Hello, FRIAM
Locked
 
|
Dear FRIAM...
I'm excited and happy to subscribe to the group. (Thanks for the invite Stephen, - and David.) For many years I have architected and implemented large-scale (mostly Java) enterprise software (applications and systems) for corporations and gov. institutions mostly in North America on behalf of a number of major computer systems vendors (e.g. Sun). However, for the past few years, my passion has turned to the question "Why is the organization and dynamics of living systems so different from those of 'engineered' ones - and why are their systemic properties so much more interesting?" From a practical perspective, I hoped to improve the engineering of large-scale computing systems from this research; but in reality I became fascinated with the theory, and so I had to (lovingly) read lots of books and research articles. Anyway, to drive toward an answer to above question, I have developed a mathematical theory of living and lifelike systems, which I call "Organic Complex Systems". A few months ago I began to write up an overview of the results of my research so far. I am nearing completion of that paper, and intend to publish it on arXiv.org in a couple of months with the hope of getting comments, and hopefully collaborators. BTW, perhaps somewhat more descriptive of this work is the subtitle of this forthcoming paper: "A Comprehensive Theoretical Apparatus for Modelling the Organization and Dynamics of Living and Lifelike Systems". Anyway, these are my immediate interests. I'm looking forward to finding out about yours. Take care, Grant ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Hello Grant,
welcome! Are you related to John H. Holland? You asked an interesting question: "Why is the organization and dynamics of living systems so different from those of 'engineered' ones - and why are their systemic properties so much more interesting?" I would say because living systems are selfish and adaptive, they face the problem of survival every single day, while engineered systems are dumb and brittle, they do only what they are programmed to do, and nothing else. John von Neuman (1903-1957) said "It's very likely that on the basis of the philosophy that every error has to be caught, explained, and corrected, a system of the complexity of the living organism would not run for a millisecond." He argued that living systems are fault-tolerant because they can adapt themselves to errors and changing conditions: "The system is sufficiently flexible and well organized that as soon as an error shows up in any part of it, the system automatically senses whether this error matters or not. If it doesn't matter, the system continues to operate without paying any attention to it. If the error seems to the system to be important, the system blocks that region out, by-passes it, and proceeds along other channels. [...] The duration of operability is determined by the time it takes until so many incurable errors have occurred, so many alterations and permanent by-passes have been made, that finally the operability is really impaired." And he argued that the fundamental difference in the architecture is the ability to (re-)organize itself: "The fact that natural organisms have such a radically different attitude about errors and behave so differently when an error occurs is probably connected with some other traits of natural organisms [...] The ability of a natural organism to survive in spite of a high incidence of error probably requires a very high flexibility and ability of the automaton to watch itself and reorganize itself." Life is an exceptional state characterized by self-* properties: self-reproduction, self-replication, and self-maintenance, in short self-organization. When it comes to large-scale computing systems - think of Google or Amazon - you can discover many of these self-* properties again. They have self-healing, self-monitoring and self-configuring systems. Therefore living systems and large-scale computing systems may not be that different at all, they both require self-* properties, which are inevitable if you want to build really large systems that work. Good luck with your paper, Jochen http://blog.cas-group.net/ ( Quotes are from: John von Neumann, "Theory and Organization of Complicated Automata", 4th Lecture "The Role of High and Extremely High Complication" in John von Neumann on Computing and Computer Theory, Vol. 12 in the Charles Babbage Institute, Reprint Series for the History of Computing Edited by William Aspray and Arthur Burks, The MIT Press, 1987 ) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Holland" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:06 PM Subject: [FRIAM] Hello, FRIAM > Dear FRIAM... > > I'm excited and happy to subscribe to the group. (Thanks for the invite > Stephen, - and David.) For many years I have architected and implemented > large-scale (mostly Java) enterprise software (applications and systems) > for corporations and gov. institutions mostly in North America on behalf > of a number of major computer systems vendors (e.g. Sun). However, for > the past few years, my passion has turned to the question "Why is the > organization and dynamics of living systems so different from those of > 'engineered' ones - and why are their systemic properties so much more > interesting?" From a practical perspective, I hoped to improve the > engineering of large-scale computing systems from this research; but in > reality I became fascinated with the theory, and so I had to (lovingly) > read lots of books and research articles. > > Anyway, to drive toward an answer to above question, I have developed a > mathematical theory of living and lifelike systems, which I call > "Organic Complex Systems". A few months ago I began to write up an > overview of the results of my research so far. I am nearing completion > of that paper, and intend to publish it on arXiv.org in a couple of > months with the hope of getting comments, and hopefully collaborators. > BTW, perhaps somewhat more descriptive of this work is the subtitle of > this forthcoming paper: "A Comprehensive Theoretical Apparatus for > Modelling the Organization and Dynamics of Living and Lifelike Systems". > > Anyway, these are my immediate interests. I'm looking forward to finding > out about yours. > > Take care, > Grant > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Jochen,
You said that "Google or Amazon ... have self-healing, self-monitoring and self-configuring systems." Would you elaborate on what you mean. Do you mean their computer systems or Google and Amazon as corporations? If the former, I'm sure they have redundancy features in their computing networks -- just as the Internet itself has. What else are you thinking of? -- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles Cell phone: 310-621-3805 o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote: Google or Amazon - you can discover many of these self-* properties again. They have self-healing, self-monitoring and self-configuring systems. ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-4
Jochen,
Hello! Thanks for responding. I like your answer, and I also agree. And...I'm actually looking for an answer with the equivalent semantics, but with a more actionable articulation. For now, I've actually found one that I like - and made a theory out of it. :-) And, No, I'm not related to John Holland. However, my first name is also "John" - but I go by my middle name. So I'm John G. Holland, and He's (should I use a capital "H?) John H. Holland. We also have another difference: He claims he cannot define "emergence" satisfactorily; but I claim I can! And I like your quotes from von Neumann. About errors - we all know that without DNA copy errors, there would be no species adaptation and no evolution. So that's another difference: for living systems, errors can be a salvation; for engineered systems they are almost always a problem to be eliminated. Take care, and thanks for the welcome email! Grant Jochen Fromm wrote: > Hello Grant, > > welcome! Are you related to John H. Holland? You asked an interesting > question: "Why is the organization and dynamics of living systems so > different from those of 'engineered' ones - and why are their systemic > properties so much more interesting?" I would say because living > systems are selfish and adaptive, they face the problem of survival > every single day, while engineered > systems are dumb and brittle, they do only what they are programmed to > do, and nothing else. > > John von Neuman (1903-1957) said > "It's very likely that on the basis of the philosophy that every error > has to be caught, explained, and corrected, a system of the complexity > of the living organism would not run for a millisecond." > He argued that living systems are fault-tolerant because they can > adapt themselves to errors and > changing conditions: > > "The system is sufficiently flexible and well organized that as soon > as an error shows up in any part of it, the system automatically > senses whether this error matters or not. If it doesn't matter, the > system continues to operate without paying any attention to it. If the > error seems to the system to be important, the system blocks that > region out, by-passes it, and proceeds along other channels. [...] The > duration of operability is determined by the time it takes until so > many incurable errors have occurred, so many alterations and permanent > by-passes have been made, that finally the operability is really > impaired." > And he argued that the fundamental difference in the > architecture is the ability to (re-)organize itself: > > "The fact that natural organisms have such a radically different > attitude about errors and behave so differently when an error occurs > is probably connected with some other traits of natural organisms > [...] The ability of a natural organism to survive in spite of a high > incidence of error probably requires a very high flexibility and > ability of the automaton to watch itself and reorganize itself." > Life is an exceptional state characterized by self-* properties: > self-reproduction, self-replication, > and self-maintenance, in short self-organization. When it comes to > large-scale computing systems - think of Google or Amazon - you can > discover many of these self-* properties again. They have > self-healing, self-monitoring and self-configuring systems. Therefore > living systems and large-scale computing systems may not be that > different at all, they both require self-* properties, > which are inevitable if you want to build really large systems that work. > > Good luck with your paper, > Jochen > http://blog.cas-group.net/ > > ( Quotes are from: John von Neumann, "Theory and Organization of > Complicated Automata", 4th Lecture "The Role of High and Extremely > High Complication" in John von Neumann on Computing and Computer > Theory, Vol. 12 in the Charles Babbage Institute, Reprint Series for > the History of Computing > Edited by William Aspray and Arthur Burks, > The MIT Press, 1987 ) > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Holland" > <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]> > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:06 PM > Subject: [FRIAM] Hello, FRIAM > > >> Dear FRIAM... >> >> I'm excited and happy to subscribe to the group. (Thanks for the >> invite Stephen, - and David.) For many years I have architected and >> implemented large-scale (mostly Java) enterprise software >> (applications and systems) for corporations and gov. institutions >> mostly in North America on behalf of a number of major computer >> systems vendors (e.g. Sun). However, for the past few years, my >> passion has turned to the question "Why is the organization and >> dynamics of living systems so different from those of 'engineered' >> ones - and why are their systemic properties so much more >> interesting?" From a practical perspective, I hoped to improve the >> engineering of large-scale computing systems from this research; but >> in reality I became fascinated with the theory, and so I had to >> (lovingly) read lots of books and research articles. >> >> Anyway, to drive toward an answer to above question, I have developed >> a mathematical theory of living and lifelike systems, which I call >> "Organic Complex Systems". A few months ago I began to write up an >> overview of the results of my research so far. I am nearing >> completion of that paper, and intend to publish it on arXiv.org in a >> couple of months with the hope of getting comments, and hopefully >> collaborators. BTW, perhaps somewhat more descriptive of this work is >> the subtitle of this forthcoming paper: "A Comprehensive Theoretical >> Apparatus for Modelling the Organization and Dynamics of Living and >> Lifelike Systems". >> >> Anyway, these are my immediate interests. I'm looking forward to >> finding out about yours. >> >> Take care, >> Grant >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
On 25 Feb 2010 at 16:00, Grant Holland wrote, in part:
> And I like your quotes from von Neumann. About errors - we all know that > without DNA copy errors, there would be no species adaptation and no > evolution. So that's another difference: for living systems, errors can > be a salvation given a *whole* lot of time, a *whole* lot of lost investment (that would almost surely be unacceptable to all but the most indulgently- funded engineers), and a definition of "systems" that is probably at least one, maybe two (three?), degrees further up the "levels of organization" hierarchy than any definition of "systems" appropriate here: > for engineered systems they are almost always a problem > to be eliminated. Or so it seems to me (who am no engineer, nor evolutioneer either; comments especially welcome from those who are). Lee Rudolph ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
I mean the former, their computer systems and esp. their huge
data centers ( here is a map of all Google data centers: http://bit.ly/3i4UDw ). If you have so many computers, you must have some form of monitoring system, and ideally you have also some form of self-configuríng and self-healing system which repairs and optimizes itself. As you said, both companies surely have redundancy features in their networks to achieve fault-tolerance and robustness. If I remember it correctly, some of your early papers were about resourceful systems and fault tolerance, are they available somewhere? -J. ----- Original Message ----- From: Russ Abbott To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:42 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Hello, FRIAM Jochen, You said that "Google or Amazon ... have self-healing, self-monitoring and self-configuring systems." Would you elaborate on what you mean. Do you mean their computer systems or Google and Amazon as corporations? If the former, I'm sure they have redundancy features in their computing networks -- just as the Internet itself has. What else are you thinking of? -- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles Cell phone: 310-621-3805 o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Grant Holland
Grant, You have certainly chosen a fascinating and challenging topic --I'm looking forward to seeing the completed paper. I'm a retired mathematician who works in category theory. Recently I have been applying categories to dynamical systems. I have no idea about how to handle a dynamical system that would involve some real evolution of life-like systems, but I'm open to any thoughts about this. --John ________________________________________ From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland [[hidden email]] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 6:00 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Hello, FRIAM Jochen, Hello! Thanks for responding. I like your answer, and I also agree. And...I'm actually looking for an answer with the equivalent semantics, but with a more actionable articulation. For now, I've actually found one that I like - and made a theory out of it. :-) And, No, I'm not related to John Holland. However, my first name is also "John" - but I go by my middle name. So I'm John G. Holland, and He's (should I use a capital "H?) John H. Holland. We also have another difference: He claims he cannot define "emergence" satisfactorily; but I claim I can! And I like your quotes from von Neumann. About errors - we all know that without DNA copy errors, there would be no species adaptation and no evolution. So that's another difference: for living systems, errors can be a salvation; for engineered systems they are almost always a problem to be eliminated. Take care, and thanks for the welcome email! Grant Jochen Fromm wrote: > Hello Grant, > > welcome! Are you related to John H. Holland? You asked an interesting > question: "Why is the organization and dynamics of living systems so > different from those of 'engineered' ones - and why are their systemic > properties so much more interesting?" I would say because living > systems are selfish and adaptive, they face the problem of survival > every single day, while engineered > systems are dumb and brittle, they do only what they are programmed to > do, and nothing else. > > John von Neuman (1903-1957) said > "It's very likely that on the basis of the philosophy that every error > has to be caught, explained, and corrected, a system of the complexity > of the living organism would not run for a millisecond." > He argued that living systems are fault-tolerant because they can > adapt themselves to errors and > changing conditions: > > "The system is sufficiently flexible and well organized that as soon > as an error shows up in any part of it, the system automatically > senses whether this error matters or not. If it doesn't matter, the > system continues to operate without paying any attention to it. If the > error seems to the system to be important, the system blocks that > region out, by-passes it, and proceeds along other channels. [...] The > duration of operability is determined by the time it takes until so > many incurable errors have occurred, so many alterations and permanent > by-passes have been made, that finally the operability is really > impaired." > And he argued that the fundamental difference in the > architecture is the ability to (re-)organize itself: > > "The fact that natural organisms have such a radically different > attitude about errors and behave so differently when an error occurs > is probably connected with some other traits of natural organisms > [...] The ability of a natural organism to survive in spite of a high > incidence of error probably requires a very high flexibility and > ability of the automaton to watch itself and reorganize itself." > Life is an exceptional state characterized by self-* properties: > self-reproduction, self-replication, > and self-maintenance, in short self-organization. When it comes to > large-scale computing systems - think of Google or Amazon - you can > discover many of these self-* properties again. They have > self-healing, self-monitoring and self-configuring systems. Therefore > living systems and large-scale computing systems may not be that > different at all, they both require self-* properties, > which are inevitable if you want to build really large systems that work. > > Good luck with your paper, > Jochen > http://blog.cas-group.net/ > > ( Quotes are from: John von Neumann, "Theory and Organization of > Complicated Automata", 4th Lecture "The Role of High and Extremely > High Complication" in John von Neumann on Computing and Computer > Theory, Vol. 12 in the Charles Babbage Institute, Reprint Series for > the History of Computing > Edited by William Aspray and Arthur Burks, > The MIT Press, 1987 ) > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Holland" > <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]> > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:06 PM > Subject: [FRIAM] Hello, FRIAM > > >> Dear FRIAM... >> >> I'm excited and happy to subscribe to the group. (Thanks for the >> invite Stephen, - and David.) For many years I have architected and >> implemented large-scale (mostly Java) enterprise software >> (applications and systems) for corporations and gov. institutions >> mostly in North America on behalf of a number of major computer >> systems vendors (e.g. Sun). However, for the past few years, my >> passion has turned to the question "Why is the organization and >> dynamics of living systems so different from those of 'engineered' >> ones - and why are their systemic properties so much more >> interesting?" From a practical perspective, I hoped to improve the >> engineering of large-scale computing systems from this research; but >> in reality I became fascinated with the theory, and so I had to >> (lovingly) read lots of books and research articles. >> >> Anyway, to drive toward an answer to above question, I have developed >> a mathematical theory of living and lifelike systems, which I call >> "Organic Complex Systems". A few months ago I began to write up an >> overview of the results of my research so far. I am nearing >> completion of that paper, and intend to publish it on arXiv.org in a >> couple of months with the hope of getting comments, and hopefully >> collaborators. BTW, perhaps somewhat more descriptive of this work is >> the subtitle of this forthcoming paper: "A Comprehensive Theoretical >> Apparatus for Modelling the Organization and Dynamics of Living and >> Lifelike Systems". >> >> Anyway, these are my immediate interests. I'm looking forward to >> finding out about yours. >> >> Take care, >> Grant >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Grant Holland
Hi Grant, and welcome to the group. I too have struggled with complex
enterprise systems and have been intrigued by analogies with natural organisms, although at a very superficial level. Recently I met up with a long lost school buddy who has spent the last 20 years in biology. I have spent the last 20 years in IT (cut to references to Herman Hesse novels involving diverging paths between the priesthood and "worldly" pursuits...whither go I?). Anyway, I mentioned something along the lines about how natural systems seemed more adept at handling complexity. My friend pointed out that natural biological processes are mostly one jury-rigged process built on another with dubious processes often being co-opted for purposes way beyond their original "intent". When I mentioned the apparent longevity if natural systems, my friend pointed out that species regularly become extinct. My friend scoffed at the idea of anything vaguely resembling "intelligent design" which I certainly don't believe in, but which I guess I had come to naively attribute to natural evolutionary processes - probably as a result of wishful thinking. So I'm intrigued by your theory. Do you, as I believed, side with a model in which natural selection leads to elegant solutions. Or is your view more aligned with my friends assertion that the natural outcome of evolution is a ramshackle expression of "good enough" for now. Does a bilogical model of complex IT systems lead to an SAP or a Google? Regards, Saul On Friday, February 26, 2010, Grant Holland <[hidden email]> wrote: > Dear FRIAM... > > I'm excited and happy to subscribe to the group. (Thanks for the invite Stephen, - and David.) For many years I have architected and implemented large-scale (mostly Java) enterprise software (applications and systems) for corporations and gov. institutions mostly in North America on behalf of a number of major computer systems vendors (e.g. Sun). However, for the past few years, my passion has turned to the question "Why is the organization and dynamics of living systems so different from those of 'engineered' ones - and why are their systemic properties so much more interesting?" From a practical perspective, I hoped to improve the engineering of large-scale computing systems from this research; but in reality I became fascinated with the theory, and so I had to (lovingly) read lots of books and research articles. > > Anyway, to drive toward an answer to above question, I have developed a mathematical theory of living and lifelike systems, which I call "Organic Complex Systems". A few months ago I began to write up an overview of the results of my research so far. I am nearing completion of that paper, and intend to publish it on arXiv.org in a couple of months with the hope of getting comments, and hopefully collaborators. BTW, perhaps somewhat more descriptive of this work is the subtitle of this forthcoming paper: "A Comprehensive Theoretical Apparatus for Modelling the Organization and Dynamics of Living and Lifelike Systems". > > Anyway, these are my immediate interests. I'm looking forward to finding out about yours. > > Take care, > Grant > > ============================================================ > 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 > -- Saul Caganoff Enterprise IT Architect Mobile: +61 410 430 809 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scaganoff ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-4
Hi Jochen,
I used to be in charge of deploying and managing international points of presence and content distribution complexes for AOL Time Warner (in Brazil, Western Europe, Japan, China, Australia, et al.), which were basically smaller versions of the colossal data centers that AOL maintained in Northern Virginia. Before Google came along, those NoVA datacenters were the largest in the world. Based on that experience I can confirm your intuitions about the diversity of fault tolerance and adaptation mechanisms in such systems, at least at every level of "resolution" in the physical/operational level. To give just a few examples, Device level: -- With very few exceptions (e.g., except very high speed routing systems), all software processes are built on/using open source components. --> provides for greater flexibility, integration, conservation of programming know-how -- Outside of the same few exceptions, all software runs on top of very inexpensive, compact commodity hardware. --> enables boxes to be repurposed and or replaced relatively quickly and easily Every device embodies some self-diagnostic capability. Functional level: -- All infrastructure is organized into functional "clusters," with each cluster encompassing a relatively complete, self-contained set of elements sufficient to support a fixed quantity of users/service delivery requirements, the size of which is defined based on environmental consideration (e.g., the cost of staff/travel time to deploy, anticipated size/footprint and power availability in commercial data centers, etc.). --> "clusterization" simplifies and standardizes growth, change management, and other adaptive requirements --> also "canalizes" architectural risks and requirements, and simplifies remote management --> cluster-based process encapsulation also provides for reduced vulnerability to "foreign infections," as both lateral and hierarchical interactions between clusters are highly constrained and closely monitored Every cluster also embodies some independent, higher level self-diagnostic and self-correction capabilities. Global/geographic level: -- The physical/topological organization of functional clusters may be highly concentrated or widely distributed, or more often embody a mix of strategies, to better match the diverse environmental opportunities and constraints that are characteristic of different geographic-economic-legal "target markets." --> Topologically proximate distributed clusters are designed to fall back onto each other, so if one fails or has to be temporarily decommissioned for maintenance, the service that it provides is sustained without interruption by another cluster located elsewhere (e.g., a nearby city or country). In the end, however, the design/ers that define the form or ontology that clusterization takes, and that selects the environmental parameters to optimize for, and the overall goals of the system itself, tend to be highly localized and concentrated. As a result, sensory feedback along the external edges of the more remote parts of the system (e.g., suggestions from international partners, recommendations from the international operations manager) are often drowned out by sensory inputs that are received in the immediate proximity of at that decision making core (e.g., budgeting constraints and priorities, demands from investors, "strategic vision" of senior leadership, etc.). It was an amazing job while it lasted ;-) Regards, Tom Vest On Feb 26, 2010, at 3:39 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > I mean the former, their computer systems and esp. their huge > data centers ( here is a map of all Google data centers: http://bit.ly/3i4UDw ). > If you have so many computers, you must have some form of monitoring > system, and ideally you have also some form of self-configuríng and > self-healing system which repairs and optimizes itself. As you said, both > companies surely have redundancy features in their networks to achieve > fault-tolerance and robustness. > > If I remember it correctly, some of your early papers were about > resourceful systems and fault tolerance, are they available somewhere? > > -J. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: Russ Abbott > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:42 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Hello, FRIAM > > > Jochen, > > You said that "Google or Amazon ... have self-healing, self-monitoring and > self-configuring systems." Would you elaborate on what you mean. Do you mean > their computer systems or Google and Amazon as corporations? If the former, > I'm sure they have redundancy features in their computing networks -- just > as the Internet itself has. What else are you thinking of? > > > -- Russ Abbott > _____________________________________________ > Professor, Computer Science > California State University, Los Angeles > Cell phone: 310-621-3805 > o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by John Kennison
John,
Thanks for the encouraging words. I do tend to view the world mathematically - but I also struggle with it. I *wish* I were a real mathematician - but it sounds like you really are one 8-) . I've made a pretty good start at the mathematics I need - but I'm looking forward to your taking a look at it and maybe offering some suggestions. Looking forward to meeting you! Grant John Kennison wrote: Grant, You have certainly chosen a fascinating and challenging topic --I'm looking forward to seeing the completed paper. I'm a retired mathematician who works in category theory. Recently I have been applying categories to dynamical systems. I have no idea about how to handle a dynamical system that would involve some real evolution of life-like systems, but I'm open to any thoughts about this. --John ________________________________________ From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland [[hidden email]] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 6:00 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Hello, FRIAM Jochen, Hello! Thanks for responding. I like your answer, and I also agree. And...I'm actually looking for an answer with the equivalent semantics, but with a more actionable articulation. For now, I've actually found one that I like - and made a theory out of it. :-) And, No, I'm not related to John Holland. However, my first name is also "John" - but I go by my middle name. So I'm John G. Holland, and He's (should I use a capital "H?) John H. Holland. We also have another difference: He claims he cannot define "emergence" satisfactorily; but I claim I can! And I like your quotes from von Neumann. About errors - we all know that without DNA copy errors, there would be no species adaptation and no evolution. So that's another difference: for living systems, errors can be a salvation; for engineered systems they are almost always a problem to be eliminated. Take care, and thanks for the welcome email! Grant Jochen Fromm wrote:Hello Grant, welcome! Are you related to John H. Holland? You asked an interesting question: "Why is the organization and dynamics of living systems so different from those of 'engineered' ones - and why are their systemic properties so much more interesting?" I would say because living systems are selfish and adaptive, they face the problem of survival every single day, while engineered systems are dumb and brittle, they do only what they are programmed to do, and nothing else. John von Neuman (1903-1957) said "It's very likely that on the basis of the philosophy that every error has to be caught, explained, and corrected, a system of the complexity of the living organism would not run for a millisecond." He argued that living systems are fault-tolerant because they can adapt themselves to errors and changing conditions: "The system is sufficiently flexible and well organized that as soon as an error shows up in any part of it, the system automatically senses whether this error matters or not. If it doesn't matter, the system continues to operate without paying any attention to it. If the error seems to the system to be important, the system blocks that region out, by-passes it, and proceeds along other channels. [...] The duration of operability is determined by the time it takes until so many incurable errors have occurred, so many alterations and permanent by-passes have been made, that finally the operability is really impaired." And he argued that the fundamental difference in the architecture is the ability to (re-)organize itself: "The fact that natural organisms have such a radically different attitude about errors and behave so differently when an error occurs is probably connected with some other traits of natural organisms [...] The ability of a natural organism to survive in spite of a high incidence of error probably requires a very high flexibility and ability of the automaton to watch itself and reorganize itself." Life is an exceptional state characterized by self-* properties: self-reproduction, self-replication, and self-maintenance, in short self-organization. When it comes to large-scale computing systems - think of Google or Amazon - you can discover many of these self-* properties again. They have self-healing, self-monitoring and self-configuring systems. Therefore living systems and large-scale computing systems may not be that different at all, they both require self-* properties, which are inevitable if you want to build really large systems that work. Good luck with your paper, Jochen http://blog.cas-group.net/ ( Quotes are from: John von Neumann, "Theory and Organization of Complicated Automata", 4th Lecture "The Role of High and Extremely High Complication" in John von Neumann on Computing and Computer Theory, Vol. 12 in the Charles Babbage Institute, Reprint Series for the History of Computing Edited by William Aspray and Arthur Burks, The MIT Press, 1987 ) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Holland" [hidden email] To: [hidden email] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:06 PM Subject: [FRIAM] Hello, FRIAMDear FRIAM... I'm excited and happy to subscribe to the group. (Thanks for the invite Stephen, - and David.) For many years I have architected and implemented large-scale (mostly Java) enterprise software (applications and systems) for corporations and gov. institutions mostly in North America on behalf of a number of major computer systems vendors (e.g. Sun). However, for the past few years, my passion has turned to the question "Why is the organization and dynamics of living systems so different from those of 'engineered' ones - and why are their systemic properties so much more interesting?" From a practical perspective, I hoped to improve the engineering of large-scale computing systems from this research; but in reality I became fascinated with the theory, and so I had to (lovingly) read lots of books and research articles. Anyway, to drive toward an answer to above question, I have developed a mathematical theory of living and lifelike systems, which I call "Organic Complex Systems". A few months ago I began to write up an overview of the results of my research so far. I am nearing completion of that paper, and intend to publish it on arXiv.org in a couple of months with the hope of getting comments, and hopefully collaborators. BTW, perhaps somewhat more descriptive of this work is the subtitle of this forthcoming paper: "A Comprehensive Theoretical Apparatus for Modelling the Organization and Dynamics of Living and Lifelike Systems". Anyway, these are my immediate interests. I'm looking forward to finding out about yours. Take care, Grant ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by scaganoff
Saul,
I have a great deal of sympathy for your friend's point of view. Of course, his view derives from an engineering-centric valuation - so his deck is stacked. Nature squirms around all over the place doing every possible thing just to persist. But the "deck" (the second law) is stacked *against* it. So nature goes around "cheating" all over the place - and dying (extinction) all over the place, but hanging on anyway just because "at least one" strain perpetuates - maybe because of its "inelegance", rather than in spite of it. I see no reason to expect the persistence to last forever - but what a ride! And there is a lot of "luck" involved. Organic Complex Systems postulates that a dance between randomness and determinism is essential to lifelikeness - neither totally dominates. The dynamic spectrum between them is king. (Yes, I have a measure for this.) I do not see *intention* (or any other teleological ideas) evident at the origins of life - or in the foundations of "lifelikeness". The "magic" to me is that really fancy systemic properties such as intention, "intelligence" and others arise as emergent properties at high levels of organization atop deeply-nested systemics. But, my theory is not science - it is mathematics. It is a theoretical model that can hopefully be applied to disparate, and even contending, scientific theories of life. Think of differential equations or nonlinear dynamics: they can be used to model scientific theories that disagree with each other. In some ways, Organic Complex Systems is an alternative modelling paradigm to nonlinear dynamics - at least as they apply to "the living". Grant Saul Caganoff wrote: Hi Grant, and welcome to the group. I too have struggled with complex enterprise systems and have been intrigued by analogies with natural organisms, although at a very superficial level. Recently I met up with a long lost school buddy who has spent the last 20 years in biology. I have spent the last 20 years in IT (cut to references to Herman Hesse novels involving diverging paths between the priesthood and "worldly" pursuits...whither go I?). Anyway, I mentioned something along the lines about how natural systems seemed more adept at handling complexity. My friend pointed out that natural biological processes are mostly one jury-rigged process built on another with dubious processes often being co-opted for purposes way beyond their original "intent". When I mentioned the apparent longevity if natural systems, my friend pointed out that species regularly become extinct. My friend scoffed at the idea of anything vaguely resembling "intelligent design" which I certainly don't believe in, but which I guess I had come to naively attribute to natural evolutionary processes - probably as a result of wishful thinking. So I'm intrigued by your theory. Do you, as I believed, side with a model in which natural selection leads to elegant solutions. Or is your view more aligned with my friends assertion that the natural outcome of evolution is a ramshackle expression of "good enough" for now. Does a bilogical model of complex IT systems lead to an SAP or a Google? Regards, Saul On Friday, February 26, 2010, Grant Holland [hidden email] wrote:Dear FRIAM... I'm excited and happy to subscribe to the group. (Thanks for the invite Stephen, - and David.) For many years I have architected and implemented large-scale (mostly Java) enterprise software (applications and systems) for corporations and gov. institutions mostly in North America on behalf of a number of major computer systems vendors (e.g. Sun). However, for the past few years, my passion has turned to the question "Why is the organization and dynamics of living systems so different from those of 'engineered' ones - and why are their systemic properties so much more interesting?" From a practical perspective, I hoped to improve the engineering of large-scale computing systems from this research; but in reality I became fascinated with the theory, and so I had to (lovingly) read lots of books and research articles. Anyway, to drive toward an answer to above question, I have developed a mathematical theory of living and lifelike systems, which I call "Organic Complex Systems". A few months ago I began to write up an overview of the results of my research so far. I am nearing completion of that paper, and intend to publish it on arXiv.org in a couple of months with the hope of getting comments, and hopefully collaborators. BTW, perhaps somewhat more descriptive of this work is the subtitle of this forthcoming paper: "A Comprehensive Theoretical Apparatus for Modelling the Organization and Dynamics of Living and Lifelike Systems". Anyway, these are my immediate interests. I'm looking forward to finding out about yours. Take care, Grant ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Saul asked: "Do you, as I believed, side with a model in which natural selection leads to elegant solutions. Or is your view more aligned with my friends assertion that the natural
outcome of evolution is a ramshackle expression of "good enough" for now." I'm going to jump in here and go with "good enough for now." Nature pretty much grabs anything that can be useful, which leads to some fascinating combinations. But I hasten to mention that this evolutionary pressure to survive - to maintain a high level of efficiency - often leads to elegant solutions. That's the coolest part, in my opinion.
Welcome, Grant, from a part time lurker/poster. -Ted
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Grant Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ 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 |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Grant Holland
On Feb 25, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Grant Holland wrote:
> Dear FRIAM... > > I'm excited and happy to subscribe to the group. (Thanks for the > invite Stephen, - and David.) For many years I have architected and > implemented large-scale (mostly Java) enterprise software > (applications and systems) for corporations and gov. institutions > mostly in North America on behalf of a number of major computer > systems vendors (e.g. Sun). ... Hi Grant, sorry to be so late responding. I was at Sun as well, I suspect our paths crossed. http://backspaces.net/ I'm taking CS500 at UNM this semester, and Cris Moore, the prof and SFI faculty member made an interesting comment: We find in physics that the simplest, most beautiful solutions are the most likely to be correct, almost as if there were a wonderful, elegant designer behind things. While in constructed things, like computer science, we often find the reverse: they are very hard to understand and often the best solutions have an Advisory trying to make a worst case solution intractable. Apologies to Cris for the misquoting, but an interesting thought. Are you here in Santa Fe? Linkedin has a profile including Grant Holland & Associates. If so, you may be interested in the SFComplex: http://sfcomplex.org where a lot of complexity goes on! -- Owen On Feb 25, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Grant Holland wrote: > Dear FRIAM... > > I'm excited and happy to subscribe to the group. (Thanks for the > invite Stephen, - and David.) For many years I have architected and > implemented large-scale (mostly Java) enterprise software > (applications and systems) for corporations and gov. institutions > mostly in North America on behalf of a number of major computer > systems vendors (e.g. Sun). ============================================================ 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 |
Aesthetics of physics [was "Hello"]
|
|
In reply to this post by Grant Holland
Owen hath stateth, that Dr. Moore stateth:
"in physics that the simplest, most beautiful solutions are the most likely to be correct, almost as if there were a wonderful, elegant designer behind things." Owen, My philosophy of pedagogy leads me to suspect that Dr. Moore is missing a critical element of the picture. I suspect that a big part of professionalization in any higher education context is aesthetic training, in which one learns to find certain types of things as beautiful and simple (including, for example, that simple is beautiful). I think one would be hard pressed to convince a layman that Newtonian physics was somehow simpler or more beautiful than the Aristotelian variety. Is 12-dimensional super-string theory really "simple" by any standards? Surely, the answer is "yes", by the standards some physicists have been trained to see. So, I would posit the opposite causal order: There is something about the training of physicists, which leads them to see things that are true as both simple and beautiful. I also posit that Thus there IS a necessary designed, but it is not an all-powerful who designs the world, it is somewhat powerful set of designers (often referred to as "faculty") who design the observer. I have a hunch this overlaps with the discussion the "mathematical thinking" group is having. Just some near idle speculation, Eric On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 12:50 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric CharlesOn Feb 25, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Grant Holland wrote: Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Owen,
Great to hear from you. I've been hearing about you for years everywhere from SFI to SFC, but alas our paths have not yet crossed. I may have come to Sun (1999) a little after you left, from what our mutual acquaintance Jan (also a Sun alumnus) has told me of the history of things. I joined the FRIAM alias because of a suggestion from Stephen Guerin - as I have recently discovered the delights of SFC. (Also David West suggested FRIAM to me this year at OOPSLA.) Yes, I've been back here in Santa Fe since '05. (Also lived here in the early 80's.) And, I am on LinkedIn as 'Grant Holland and Associates'. Tryin' to do that consulting thang. Same thing I did at Sun for a decade - design and build large-scale enterprise (Java) applications and infrastructure systems for mostly F500 companies and biggov institutions. Don't know if there's a whole lot of that around here - except for maybe the labs. Likely, my opptys will come from where they always have - the coasts. And I took a look at your website. Your 'Math typesetting' July 2008 blog made my day! and was worth the entire cost of the visit! I definitely need that. I liked your quote from Chris Moore. I never could buy all that Occam's razor stuff anyway! >:o Hope to finally meet you face-to-face - maybe at one of the SFs, or at FRIAM. Take care, Grant Owen Densmore wrote: > On Feb 25, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Grant Holland wrote: >> Dear FRIAM... >> >> I'm excited and happy to subscribe to the group. (Thanks for the >> invite Stephen, - and David.) For many years I have architected and >> implemented large-scale (mostly Java) enterprise software >> (applications and systems) for corporations and gov. institutions >> mostly in North America on behalf of a number of major computer >> systems vendors (e.g. Sun). > ... > > Hi Grant, sorry to be so late responding. I was at Sun as well, I > suspect our paths crossed. http://backspaces.net/ > > I'm taking CS500 at UNM this semester, and Cris Moore, the prof and > SFI faculty member made an interesting comment: > > We find in physics that the simplest, most beautiful solutions are the > most likely to be correct, almost as if there were a wonderful, > elegant designer behind things. While in constructed things, like > computer science, we often find the reverse: they are very hard to > understand and often the best solutions have an Advisory trying to > make a worst case solution intractable. > > Apologies to Cris for the misquoting, but an interesting thought. > > Are you here in Santa Fe? Linkedin has a profile including Grant > Holland & Associates. If so, you may be interested in the SFComplex: > http://sfcomplex.org where a lot of complexity goes on! > > -- Owen > > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Grant Holland wrote: >> Dear FRIAM... >> >> I'm excited and happy to subscribe to the group. (Thanks for the >> invite Stephen, - and David.) For many years I have architected and >> implemented large-scale (mostly Java) enterprise software >> (applications and systems) for corporations and gov. institutions >> mostly in North America on behalf of a number of major computer >> systems vendors (e.g. Sun). > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |