can be applied, and also distinct from the enterprise of
> > reductionism (not opposite, but orthogonal).
> >
> > I'm sure lots of people will object to lots of things, but that's okay.
> I
> > don't have any authority, so everyone can use anything or nothing as he
> > chooses.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> > Name: reduction_emergence_MS.pdf
> > Type: application/pdf
> > Size: 164950 bytes
> > Desc:
> > Url :
>
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070619/85bc92fd

> /attachment.pdf
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Friam mailing list
> > Friam at redfish.com
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> >
> >
> > End of Friam Digest, Vol 48, Issue 25
> > *************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:11:30 +1000
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 48, Issue 25
> To: nickthompson at earthlink.net, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <20070621071130.GB1142 at hells-dell.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Edmund Ronald and Moshe Sipper were proposing this back in '99:
>
> @InProceedings{Ronald-etal99,
>   author = {Edmund M. A. Ronald and Moshe Sipper and Mathieu S.
Capcarr\`ere},

>   title = {Testing for Emergence in Artificial Life},
>   crossref = {Floreano-etal99},
>   pages = {13--20}
> }
>
> I don't think it is a true distinguishing characteristic, as an
> emergent property remains emergent, even when it is no longer
> suprising. But, as Ronald, et al point out, it can be a useful test.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 12:35:56AM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > Glenn,
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > Was that conversation on this list?  I'd like to go back and read it.  A
> > > Gmane search turned up nothing.
> > >
> >
> > No, unfortuantely  The Conferesation was at Friday Meeting two weeks
ago.
> > We have also been working also on a possiblity you raise, that emergence
> > might actually be a stage in the transformation of understanding in
PEEPLE.
> > A form of surprise:  As, "we say a phenomenon is emergent when what we
know
> > about the parts gives us no reason expect the form of the whole".  So
> > emegent does refer to something in the world, but only something as seen
> > from a particular angle by a person with a particular history.  
> >
> > am eagerly awaiting the reading of Eric Smith's post which I have not
yet

> > figured out how to extract from his message.  
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:03:55 -0700
> > > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] emergence as stop gap
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > Message-ID: <46794FEB.9060506 at tempusdictum.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > > > any phenomena that we all agreed were cases of emergence.  I began
to
> > think
> > > > we might fail in this way when one of us objected to the example of
> > > > Hydrogen, Oxygen making water, which seemed to me about as emergent
as
> > > > something could get.  At that point, we would still not be skunked,
> > because
> > >
> > > Was that conversation on this list?  I'd like to go back and read it.
A
> > > Gmane search turned up nothing.
> > >
> > > It's odd that one would think of water as emerging from hydrogen and
> > > oxygen.  A question for those who believe that is:  "Then does that
make
> > > all molecules emergent?"  There are plenty of complicated processes
that
> > > go into the construction of any molecule, many of those are more
> > > complicated than water.
> > >
> > > I suspect the question above will seem to miss the point with many
> > > Emergentists (Emergentites?  Emergencies? ... hmmm).  The point being
> > > that emergence and perception are intertwined.  Water is perceived in
a
> > > very different way than masses of hydrogen or oxygen are perceived by
> > > humans.  Many people who try to categorize "emergence" will attribute
> > > this to some fundamental role of human expectations.  But, I suspect a
> > > worm, ant, or tree (were we able to communicate with them) would also
> > > grok the difference between water and hydrogen, even without our
> > > neocortex.  This leads many others who like to categorize "emergence"
to
> > > talk of physical states of matter.  Water, in massive aggregation,
acts
> > > one way.  Water, in isolated molecules, acts another.  Hence
"emergence"
> > > is defined in terms of some sort of composition operator (e.g.
summation).
> > >
> > > In the end, it all boils down to whether or not a thing ("water" can
be
> > > a thing) acts or is acted upon as a unit, distinct from the actions
(or
> > > reactions) of the things around it or its constituents (water
> > > molecules).  Likewise, the water molecule acts different from the
other
> > > molecules around it and from its constituents.  So, when considering
> > > water, there are at least two levels of emergence.
> > >
> > > But, so what?  Taken this way _everything_ is emergent.  I even heard
a
> > > guy named Terry Bristol claim that the universe is a kind of emergent
> > > cycle where the emergent things at the bottom emerge from the emergent
> > > things at the top in a kind of ourboros.  And that makes the word
> > > "emergent" completely useless.
> > >
> > > - --
> > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> > > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> > > temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin
Franklin

> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> > >
> > > iD8DBQFGeU/rZeB+vOTnLkoRAhNTAKCcqrSzOEzUiqcE3gaukqcw6HEA4gCfQOdg
> > > off7M1XNCmRaWnxMOBtnZuE=
> > > =KWrT
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:24:50 -0600 (MDT)
> > > From: Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu>
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] reduction and emergence
> > > To: friam at redfish.com
> > > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0706191718500.19068 at thufir>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > >
> > > Hi Nick and others on this thread,
> > >
> > > I have been reading this conversation for a while and debating
whether to
> > > post anything.  If you will accept the caveat that I am not intending
to
> > > address all meanings of the word emergence in all contexts, please
feel
> > > free to read the attached if you have time to kill.
> > >
> > > I think there is still some clarity to be gained by understanding
> > > carefully the classes of emergent phenomena recognized in statistical
> > > mechanics, not because they are representative of everything, but
because
> > > they contain enough variation to help us clarify certain aspects of
the
> > > topic.
> > >
> > > The main assertion of the attached, which it may be too poorly
written to
> > > make obvious, is that the science of emergence should be understood
as an
> > > outgrowth of the science of compression, and this is what makes its
> > > essence distinct from the particular sciences of many processes to
which
> > > the concept can be applied, and also distinct from the enterprise of
> > > reductionism (not opposite, but orthogonal).
> > >
> > > I'm sure lots of people will object to lots of things, but that's
okay.
> > I
> > > don't have any authority, so everyone can use anything or nothing as
he

> > > chooses.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> > > Name: reduction_emergence_MS.pdf
> > > Type: application/pdf
> > > Size: 164950 bytes
> > > Desc:
> > > Url :
> >
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070619/85bc92fd

> > /attachment.pdf
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Friam mailing list
> > > Friam at redfish.com
> > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > >
> > >
> > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 48, Issue 25
> > > *************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > 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
>
> --
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics                        
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 48, Issue 26
> *************************************