Friam

IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Classic

List

Threaded

138 messages Options

1234567

Steve Smith

Graph/Network discursion.

Glen -

At the risk of boring the rest of the crowd silly, I'd be interested in
hearing more about the kinds of graphs you would like to talk about. I
agree that Partially Ordered Sets are a (relatively) special case.

My interest is in the structure/function duality, more in topological
than geometric structure. I've read D'Arcy Thompson (no relation Nick?)
but not studied him closely, and I defer for my intuition to Christopher
Alexander (A Pattern Language) for high-dimensional graph-relations in a
real-world (human-built environments) context I can relate to.

Perhaps I'm more interested in Networks, though I'd like to ask the
naive question of how folks here distinguish the two... I tend to think
of Networks as Graphs with flows along edges. I think in terms of
multi-graphs (allowing multiple edges between nodes) or more precisely,
edges with multiple strengths/lengths/flows or more precisely yet I
think, with vector properties on edges...

- Steve

On 6/9/17 9:05 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:
> Because, as Steve rightly pointed out with that Joslyn paper, the point is the extent to which the system submits to ordering. A strict hierarchy (levels, like I think EricS drew) submits to a total order, whereas a brranching hierarchy (still levels) submits to a partial order. Graphs work, but not as analogy, per se ... more like exact representations. The kinds of graphs I'd like to talk about don't (necessarily) submit to ordering, even partial ordering. (no levels) It would be more complete to say that any "ordering" would be more complicated than simple relations like ≥ or ≤.
>
> On 06/08/2017 09:48 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Why does there need to be any spatial property? Why not a graph?
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Graph/Network discursion.

I'm not entirely sure to be honest. But I know they must contain cycles. So DAGs are inadequate, hence my revulsion at the word "level".

On June 9, 2017 12:37:39 PM PDT, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Glen -
>
>At the risk of boring the rest of the crowd silly, I'd be interested in
>
>hearing more about the kinds of graphs you would like to talk about.
>I
>agree that Partially Ordered Sets are a (relatively) special case.
>
>My interest is in the structure/function duality, more in topological
>than geometric structure. I've read D'Arcy Thompson (no relation
>Nick?)
>but not studied him closely, and I defer for my intuition to
>Christopher
>Alexander (A Pattern Language) for high-dimensional graph-relations in
>a
>real-world (human-built environments) context I can relate to.
>
>Perhaps I'm more interested in Networks, though I'd like to ask the
>naive question of how folks here distinguish the two... I tend to think
>
>of Networks as Graphs with flows along edges. I think in terms of
>multi-graphs (allowing multiple edges between nodes) or more precisely,
>
>edges with multiple strengths/lengths/flows or more precisely yet I
>think, with vector properties on edges...

--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

In reply to this post by gepr

Sorry. Slip of the "pen". Layers it is.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Ha! I don't know if this is fun or not. But you are making me giggle. So that's good. 8^)

On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> But wait a minute! Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?

I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and Robert. But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of context. Onions are definitely not metaphors. When you bit into one, your body reacts. To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you bite into a metaphor.

>In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in mind?

The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation. We could also use Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.

>If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or whatever) are onion-like?

Sheesh. I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level". That's all I'm doing. Maybe you're too smart for your own good. I don't care about ANYTHING else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks. Stop using it.

> Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural selection) seriously enough.

Yes, I know. That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer is better than level.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Steve Smith

Re: Graph/Network discursion.

In reply to this post by gepr

OK, we can hold off on beating this horse until a more specific and
relevant example arrives on the scene, then we can lead him to water and
hold him under whether he drinks or not.!

On 6/9/17 1:56 PM, gepr ⛧ wrote:

> I'm not entirely sure to be honest. But I know they must contain cycles. So DAGs are inadequate, hence my revulsion at the word "level".
>
> On June 9, 2017 12:37:39 PM PDT, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Glen -
>>
>> At the risk of boring the rest of the crowd silly, I'd be interested in
>>
>> hearing more about the kinds of graphs you would like to talk about.
>> I
>> agree that Partially Ordered Sets are a (relatively) special case.
>>
>> My interest is in the structure/function duality, more in topological
>> than geometric structure. I've read D'Arcy Thompson (no relation
>> Nick?)
>> but not studied him closely, and I defer for my intuition to
>> Christopher
>> Alexander (A Pattern Language) for high-dimensional graph-relations in
>> a
>> real-world (human-built environments) context I can relate to.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm more interested in Networks, though I'd like to ask the
>> naive question of how folks here distinguish the two... I tend to think
>>
>> of Networks as Graphs with flows along edges. I think in terms of
>> multi-graphs (allowing multiple edges between nodes) or more precisely,
>>
>> edges with multiple strengths/lengths/flows or more precisely yet I
>> think, with vector properties on edges...

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Steve Smith

Re: Graph/Network discursion.

Not quite letting this drowning horse gurgle in peace, I realized that I
brought up the Ontology/Joslyn paper because of the Ontology issue and
alignment/resolution of Lexicons (or more apropos Ontologies).

The Gene Ontology was chosen for this project because it was one of the
more mature back in 2006 or 7, and had been formed by a committee of
concerned/stakeholder parties. It was known to be full of compromises
and half-truths. I was very interested (in spite of it being outside of
my purview) in the question of how to explicitely *superpose* multiple
graphs/networks, and in particular ontologies, rather than try to
*compose* and then resolve the contradictions among them. It is
ancient enough work that I don't remember exactly what I was thinking,
but it was revisited in the Faceted Ontology work in 2010ish... but
that was MUCH more speculative since we didn't actually HAVE a specific
ontology to work with. "If we had some rope, we could make a log
raft.... if we had some logs!"

I sense that both you (Glen) and Marcus have your own work (or
avocational) experience with ontologies and I'm sure there are others
here. For me it is both about knowledge representation/manipulation AND
collaborative knowledge building which is what I *think* Nick is going
on about, and what is implied in our bandying about of "concept/mind
mapping".

On 6/9/17 2:29 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

> OK, we can hold off on beating this horse until a more specific and
> relevant example arrives on the scene, then we can lead him to water
> and hold him under whether he drinks or not.!
>
>
> On 6/9/17 1:56 PM, gepr ⛧ wrote:
>> I'm not entirely sure to be honest. But I know they must contain
>> cycles. So DAGs are inadequate, hence my revulsion at the word "level".
>>
>> On June 9, 2017 12:37:39 PM PDT, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> Glen -
>>>
>>> At the risk of boring the rest of the crowd silly, I'd be interested in
>>>
>>> hearing more about the kinds of graphs you would like to talk about.
>>> I
>>> agree that Partially Ordered Sets are a (relatively) special case.
>>>
>>> My interest is in the structure/function duality, more in topological
>>> than geometric structure. I've read D'Arcy Thompson (no relation
>>> Nick?)
>>> but not studied him closely, and I defer for my intuition to
>>> Christopher
>>> Alexander (A Pattern Language) for high-dimensional graph-relations in
>>> a
>>> real-world (human-built environments) context I can relate to.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I'm more interested in Networks, though I'd like to ask the
>>> naive question of how folks here distinguish the two... I tend to think
>>>
>>> of Networks as Graphs with flows along edges. I think in terms of
>>> multi-graphs (allowing multiple edges between nodes) or more precisely,
>>>
>>> edges with multiple strengths/lengths/flows or more precisely yet I
>>> think, with vector properties on edges...
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

Steve Smith

Re: Graph/Network discursion.

Given that we have been splitting hairs on terminology, I wanted to at least OPEN the topic that has been grazed over and over, and that is the distinction between Model, Metaphor, and Analogy.

I specifically mean

I don't know if this narrows it down enough to discuss but I think these three terms have been bandied about loosely and widely enough lately to deserve a little more explication?

I could rattle on for pages about my own usage/opinions/distinctions but trust that would just pollute a thread before it had a chance to start, if start it can.

A brief Google Search gave me THIS reference which looks promising, but as usual, I'm not willing to go past a paywall or beg a colleague/institution for access (I know LANL's reference library will probably get this for me if I go in there!).

http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631221081_chunk_g97806312210818

Steve Smith

Model, Metaphor, Analogy

I meant to spawn a fresh proto-thread here, sorry.

Given that we have been splitting hairs on terminology, I wanted to at least OPEN the topic that has been grazed over and over, and that is the distinction between Model, Metaphor, and Analogy.

I specifically mean

Mathematical Model

Conceptual Metaphor

Formal Analogy

I don't know if this narrows it down enough to discuss but I think these three terms have been bandied about loosely and widely enough lately to deserve a little more explication?

I could rattle on for pages about my own usage/opinions/distinctions but trust that would just pollute a thread before it had a chance to start, if start it can.

A brief Google Search gave me THIS reference which looks promising, but as usual, I'm not willing to go past a paywall or beg a colleague/institution for access (I know LANL's reference library will probably get this for me if I go in there!).

http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631221081_chunk_g97806312210818
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Graph/Network discursion.

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Yes, absolutely! The arguments about the ambiguity of terms like complex, model, layer, and the capitalization of words in programming languages fall squarely in the ontologies domain. And that means they fall under graph and network theory, though I think "labelled transition systems" might be better.

The trouble with reduction to a unified ontology is also critical, because I think the majority of the problem we're struggling with (writ large) is reductionism, or more generally, monism/non-duality. I think Aaronson makes the point nicely here:

Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t)
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3294

In microcosm, Nick's _latch_ onto the onion as metaphor for unorderable complexes is a symptom of the underlying problem that we use language (or conceptual structures) according to our temporally- and proximally-bound _purpose_. Anyone who claims to work only with some sort of universal, Platonic truth is delusional or disingenuous. A unification of that language is not only impossible, but if it were possible, it would be a kind of order-death (opposite of heat death). Perfect and universal normalization to a single norm would paralyze us all.

But, obviously given my crybaby tantrum about "level" vs. "layer", I believe _some_ resolution/alignment of language is necessary for any sort of progress/produce. To me, a collaboratively produced document about complexity that comes from a small subset of this community that intuitively agrees already, with no friction in the process, would be a useless "yet another jargonal paper about complexity".

So far, the useful friction I see is:

Russ: information is required
Stephen: nearly any physical system squeezed in the right way
Nick: gen-phen map
Eric: cumulative hierarchy

I don't think pressurizing this plurality into a unified "system of thought" will produce anything interesting. But I _do_ think allowing them to flower/flesh out from a bare, common skeleton would be interesting _IF_ the fleshing out didn't lose the skeleton amongst the flowers or lose the flowers by over-emphasizing the skeleton.

On June 9, 2017 1:49:45 PM PDT, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

>... how to explicitely *superpose* multiple
>graphs/networks, and in particular ontologies, rather than try to
>*compose* and then resolve the contradictions among them. It is
>ancient enough work that I don't remember exactly what I was thinking,
>but it was revisited in the Faceted Ontology work in 2010ish... but
>that was MUCH more speculative since we didn't actually HAVE a specific
>
>ontology to work with. "If we had some rope, we could make a log
>raft.... if we had some logs!"
>
>I sense that both you (Glen) and Marcus have your own work (or
>avocational) experience with ontologies and I'm sure there are others
>here. For me it is both about knowledge representation/manipulation
>AND
>collaborative knowledge building which is what I *think* Nick is going
>on about, and what is implied in our bandying about of "concept/mind
>mapping".

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Vladimyr Burachynsky

Re: IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.

I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from an Advanced Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used by people.

Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to analyze why something failed and killed good people.
The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger condiment but one must specify which context before
breaking into a brawl.

We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.

Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots. Matrix Stacking was the key procedure we used.
In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the social norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a biological analogue.

The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my third language so I am not so biased about some words
as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot redistribute stress.

Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D images to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.

But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to try and explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
seem to be punching in the right direction. I ran into a problem with some of my code that was wholly unexpected and it actually
was the circularity condition. You had to view it from a certain location to see the Circularity , anywhere else you would see either columns or helices.

I had not specifically written the code to do any of these, my brain was jumping to conclusions. I had the code on one screen and the graphics running beside on the left.

I had to spend hours staring and watching my own brain fight over which reality to accept. Evolution has left us many peculiar brain structures that were once useful but now
a hindrance.

Complexity may be real, but it may also be an unnatural effort for some brains. Words are nearly useless in this arena. So well maybe are the 2D excel charts. Steve may just be accidentally
flattering my interests having recently been reading up on Graph Theory. Indeed I wonder about Nodes and unusual valences. To illustrate my own bent mental models I used
my mental models to write code and translate a Stack of Rectangular Matrices (6 in total) 28 rows and 162 columns Each represents a Self Avoiding walk neither Eulerian or Hamiltonian,
or a little of each since I work in 3D at least. I did the unthinkable... I connected Nodes to Nodes of different Matrices, then I purged nodes only connected to those of each sheet. What remained
I plotted as surfaces in 3D. Then I converted these vertex positions into Object files .obj which now can be printed by 3D printers when scaled properly. So there gentleman I can now print my
Mad Mental Models but that is just the beginning I have established a methodology to distinguish rigid Body Motion from Growth and present them simultaneously. But now it get`s very weird,
To see the growth I had to do much fiddling with code. The growth must be synchronized to the frame rate of the display. Or to my brain throughput capacity.
I have seen great Hollywood animations and may have repeated what is already well known but generally out of reach for academics. I use Processing to display these moving 3D objects with some difficulty
but it does work.

So take a look you may have to download

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkyNFoHD7DbjevjZM

This Flower is the intersection of 5 Self Avoiding Walk Graphs in 3D space, each Matrix is tubular they are nested inside each other as like a Russian Doll.
Not an Onion .I applied a growth factor to a single region of the fifth matrix while moving the entire structure via rotation. Examination of any single Matrix would
never reveal the existence of the whole entity but a combination of any two would give the wrong conclusion but only some vague insight that something exists but not what it is.
Oh each frame is a complete 3D structure so this may mean the video is 4D yet you are seeing it on a 2D display device pretty good for a geezer.
Next each edge needs to be given some material properties amenable to change perhaps based on proximity.

I suppose any man that goes this far must be quite Mad Indeed , but I hope it helps keep us engaged and civil.
It looks like it may be possible to target each region with unique Growth Factors or engineering properties.

I hope this qualifies as useful.
vib

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: June-09-17 3:02 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Sorry. Slip of the "pen". Layers it is.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Ha! I don't know if this is fun or not. But you are making me giggle. So that's good. 8^)

On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> But wait a minute! Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?

I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and Robert. But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of context. Onions are definitely not metaphors. When you bit into one, your body reacts. To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you bite into a metaphor.

>In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in mind?

The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation. We could also use Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.

>If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or whatever) are onion-like?

Sheesh. I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level". That's all I'm doing. Maybe you're too smart for your own good. I don't care about ANYTHING else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks. Stop using it.

> Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural selection) seriously enough.

Yes, I know. That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer is better than level.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Steve Smith

Re: Graph/Network discursion.

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen -

Thanks for the complementary concept of "labelled transition systems"
(generalization of "state diagram"?) to juxtapose with Graph and Network.
> The trouble with reduction to a unified ontology is also critical, because I think the majority of the problem we're struggling with (writ large) is reductionism, or more generally, monism/non-duality. I think Aaronson makes the point nicely here:
>
> Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t)
> http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3294
I'm wading... it is a rich soup.
>
> In microcosm, Nick's _latch_ onto the onion as metaphor for unorderable complexes is a symptom of the underlying problem that we use language (or conceptual structures) according to our temporally- and proximally-bound _purpose_.
A long-winded phrase for "context"?
> Anyone who claims to work only with some sort of universal, Platonic truth is delusional or disingenuous. A unification of that language is not only impossible, but if it were possible, it would be a kind of order-death (opposite of heat death). Perfect and universal normalization to a single norm would paralyze us all.
I intuitively resonate with this but can't quite render it all down to
something fully rational.
>
> But, obviously given my crybaby tantrum about "level" vs. "layer", I believe _some_ resolution/alignment of language is necessary for any sort of progress/produce. To me, a collaboratively produced document about complexity that comes from a small subset of this community that intuitively agrees already, with no friction in the process, would be a useless "yet another jargonal paper about complexity".
>
> So far, the useful friction I see is:
>
> Russ: information is required
> Stephen: nearly any physical system squeezed in the right way
> Nick: gen-phen map
> Eric: cumulative hierarchy
Wow! I wish I could pull that out of the discussion so easily. I'd
have a hard enough time validating (or refuting) this synopsis... but it
is helpful that you offer it.
>
> I don't think pressurizing this plurality into a unified "system of thought" will produce anything interesting. But I _do_ think allowing them to flower/flesh out from a bare, common skeleton would be interesting _IF_ the fleshing out didn't lose the skeleton amongst the flowers or lose the flowers by over-emphasizing the skeleton.
Metaphors abound... maybe a rough allegorical analogy to Russ's original
question might be "do all useful/interesting metaphors ultimately ground
out in biology?" I think Lakoff and Nunez might suggest so via their
"Embodiment of Mind" arguments?!

buh!
- Steve

>
>
> On June 9, 2017 1:49:45 PM PDT, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> ... how to explicitely *superpose* multiple
>> graphs/networks, and in particular ontologies, rather than try to
>> *compose* and then resolve the contradictions among them. It is
>> ancient enough work that I don't remember exactly what I was thinking,
>> but it was revisited in the Faceted Ontology work in 2010ish... but
>> that was MUCH more speculative since we didn't actually HAVE a specific
>>
>> ontology to work with. "If we had some rope, we could make a log
>> raft.... if we had some logs!"
>>
>> I sense that both you (Glen) and Marcus have your own work (or
>> avocational) experience with ontologies and I'm sure there are others
>> here. For me it is both about knowledge representation/manipulation
>> AND
>> collaborative knowledge building which is what I *think* Nick is going
>> on about, and what is implied in our bandying about of "concept/mind
>> mapping".
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

Steve Smith

Re: IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

In reply to this post by Vladimyr Burachynsky

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very
motivated, though I can't articulate why. I suppose because it has some
connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is
structurally similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer"
which connotes the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata.
I'm not sure I know how to think about ply which seems to be derived
from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small
number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?

The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems
like strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for
that, but I can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what
you were trying to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a
redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include
engineering/mechanical stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even
semantic stresses in a concept graph/network) ?

As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your
affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits. Not all concepts ground
directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex
metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object
(more to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space
using geometric primitives?)

I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as
animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D
spatial reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with
topological reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics
might simply be a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is
primarily topological, though in a somewhat degenerate fashion. I used
to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I
suspect the most interesting code might very well be so arbitrarily
complex as to deserve that term. I understand that taking (otherwise)
simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with
jumps/goto's is pathological.

I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description
of your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and
Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?). I will attempt to parse more of this
and respond under separate cover.

Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my
own petard here!

- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:

> Nicholas,
> I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.
>
> I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from an Advanced Composite Engineering view point.
> It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were using various materials and filament
> winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to describe an entity with specific material properties.
> When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was composed of any number of lamina
> having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
> structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
> very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
> with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used by people.
>
> Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to analyze why something failed and killed good people.
> The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger condiment but one must specify which context before
> breaking into a brawl.
>
> We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.
>
> Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots. Matrix Stacking was the key procedure we used.
> In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the social norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
> never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a biological analogue.
>
> The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my third language so I am not so biased about some words
> as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
> in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot redistribute stress.
>
> Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D images to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.
>
> But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to try and explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
> seem to be punching in the right direction. I ran into a problem with some of my code that was wholly unexpected and it actually
> was the circularity condition. You had to view it from a certain location to see the Circularity , anywhere else you would see either columns or helices.
>
> I had not specifically written the code to do any of these, my brain was jumping to conclusions. I had the code on one screen and the graphics running beside on the left.
>
> I had to spend hours staring and watching my own brain fight over which reality to accept. Evolution has left us many peculiar brain structures that were once useful but now
> a hindrance.
>
> Complexity may be real, but it may also be an unnatural effort for some brains. Words are nearly useless in this arena. So well maybe are the 2D excel charts. Steve may just be accidentally
> flattering my interests having recently been reading up on Graph Theory. Indeed I wonder about Nodes and unusual valences. To illustrate my own bent mental models I used
> my mental models to write code and translate a Stack of Rectangular Matrices (6 in total) 28 rows and 162 columns Each represents a Self Avoiding walk neither Eulerian or Hamiltonian,
> or a little of each since I work in 3D at least. I did the unthinkable... I connected Nodes to Nodes of different Matrices, then I purged nodes only connected to those of each sheet. What remained
> I plotted as surfaces in 3D. Then I converted these vertex positions into Object files .obj which now can be printed by 3D printers when scaled properly. So there gentleman I can now print my
> Mad Mental Models but that is just the beginning I have established a methodology to distinguish rigid Body Motion from Growth and present them simultaneously. But now it get`s very weird,
> To see the growth I had to do much fiddling with code. The growth must be synchronized to the frame rate of the display. Or to my brain throughput capacity.
> I have seen great Hollywood animations and may have repeated what is already well known but generally out of reach for academics. I use Processing to display these moving 3D objects with some difficulty
> but it does work.
>
> So take a look you may have to download
>
> https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkyNFoHD7DbjevjZM
>
> This Flower is the intersection of 5 Self Avoiding Walk Graphs in 3D space, each Matrix is tubular they are nested inside each other as like a Russian Doll.
> Not an Onion .I applied a growth factor to a single region of the fifth matrix while moving the entire structure via rotation. Examination of any single Matrix would
> never reveal the existence of the whole entity but a combination of any two would give the wrong conclusion but only some vague insight that something exists but not what it is.
> Oh each frame is a complete 3D structure so this may mean the video is 4D yet you are seeing it on a 2D display device pretty good for a geezer.
> Next each edge needs to be given some material properties amenable to change perhaps based on proximity.
>
> I suppose any man that goes this far must be quite Mad Indeed , but I hope it helps keep us engaged and civil.
> It looks like it may be possible to target each region with unique Growth Factors or engineering properties.
>
> I hope this qualifies as useful.
> vib
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
> Sent: June-09-17 3:02 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
>
> Sorry. Slip of the "pen". Layers it is.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ?
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:06 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
>
>
> Ha! I don't know if this is fun or not. But you are making me giggle. So that's good. 8^)
>
> On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> But wait a minute! Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?
>
> I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and Robert. But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of context. Onions are definitely not metaphors. When you bit into one, your body reacts. To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you bite into a metaphor.
>
>
>> In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in mind?
>
> The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation. We could also use Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.
>
>
>> If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or whatever) are onion-like?
>
> Sheesh. I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level". That's all I'm doing. Maybe you're too smart for your own good. I don't care about ANYTHING else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks. Stop using it.
>
>
>> Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural selection) seriously enough.
>
> Yes, I know. That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer is better than level.
>
>
> --
> ☣ glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example"

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis? They interact.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very motivated, though I can't articulate why. I suppose because it has some connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is structurally similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which connotes the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata. I'm not sure I know how to think about ply which seems to be derived from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?

The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems like strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were trying to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include engineering/mechanical stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even semantic stresses in a concept graph/network) ?

As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits. Not all concepts ground directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object (more to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space using geometric primitives?)

I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D spatial reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with topological reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics might simply be a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is primarily topological, though in a somewhat degenerate fashion. I used to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I suspect the most interesting code might very well be so arbitrarily complex as to deserve that term. I understand that taking (otherwise) simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with jumps/goto's is pathological.

I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description of your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?). I will attempt to parse more of this and respond under separate cover.

Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my own petard here!

- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:

Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.

I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from an Advanced Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used by people.

Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to analyze why something failed and killed good people.
The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger condiment but one must specify which context before
breaking into a brawl.

We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.

Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots. Matrix Stacking was the key procedure we used.
In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the social norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a biological analogue.

The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my third language so I am not so biased about some words
as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot redistribute stress.

Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D images to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.

But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to try and explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
seem to be punching in the right direction. I ran into a problem with some of my code that was wholly unexpected and it actually
was the circularity condition. You had to view it from a certain location to see the Circularity , anywhere else you would see either columns or helices.

I had not specifically written the code to do any of these, my brain was jumping to conclusions. I had the code on one screen and the graphics running beside on the left.

I had to spend hours staring and watching my own brain fight over which reality to accept. Evolution has left us many peculiar brain structures that were once useful but now
a hindrance.

Complexity may be real, but it may also be an unnatural effort for some brains. Words are nearly useless in this arena. So well maybe are the 2D excel charts. Steve may just be accidentally
flattering my interests having recently been reading up on Graph Theory. Indeed I wonder about Nodes and unusual valences. To illustrate my own bent mental models I used
my mental models to write code and translate a Stack of Rectangular Matrices (6 in total) 28 rows and 162 columns Each represents a Self Avoiding walk neither Eulerian or Hamiltonian,
or a little of each since I work in 3D at least. I did the unthinkable... I connected Nodes to Nodes of different Matrices, then I purged nodes only connected to those of each sheet. What remained
I plotted as surfaces in 3D. Then I converted these vertex positions into Object files .obj which now can be printed by 3D printers when scaled properly. So there gentleman I can now print my
Mad Mental Models but that is just the beginning I have established a methodology to distinguish rigid Body Motion from Growth and present them simultaneously. But now it get`s very weird,
To see the growth I had to do much fiddling with code. The growth must be synchronized to the frame rate of the display. Or to my brain throughput capacity.
I have seen great Hollywood animations and may have repeated what is already well known but generally out of reach for academics. I use Processing to display these moving 3D objects with some difficulty
but it does work.

So take a look you may have to download

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkyNFoHD7DbjevjZM

This Flower is the intersection of 5 Self Avoiding Walk Graphs in 3D space, each Matrix is tubular they are nested inside each other as like a Russian Doll.
Not an Onion .I applied a growth factor to a single region of the fifth matrix while moving the entire structure via rotation. Examination of any single Matrix would
never reveal the existence of the whole entity but a combination of any two would give the wrong conclusion but only some vague insight that something exists but not what it is.
Oh each frame is a complete 3D structure so this may mean the video is 4D yet you are seeing it on a 2D display device pretty good for a geezer.
Next each edge needs to be given some material properties amenable to change perhaps based on proximity.

I suppose any man that goes this far must be quite Mad Indeed , but I hope it helps keep us engaged and civil.
It looks like it may be possible to target each region with unique Growth Factors or engineering properties.

I hope this qualifies as useful.
vib

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: June-09-17 3:02 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Sorry. Slip of the "pen". Layers it is.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Ha! I don't know if this is fun or not. But you are making me giggle. So that's good. 8^)

On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

But wait a minute! Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?

I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and Robert. But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of context. Onions are definitely not metaphors. When you bit into one, your body reacts. To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you bite into a metaphor.

In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in mind?

The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation. We could also use Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.

If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or whatever) are onion-like?

Sheesh. I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level". That's all I'm doing. Maybe you're too smart for your own good. I don't care about ANYTHING else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks. Stop using it.

Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural selection) seriously enough.

Yes, I know. That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer is better than level.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Vladimyr Burachynsky

Re: IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Frank and the Congregation,

Shame on me for neglecting the obvious biological intermingling but stress redistribution

is so mechanical and direction sensitive it never dawned on me.

But what I did is more like weaving using nodes as intersection points without breaking

the filaments.

Giving up at such a time seems horribly sad even pathetic.

So now do we agree, in part, that lamina can penetrate other lamina and generate very complex systems.

Is a lamina a real entity then with properties. I can already make these flowers with cold rolled steel for edges.

The complex system is interacting or intersecting laminae. Every view point presents a different structure.

It seems insufficient to treat lamina as inert since they could just as easily become transit or vascular systems.

So information can be accommodated…

I had to pause to think about this but will let it stand. Pumping networks are very real.

But this code is now close to my own physical limit.

Time is short for all of us.

vib

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: June-09-17 11:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example"

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis? They interact.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very motivated, though I can't articulate why. I suppose because it has some connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is structurally similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which connotes the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata. I'm not sure I know how to think about ply which seems to be derived from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?

The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems like strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were trying to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include engineering/mechanical stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even semantic stresses in a concept graph/network) ?

As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits. Not all concepts ground directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object (more to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space using geometric primitives?)

I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D spatial reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with topological reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics might simply be a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is primarily topological, though in a somewhat degenerate fashion. I used to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I suspect the most interesting code might very well be so arbitrarily complex as to deserve that term. I understand that taking (otherwise) simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with jumps/goto's is pathological.

I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description of your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?). I will attempt to parse more of this and respond under separate cover.

Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my own petard here!

- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:

But wait a minute! Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?

I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and Robert. But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of context. Onions are definitely not metaphors. When you bit into one, your body reacts. To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you bite into a metaphor.

In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in mind?

The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation. We could also use Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.

If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or whatever) are onion-like?

Sheesh. I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level". That's all I'm doing. Maybe you're too smart for your own good. I don't care about ANYTHING else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks. Stop using it.

Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural selection) seriously enough.

Yes, I know. That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer is better than level.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

and mollusk shell formation. Though they don't really interact, they are deposited kinda like spray paint. Coral deposition might also work well as a canonical example.

On June 9, 2017 9:20:37 PM PDT, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

>"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that,
>but I
>can't think of a biological example"
>
>Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis? They interact.
>
>Frank Wimberly
>Phone (505) 670-9918
>
>On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Vlad -
>>
>> I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very
>> motivated, though I can't articulate why. I suppose because it has
>some
>> connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is
>structurally
>> similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which
>connotes
>> the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata. I'm not sure I
>know
>> how to think about ply which seems to be derived from the world of
>> engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small number (under 5?)
>and
>> engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?
>>
>> The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems
>like
>> strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that,
>but I
>> can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were
>trying
>> to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

Re: IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

In reply to this post by Vladimyr Burachynsky

I agree with Steve that lamina is biased with the assumption of continuous flow. Discrete aggreagation like coral deposition or FACS based cell by cell deposition would not be evoked by the term lamina.

As an aside, although (serial) diffusion limited aggregation is often used to model coral deposition, (serial) DLA does submit to a partal order in a monotonic time parameter. The parallelism theorem from LTS tells us that the result of any parallel transition can be perfectly duplicated/simulated with a serial transition. But it still seems to me that parallel deposition (like in coral growth) might reach points in shape space not reachable by serial deposition.

On June 9, 2017 10:26:09 PM PDT, Vladimyr <[hidden email]> wrote:

>So now do we agree, in part, that lamina can penetrate other lamina
>and generate very complex systems.
>
>Is a lamina a real entity then with properties. I can already make
>these flowers with cold rolled steel for edges.
>
>The complex system is interacting or intersecting laminae. Every view
>point presents a different structure.
>
>It seems insufficient to treat lamina as inert since they could just as
>easily become transit or vascular systems.
>
>So information can be accommodated…

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Frank,

These are exactly the sorts of considerations we have to bring to bear when we “cash out” a scientific metaphor. What DIFFERENCE does it make when we call something a layer. What EXACTLY is the experience that we are bringing to bear?

How was Friday’s meeting of the M. C. ?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 12:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example"

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis? They interact.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very motivated, though I can't articulate why. I suppose because it has some connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is structurally similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which connotes the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata. I'm not sure I know how to think about ply which seems to be derived from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?

The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems like strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were trying to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include engineering/mechanical stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even semantic stresses in a concept graph/network) ?

As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits. Not all concepts ground directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object (more to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space using geometric primitives?)

I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D spatial reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with topological reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics might simply be a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is primarily topological, though in a somewhat degenerate fashion. I used to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I suspect the most interesting code might very well be so arbitrarily complex as to deserve that term. I understand that taking (otherwise) simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with jumps/goto's is pathological.

I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description of your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?). I will attempt to parse more of this and respond under separate cover.

Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my own petard here!

- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:
Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.

I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from an Advanced Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used by people.

Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to analyze why something failed and killed good people.
The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger condiment but one must specify which context before
breaking into a brawl.

We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.

Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots. Matrix Stacking was the key procedure we used.
In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the social norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a biological analogue.

The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my third language so I am not so biased about some words
as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot redistribute stress.

Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D images to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.

But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to try and explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
seem to be punching in the right direction. I ran into a problem with some of my code that was wholly unexpected and it actually
was the circularity condition. You had to view it from a certain location to see the Circularity , anywhere else you would see either columns or helices.

I had not specifically written the code to do any of these, my brain was jumping to conclusions. I had the code on one screen and the graphics running beside on the left.

I had to spend hours staring and watching my own brain fight over which reality to accept. Evolution has left us many peculiar brain structures that were once useful but now
a hindrance.

Complexity may be real, but it may also be an unnatural effort for some brains. Words are nearly useless in this arena. So well maybe are the 2D excel charts. Steve may just be accidentally
flattering my interests having recently been reading up on Graph Theory. Indeed I wonder about Nodes and unusual valences. To illustrate my own bent mental models I used
my mental models to write code and translate a Stack of Rectangular Matrices (6 in total) 28 rows and 162 columns Each represents a Self Avoiding walk neither Eulerian or Hamiltonian,
or a little of each since I work in 3D at least. I did the unthinkable... I connected Nodes to Nodes of different Matrices, then I purged nodes only connected to those of each sheet. What remained
I plotted as surfaces in 3D. Then I converted these vertex positions into Object files .obj which now can be printed by 3D printers when scaled properly. So there gentleman I can now print my
Mad Mental Models but that is just the beginning I have established a methodology to distinguish rigid Body Motion from Growth and present them simultaneously. But now it get`s very weird,
To see the growth I had to do much fiddling with code. The growth must be synchronized to the frame rate of the display. Or to my brain throughput capacity.
I have seen great Hollywood animations and may have repeated what is already well known but generally out of reach for academics. I use Processing to display these moving 3D objects with some difficulty
but it does work.

So take a look you may have to download

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkyNFoHD7DbjevjZM

This Flower is the intersection of 5 Self Avoiding Walk Graphs in 3D space, each Matrix is tubular they are nested inside each other as like a Russian Doll.
Not an Onion .I applied a growth factor to a single region of the fifth matrix while moving the entire structure via rotation. Examination of any single Matrix would
never reveal the existence of the whole entity but a combination of any two would give the wrong conclusion but only some vague insight that something exists but not what it is.
Oh each frame is a complete 3D structure so this may mean the video is 4D yet you are seeing it on a 2D display device pretty good for a geezer.
Next each edge needs to be given some material properties amenable to change perhaps based on proximity.

I suppose any man that goes this far must be quite Mad Indeed , but I hope it helps keep us engaged and civil.
It looks like it may be possible to target each region with unique Growth Factors or engineering properties.

I hope this qualifies as useful.
vib

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: June-09-17 3:02 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Sorry. Slip of the "pen". Layers it is.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Ha! I don't know if this is fun or not. But you are making me giggle. So that's good. 8^)

On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
But wait a minute! Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?

I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and Robert. But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of context. Onions are definitely not metaphors. When you bit into one, your body reacts. To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you bite into a metaphor.

In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in mind?

The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation. We could also use Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.

If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or whatever) are onion-like?

Sheesh. I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level". That's all I'm doing. Maybe you're too smart for your own good. I don't care about ANYTHING else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks. Stop using it.

Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural selection) seriously enough.

Yes, I know. That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer is better than level.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Prof David West

Re: Model, Metaphor, Analogy

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

long long ago, my master's thesis in computer science and my phd dissertation in cognitive anthropology dealt extensively with the issue of metaphor and model, specifically in the area of artificial intelligence and cognitive models of "mind." the very first academic papers I published dealt with this issue (They were in AI MAgazine, the 'journal of record' in the field at the time.

My own musings were deeply informed by the work of Earl R. MacCormac: A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor and Metaphor and Myth in Science and Religion.

MacCormac argues that metaphor 'evolves' from "epiphor" the first suggestion that something is like something else to either "dead metaphor" or "lexical term" depending on the extent to which referents suggested by the first 'something' are confirmed to correlate to similar referents in the second "something." E.G. an atom is like a solar system suggests that a nucleus is like the sun and electrons are like planets plus orbits are at specific intervals and electrons can be moved from one orbit to another by adding energy (acceleration) just like any other satellite. As referents like this were confirmed the epiphor became a productive metaphor and a model, i.e. the Bohr model. Eventually, our increasing knowledge of atoms and particle/waves made it clear that the model/metaphor was 'wrong' in nearly every respect and the metaphor died. Its use in beginning chemistry suggests that it is still a useful tool for metaphorical thinking; modified to "what might you infer/reason, if you looked at an atom as if it were a tiny solar system."

In the case of AI, the joint epiphors — the computer is like a mind, the mind is like a computer — should have rapidly become dead metaphors. Instead they became models "physical symbol system" and most in the community insisted that they were lexical terms (notably Pylyshyn, Newell, and Simon). To explain this, I added the idea of a "paraphor" to MacCormac's evolutionary sequence — a metaphor so ingrained in a paradigm that those thinking with that paradigm cannot perceive the obvious failures of the metaphor.

MacCormac's second book argues for the pervasiveness of the use and misuse of metaphor and its relationship to models (mathematical and iillustrative) in both science and religion. The "Scientific Method," the process of doing science, is itself a metaphor (at best) that should have become a dead metaphor as there is abundant evidence that 'science' is not done 'that way' but only after the fact as if it had been done that way. In an Ouroborosian twist, even MacCormac;s theory of metaphor is itself a metaphor.

If this thread attracts interest, I think the work of MacCormac would provide a rich mine of potential ideas and a framework for the discussion. Unfortunately, it mostly seems to be behind pay walls — the books and JSTOR or its ilk.

dave west

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017, at 03:11 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

I meant to spawn a fresh proto-thread here, sorry.
Given that we have been splitting hairs on terminology, I wanted to at least OPEN the topic that has been grazed over and over, and that is the distinction between Model, Metaphor, and Analogy.

I specifically mean

Mathematical Model
Conceptual Metaphor
Formal Analogy
I don't know if this narrows it down enough to discuss but I think these three terms have been bandied about loosely and widely enough lately to deserve a little more explication?
I could rattle on for pages about my own usage/opinions/distinctions but trust that would just pollute a thread before it had a chance to start, if start it can.
A brief Google Search gave me THIS reference which looks promising, but as usual, I'm not willing to go past a paywall or beg a colleague/institution for access (I know LANL's reference library will probably get this for me if I go in there!).
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631221081_chunk_g97806312210818
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

In reply to this post by Vladimyr Burachynsky

Dear Vib,

So, perhaps the question we should all be asking ourselves is “How far do we engage in a conversation in which we don’t really understand one another? And, when we find ourselves engaged in such a conversation what do we do? One option, of course, is for each us to put his fingers in his ears and continue to shout at one another, each using his own language and his own favorite metaphor. Another option, is to give up, with graceful acknowledgements of one another’s wisdom.

Is there a third option? I think so. (Surprise!) I think it is to find a common “model” to work with. Now to me, a “model” is a formal scientific metaphor. To serve as a model, a metaphor has to be a specific phenomenon that is thoroughly understood by all participants in the discussion. “Natural Selection” was such a model in its time because everybody understood how to breed domestic animals. That funny reaction that Steve Guerin describes which spontaneously organizes into cells has often served as a “model” for his and my discussions of convection, although I am not as familiar with its details as I should be.

So, is there a model of layers that we want to work with? If so, then we might study together on that model until we are all thoroughly familiar with it. If not, then giving up would seem to be better than the “fingers-in-the-ears-shouting” method.

I take it that our interest in a layers model arises from our shared intuition that all complex phenomena are layered, in some important sense?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vladimyr
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 1:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Frank and the Congregation,

Shame on me for neglecting the obvious biological intermingling but stress redistribution

is so mechanical and direction sensitive it never dawned on me.

But what I did is more like weaving using nodes as intersection points without breaking

the filaments.

Giving up at such a time seems horribly sad even pathetic.

So now do we agree, in part, that lamina can penetrate other lamina and generate very complex systems.

Is a lamina a real entity then with properties. I can already make these flowers with cold rolled steel for edges.

The complex system is interacting or intersecting laminae. Every view point presents a different structure.

It seems insufficient to treat lamina as inert since they could just as easily become transit or vascular systems.

So information can be accommodated…

I had to pause to think about this but will let it stand. Pumping networks are very real.

But this code is now close to my own physical limit.

Time is short for all of us.

vib

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: June-09-17 11:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example"

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis? They interact.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very motivated, though I can't articulate why. I suppose because it has some connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is structurally similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which connotes the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata. I'm not sure I know how to think about ply which seems to be derived from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?

The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems like strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were trying to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include engineering/mechanical stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even semantic stresses in a concept graph/network) ?

As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits. Not all concepts ground directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object (more to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space using geometric primitives?)

I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D spatial reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with topological reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics might simply be a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is primarily topological, though in a somewhat degenerate fashion. I used to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I suspect the most interesting code might very well be so arbitrarily complex as to deserve that term. I understand that taking (otherwise) simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with jumps/goto's is pathological.

I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description of your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?). I will attempt to parse more of this and respond under separate cover.

Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my own petard here!

- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:

But wait a minute! Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?

In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in mind?

If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or whatever) are onion-like?

Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural selection) seriously enough.

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

The Hearsay system might serve. It was a speech understanding system developed at CMU in the 1970s. It could take sound and, if it were connected human speech, produce a written version. Raj Reddy constantly used the phrase "signal to symbol" to describe what we were working on in general. The point is it had levels. The segmentation level determined at what time one phoneme ended and the next began, for example. Other levels were the phoneme, word, syntax, semantic, etc. (World peace vs whirled peas in a political discussion). Levels revised each other's hypotheses based on their own. I may have some of the details wrong.This was done using knowledge sources etc. The classic reference is

Lesser, et al. Organization of the Hearsay-II speech understanding system. IEEE Tran. Acoustics, Speech, Signal Processing ASSP-23, 1975.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 10, 2017 12:05 PM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Vib,

So, perhaps the question we should all be asking ourselves is “How far do we engage in a conversation in which we don’t really understand one another? And, when we find ourselves engaged in such a conversation what do we do? One option, of course, is for each us to put his fingers in his ears and continue to shout at one another, each using his own language and his own favorite metaphor. Another option, is to give up, with graceful acknowledgements of one another’s wisdom.

Is there a third option? I think so. (Surprise!) I think it is to find a common “model” to work with. Now to me, a “model” is a formal scientific metaphor. To serve as a model, a metaphor has to be a specific phenomenon that is thoroughly understood by all participants in the discussion. “Natural Selection” was such a model in its time because everybody understood how to breed domestic animals. That funny reaction that Steve Guerin describes which spontaneously organizes into cells has often served as a “model” for his and my discussions of convection, although I am not as familiar with its details as I should be.

So, is there a model of layers that we want to work with? If so, then we might study together on that model until we are all thoroughly familiar with it. If not, then giving up would seem to be better than the “fingers-in-the-ears-shouting” method.

I take it that our interest in a layers model arises from our shared intuition that all complex phenomena are layered, in some important sense?

Nick

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vladimyr
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 1:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Frank and the Congregation,

Shame on me for neglecting the obvious biological intermingling but stress redistribution
is so mechanical and direction sensitive it never dawned on me.
But what I did is more like weaving using nodes as intersection points without breaking
the filaments.

Giving up at such a time seems horribly sad even pathetic.

So now do we agree, in part, that lamina can penetrate other lamina and generate very complex systems.
Is a lamina a real entity then with properties. I can already make these flowers with cold rolled steel for edges.
The complex system is interacting or intersecting laminae. Every view point presents a different structure.
It seems insufficient to treat lamina as inert since they could just as easily become transit or vascular systems.
So information can be accommodated…
I had to pause to think about this but will let it stand. Pumping networks are very real.
But this code is now close to my own physical limit.
Time is short for all of us.
vib

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: June-09-17 11:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example"

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis? They interact.
Frank Wimberly
Phone <a href="tel:(505)%20670-9918" value="+15056709918" target="_blank">(505) 670-9918

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very motivated, though I can't articulate why. I suppose because it has some connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is structurally similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which connotes the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata. I'm not sure I know how to think about ply which seems to be derived from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?

The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems like strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were trying to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include engineering/mechanical stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even semantic stresses in a concept graph/network) ?

As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits. Not all concepts ground directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object (more to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space using geometric primitives?)

I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D spatial reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with topological reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics might simply be a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is primarily topological, though in a somewhat degenerate fashion. I used to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I suspect the most interesting code might very well be so arbitrarily complex as to deserve that term. I understand that taking (otherwise) simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with jumps/goto's is pathological.

I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description of your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?). I will attempt to parse more of this and respond under separate cover.

Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my own petard here!

- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:
Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.

I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from an Advanced Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used by people.

Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to analyze why something failed and killed good people.
The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger condiment but one must specify which context before
breaking into a brawl.

We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.

Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots. Matrix Stacking was the key procedure we used.
In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the social norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a biological analogue.

The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my third language so I am not so biased about some words
as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot redistribute stress.

Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D images to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.

But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to try and explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
seem to be punching in the right direction. I ran into a problem with some of my code that was wholly unexpected and it actually
was the circularity condition. You had to view it from a certain location to see the Circularity , anywhere else you would see either columns or helices.

I had not specifically written the code to do any of these, my brain was jumping to conclusions. I had the code on one screen and the graphics running beside on the left.

I had to spend hours staring and watching my own brain fight over which reality to accept. Evolution has left us many peculiar brain structures that were once useful but now
a hindrance.

Complexity may be real, but it may also be an unnatural effort for some brains. Words are nearly useless in this arena. So well maybe are the 2D excel charts. Steve may just be accidentally
flattering my interests having recently been reading up on Graph Theory. Indeed I wonder about Nodes and unusual valences. To illustrate my own bent mental models I used
my mental models to write code and translate a Stack of Rectangular Matrices (6 in total) 28 rows and 162 columns Each represents a Self Avoiding walk neither Eulerian or Hamiltonian,
or a little of each since I work in 3D at least. I did the unthinkable... I connected Nodes to Nodes of different Matrices, then I purged nodes only connected to those of each sheet. What remained
I plotted as surfaces in 3D. Then I converted these vertex positions into Object files .obj which now can be printed by 3D printers when scaled properly. So there gentleman I can now print my
Mad Mental Models but that is just the beginning I have established a methodology to distinguish rigid Body Motion from Growth and present them simultaneously. But now it get`s very weird,
To see the growth I had to do much fiddling with code. The growth must be synchronized to the frame rate of the display. Or to my brain throughput capacity.
I have seen great Hollywood animations and may have repeated what is already well known but generally out of reach for academics. I use Processing to display these moving 3D objects with some difficulty
but it does work.

So take a look you may have to download

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkyNFoHD7DbjevjZM

This Flower is the intersection of 5 Self Avoiding Walk Graphs in 3D space, each Matrix is tubular they are nested inside each other as like a Russian Doll.
Not an Onion .I applied a growth factor to a single region of the fifth matrix while moving the entire structure via rotation. Examination of any single Matrix would
never reveal the existence of the whole entity but a combination of any two would give the wrong conclusion but only some vague insight that something exists but not what it is.
Oh each frame is a complete 3D structure so this may mean the video is 4D yet you are seeing it on a 2D display device pretty good for a geezer.
Next each edge needs to be given some material properties amenable to change perhaps based on proximity.

I suppose any man that goes this far must be quite Mad Indeed , but I hope it helps keep us engaged and civil.
It looks like it may be possible to target each region with unique Growth Factors or engineering properties.

I hope this qualifies as useful.
vib

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: June-09-17 3:02 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Sorry. Slip of the "pen". Layers it is.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Ha! I don't know if this is fun or not. But you are making me giggle. So that's good. 8^)

On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
But wait a minute! Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?

I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and Robert. But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of context. Onions are definitely not metaphors. When you bit into one, your body reacts. To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you bite into a metaphor.
In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in mind?

The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation. We could also use Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.
If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or whatever) are onion-like?

Sheesh. I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level". That's all I'm doing. Maybe you're too smart for your own good. I don't care about ANYTHING else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks. Stop using it.
Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural selection) seriously enough.

Yes, I know. That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer is better than level.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Steve Smith

Re: IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick -

I'm not sure I've observed a "fingers in the ears shouting" here, but I do understand the point I think.

I always read FriAM discussions as if the goal is exactly what you stated... to find a common language/model/metaphor to use to discuss.

As Glen aptly put it, these threads often DO get polluted perhaps by too much hair splitting or discursions from the OT (original topic) and I might be one of the guiltier parties to that. I think we DO wear ourselves (and one another as well as not-so-innocent bystanders who might otherwise participate) out with the long winded discussions of details (see the mass exodus/defection of WedTech a few years ago).

I believe that the argument (discussion) over levels vs layers was fueled partly by Glen's trying to hold us responsible for not enforcing a strong idea of hierarchy into the ideas of complex systems. So I'm game for helping to explore (but maybe not resolve) this question of how models of complex systems are structured. But to avoid the risk of being mistaken for shouting with my ears plugged, I hope someone else will make a next step?

My own limited throwdown might be as follows:

Complex (biological?) systems do tend to exhibit (some) hierarchy as a consequence of self-organizing principles building larger units from smaller subunits (e.g. C, H, O, N molecules forming into carboxyl groups, glycerol groups, phosphate groups, which in turn form amino, nucleic, and fatty acids which form into macromolecules like fats, carbohydrates and polypeptide chains which fold into proteins which then go on to self-organize (or be assembled or catalyzed) into structures such as cellular and nuclear membranes as well as cytoskeletal membrane/tubules, flagella, etc. on up through the formation of organelles, viruses, microphages, and then unicellular life like bacteria/amoebae/protozoa/archaea/algae/fungi, and then multicellular life into complex organisms which then organize into units like flocks/herds/tribes/packs/murders/crowder/school/crudeness/troop/rabble/flange/etc and then perhaps proto-organisms like hive/city/state/nation/etc. But following Vlad's lead and other's complementary offerings... there IS interaction between these levels of hierarchy... cell membranes and other organelles "process" macro(and micro)molecular structures, groups interact collectively with individuals, etc.

I'm with Glen intuitively that even though there are MANY examples of hierarchy in complex systems, it isn't clear that they are either necessary nor sufficient to explain self-organization, emergence, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, punctuated criticality/equilibrium, etc.

I fear I may have muddied (polluted) a little here...

- Steve

On 6/10/17 12:04 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Dear Vib,

So, perhaps the question we should all be asking ourselves is “How far do we engage in a conversation in which we don’t really understand one another? And, when we find ourselves engaged in such a conversation what do we do? One option, of course, is for each us to put his fingers in his ears and continue to shout at one another, each using his own language and his own favorite metaphor. Another option, is to give up, with graceful acknowledgements of one another’s wisdom.

Is there a third option? I think so. (Surprise!) I think it is to find a common “model” to work with. Now to me, a “model” is a formal scientific metaphor. To serve as a model, a metaphor has to be a specific phenomenon that is thoroughly understood by all participants in the discussion. “Natural Selection” was such a model in its time because everybody understood how to breed domestic animals. That funny reaction that Steve Guerin describes which spontaneously organizes into cells has often served as a “model” for his and my discussions of convection, although I am not as familiar with its details as I should be.

So, is there a model of layers that we want to work with? If so, then we might study together on that model until we are all thoroughly familiar with it. If not, then giving up would seem to be better than the “fingers-in-the-ears-shouting” method.

I take it that our interest in a layers model arises from our shared intuition that all complex phenomena are layered, in some important sense?

Nick

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vladimyr
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 1:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Frank and the Congregation,

Shame on me for neglecting the obvious biological intermingling but stress redistribution

is so mechanical and direction sensitive it never dawned on me.

But what I did is more like weaving using nodes as intersection points without breaking

the filaments.

Giving up at such a time seems horribly sad even pathetic.

So now do we agree, in part, that lamina can penetrate other lamina and generate very complex systems.

Is a lamina a real entity then with properties. I can already make these flowers with cold rolled steel for edges.

The complex system is interacting or intersecting laminae. Every view point presents a different structure.

It seems insufficient to treat lamina as inert since they could just as easily become transit or vascular systems.

So information can be accommodated…

I had to pause to think about this but will let it stand. Pumping networks are very real.

But this code is now close to my own physical limit.

Time is short for all of us.

vib

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: June-09-17 11:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example"

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis? They interact.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very motivated, though I can't articulate why. I suppose because it has some connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is structurally similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which connotes the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata. I'm not sure I know how to think about ply which seems to be derived from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?

The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems like strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were trying to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include engineering/mechanical stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even semantic stresses in a concept graph/network) ?

As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits. Not all concepts ground directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object (more to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space using geometric primitives?)

I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D spatial reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with topological reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics might simply be a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is primarily topological, though in a somewhat degenerate fashion. I used to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I suspect the most interesting code might very well be so arbitrarily complex as to deserve that term. I understand that taking (otherwise) simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with jumps/goto's is pathological.

I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description of your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?). I will attempt to parse more of this and respond under separate cover.

Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my own petard here!

- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:

Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.

I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from an Advanced Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used by people.

Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to analyze why something failed and killed good people.
The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger condiment but one must specify which context before
breaking into a brawl.

We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.

Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots. Matrix Stacking was the key procedure we used.
In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the social norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a biological analogue.

The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my third language so I am not so biased about some words
as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot redistribute stress.

Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D images to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.

But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to try and explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
seem to be punching in the right direction. I ran into a problem with some of my code that was wholly unexpected and it actually
was the circularity condition. You had to view it from a certain location to see the Circularity , anywhere else you would see either columns or helices.

I had not specifically written the code to do any of these, my brain was jumping to conclusions. I had the code on one screen and the graphics running beside on the left.

I had to spend hours staring and watching my own brain fight over which reality to accept. Evolution has left us many peculiar brain structures that were once useful but now
a hindrance.

Complexity may be real, but it may also be an unnatural effort for some brains. Words are nearly useless in this arena. So well maybe are the 2D excel charts. Steve may just be accidentally
flattering my interests having recently been reading up on Graph Theory. Indeed I wonder about Nodes and unusual valences. To illustrate my own bent mental models I used
my mental models to write code and translate a Stack of Rectangular Matrices (6 in total) 28 rows and 162 columns Each represents a Self Avoiding walk neither Eulerian or Hamiltonian,
or a little of each since I work in 3D at least. I did the unthinkable... I connected Nodes to Nodes of different Matrices, then I purged nodes only connected to those of each sheet. What remained
I plotted as surfaces in 3D. Then I converted these vertex positions into Object files .obj which now can be printed by 3D printers when scaled properly. So there gentleman I can now print my
Mad Mental Models but that is just the beginning I have established a methodology to distinguish rigid Body Motion from Growth and present them simultaneously. But now it get`s very weird,
To see the growth I had to do much fiddling with code. The growth must be synchronized to the frame rate of the display. Or to my brain throughput capacity.
I have seen great Hollywood animations and may have repeated what is already well known but generally out of reach for academics. I use Processing to display these moving 3D objects with some difficulty
but it does work.

So take a look you may have to download

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkyNFoHD7DbjevjZM

This Flower is the intersection of 5 Self Avoiding Walk Graphs in 3D space, each Matrix is tubular they are nested inside each other as like a Russian Doll.
Not an Onion .I applied a growth factor to a single region of the fifth matrix while moving the entire structure via rotation. Examination of any single Matrix would
never reveal the existence of the whole entity but a combination of any two would give the wrong conclusion but only some vague insight that something exists but not what it is.
Oh each frame is a complete 3D structure so this may mean the video is 4D yet you are seeing it on a 2D display device pretty good for a geezer.
Next each edge needs to be given some material properties amenable to change perhaps based on proximity.

I suppose any man that goes this far must be quite Mad Indeed , but I hope it helps keep us engaged and civil.
It looks like it may be possible to target each region with unique Growth Factors or engineering properties.

I hope this qualifies as useful.
vib

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: June-09-17 3:02 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Sorry. Slip of the "pen". Layers it is.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

Ha! I don't know if this is fun or not. But you are making me giggle. So that's good. 8^)

On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

But wait a minute! Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?

I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and Robert. But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of context. Onions are definitely not metaphors. When you bit into one, your body reacts. To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you bite into a metaphor.

In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in mind?

The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation. We could also use Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.

If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or whatever) are onion-like?

Sheesh. I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level". That's all I'm doing. Maybe you're too smart for your own good. I don't care about ANYTHING else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks. Stop using it.

Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural selection) seriously enough.

Yes, I know. That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer is better than level.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

1234567