Mathematics and Music
Locked
123
123
Re: Haiku-ified was: Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity
 
|
Some of us, we are
Just a few syllables short of a haiku > Useless words. Excess. > Will they never end? > Not in this world, I'm afraid. > > -- > Doug Roberts, RTI International > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Carl Tollander <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > Is this a model? > Enjoy the moment, > We will clean it up in post. > > Steve Smith wrote: > > Held apart from nature > > Nature pays our work no mind > > Were methods unsound? > > > >> Holding ourselves apart from nature, > >> We are surprised when nature pays our work no mind. > >> Were our methods unsound? > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I hate haiku.
I can never remember How many syllables -- Saul Caganoff Enterprise IT Architect LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scaganoff On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: Some of us, we are ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Haiku-ified was: Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Steve Smith wrote: > Some of us, we are > Just a few syllables > short of a haiku liked this one :-) cheers, günther ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
Glen,
> So, I agree with you that it's a model; but I disagree that it's a > mathematical model except in the pathological limit-case where all of > reality is somehow defined as "mathematics". A strong Platonist might > well say that all reality is mathematics. And if that's your point, > then it's well taken! Have you read Tegmark's Mathematical Universe? http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 Through my research into the scientific realism debate and structural realism, I think one is hard pressed to attribute anything other to reality than a relational structure. See for instance here: http://apperceptual.wordpress.com/2007/01/05/hello-world/ But mathematics is the study of relations/structure/patterns. I have a somewhat longer post on my blog defending the mathematical universe view, I would be very interested in your comments if you have time and interest to read it. http://www.complexitystudies.org/2008/06/24/comments-on-tegmarkbackreaction-2/ > I find such an extreme limit case degenerate, though, because it > obviates the need for one of the two words. If all reality is math and > all math is reality, then we don't need both terms and we shouldn't use > both terms. We could just say stuff like: > > "Bobby, go and do your reality homework!" [grin] No, the one is the math structure itself (reality); "math" as we call it is the reflection of the structure in an embedded (in the math structure) cognitive system (human etc) (which is of course part of the larger reality -> it is simply a nested structure with some parts mirroring other parts). Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [hidden email] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Haiku-ified was: Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity
|
|
In reply to this post by scaganoff
Five in the first line
Seven in second Oh bugger, I got it wrong ---- Robert On 7/14/08, Saul Caganoff <[hidden email]> wrote: > I hate haiku. > I can never remember > How many syllables > > -- > Saul Caganoff > Enterprise IT Architect > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scaganoff > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Haiku-ified was: Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity
|
|
Senryu human nature shows Not confusèd be Robert C Robert Holmes wrote: Five in the first line Seven in second Oh bugger, I got it wrong ---- Robert On 7/14/08, Saul Caganoff [hidden email] wrote:I hate haiku. I can never remember How many syllables -- Saul Caganoff Enterprise IT Architect LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scaganoff============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Dear All. As a mathematical music theorist, I know there is a great deal of discrete mathematics in music theory. More often than not, tools in mathematics are borrowed and applied to musical structure. But on occasion, a tool is developed to give insight in musical structure that also has application in mathematics and the sciences. Attached is paper published in the May 2008 issue of College Mathematics Journal that discusses such a tool. Jack. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
CMJ ME Sets.pdf (407K)
Re: Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity
|
|
In reply to this post by Carl Tollander
Carl,
Well, It depends on whether you're the kind of person who, when finding that nature has a habit of changing the title of the course and the text shortly before her exams, continues to study the wrong text because that's the course they signed up for... [ph] > > Holding ourselves apart from nature, > We are surprised when nature pays our work no mind. > Were our methods unsound? > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > I think what may be holding back the math is our failure to go to the > next > > level and consider change as a physical process. When you do that > you find > > what nature actually does much more interesting and inspiring than > anything > > we can invent. > > > > Using a physical systems model the process now bringing about our > whole > > system collapse was seen coming a long way off and it could have > inspired > > the math to demonstrate the turn onto another path instead too. > Live and > > learn I guess. > > > > The 2006 paper by Bettencourt is easily generalized to reach this > > implication, acknowledging that for the physical growth system he > considered > > "achieving major innovation cycles must be generated at continually > > accelerating rates"( > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7301.abstract). > > That's remarkably close to the basis of proof for the general > principle I > > offered in my "Infinite Society" paper in 1979 > > (http://www.synapse9.com/UnhidPatt-theInfiniteSoc.pdf). The general > > principle being the theorem that I've been using ever since with > excellent > > forecasting results. In physical systems "growth runs into > complications" > > and nature does a lot of creative stuff with it. You just look for > the > > complications coming and then 'voila', cool new science at every > turn! > > > > Phil > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] > On > >> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:10 PM > >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > >> > >> Prof David West wrote: > >> > >>>> We have also talked about the lack of rigorous mathematical > >>>> representation of complexity and that being a barrier to progress > >>>> in the science. > >>>> > >>> the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above sentence raises > >>> > >> mine. > >> > >>> implicit in the sentence is some variation of "mathematics is a > >>> > >> better / > >> > >>> superior / privileged / real language compared to all other > languages > >>> used by humans to think and therefore we cannot really think > properly > >>> > >> or > >> > >>> rigorously unless we are thinking mathematically." > >>> > >> I don't think that inference is implied by that sentence. I so > believe > >> math is a better language with which to describe reality than, say, > >> English. But, that's not what the sentence above says. The > sentence > >> above states that a _lack_ of math rigor is a barrier to one > particular > >> domain: plectics. > >> > >> Your inference goes quite a bit further than the David's sentence. > >> > >> > >>> this annoying attitude is expressed / believed by a majority of > >>> intellectuals and academicians - not just mathematicians. We > cannot > >>> > >> be > >> > >>> "scientists" unless we 'mathematize' our field of enquiry. > >>> > >> And although I believe that math is the best known language for > >> describing reality, I don't believe that one must mathematize every > >> scientific field or that one cannot be a scientist without > >> mathematizing > >> their field. > >> > >> Science is the search for truth. And truth can be sought using any > >> language... any language at all. Some domains, particularly the > ones > >> resistant to rigor are best studied with languages that have a high > >> tolerance for ambiguity... e.g. English. > >> > >> Some domains that are not so resistant to rigor are best studied > with > >> math. Often, it takes a great deal of work using ambiguity tolerant > >> languages like English before an ambiguity intolerant language like > >> math > >> can be effectively used. > >> > >> If and when less ambiguous languages can be used, _then_ those > >> languages > >> become more effective than the more ambiguous languages. > >> > >> From 50,000 metaphorical feet, this can be seen as a simple case of > >> specialization. A generalist uses coarse tools and a specialist > uses > >> fine tools. Math is a fine tool that can only be used after the > >> generalists have done their upstream work in the domain. Neither is > >> really "better", of course, when taking a synoptic view of the whole > >> evolution of the domain. But math is definitely more refined... > more > >> special. > >> > >> > >>> Interestingly enough, all advances in science stem from the uses of > >>> metaphor - not mathematics. (see Quine) The premature rush to > >>> > >> abandon > >> > >>> the language of metaphor and publish using arcane squiggles is the > >>> > >> real > >> > >>> - in my not very humble opinion - barrier to progress. > >>> > >> I agree. Likewise, the tendency to stick with a coarse language > when a > >> more refined language is called for is also a real barrier to > >> progress... "progress" defined as: the evolution of a domain from > >> general to special, coarse to fine. > >> > >> -- > >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > >> > >> > >> ============================================================ > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > >> > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Not to raise the subject necessarily... but just to note that I've been
consistently accurate with my foresight and descriptions of how our complex system collapse has been developing. It would really pay you guys to consider the possibility that interpreting systems as observable physical processes as I do might be useful. Our own whole complex throughput system is still operating in a global environment of increasing difficulty in using diminishing resources and still have a financial system multiplying investments in depleting them. That's going to just run into ever bigger disappointments till we stop, one way or another. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:17 PM > To: FRIAM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity > > Carl, > > Well, It depends on whether you're the kind of person who, when finding > that > nature has a habit of changing the title of the course and the text > shortly > before her exams, continues to study the wrong text because that's the > course they signed up for... > [ph] > > > > > > > Holding ourselves apart from nature, > > We are surprised when nature pays our work no mind. > > Were our methods unsound? > > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > > I think what may be holding back the math is our failure to go to > the > > next > > > level and consider change as a physical process. When you do that > > you find > > > what nature actually does much more interesting and inspiring than > > anything > > > we can invent. > > > > > > Using a physical systems model the process now bringing about our > > whole > > > system collapse was seen coming a long way off and it could have > > inspired > > > the math to demonstrate the turn onto another path instead too. > > Live and > > > learn I guess. > > > > > > The 2006 paper by Bettencourt is easily generalized to reach this > > > implication, acknowledging that for the physical growth system he > > considered > > > "achieving major innovation cycles must be generated at continually > > > accelerating rates"( > > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7301.abstract). > > > That's remarkably close to the basis of proof for the general > > principle I > > > offered in my "Infinite Society" paper in 1979 > > > (http://www.synapse9.com/UnhidPatt-theInfiniteSoc.pdf). The > general > > > principle being the theorem that I've been using ever since with > > excellent > > > forecasting results. In physical systems "growth runs into > > complications" > > > and nature does a lot of creative stuff with it. You just look > for > > the > > > complications coming and then 'voila', cool new science at every > > turn! > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] > > On > > >> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:10 PM > > >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > > >> > > >> Prof David West wrote: > > >> > > >>>> We have also talked about the lack of rigorous mathematical > > >>>> representation of complexity and that being a barrier to > progress > > >>>> in the science. > > >>>> > > >>> the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above sentence raises > > >>> > > >> mine. > > >> > > >>> implicit in the sentence is some variation of "mathematics is a > > >>> > > >> better / > > >> > > >>> superior / privileged / real language compared to all other > > languages > > >>> used by humans to think and therefore we cannot really think > > properly > > >>> > > >> or > > >> > > >>> rigorously unless we are thinking mathematically." > > >>> > > >> I don't think that inference is implied by that sentence. I so > > believe > > >> math is a better language with which to describe reality than, > say, > > >> English. But, that's not what the sentence above says. The > > sentence > > >> above states that a _lack_ of math rigor is a barrier to one > > particular > > >> domain: plectics. > > >> > > >> Your inference goes quite a bit further than the David's sentence. > > >> > > >> > > >>> this annoying attitude is expressed / believed by a majority of > > >>> intellectuals and academicians - not just mathematicians. We > > cannot > > >>> > > >> be > > >> > > >>> "scientists" unless we 'mathematize' our field of enquiry. > > >>> > > >> And although I believe that math is the best known language for > > >> describing reality, I don't believe that one must mathematize > every > > >> scientific field or that one cannot be a scientist without > > >> mathematizing > > >> their field. > > >> > > >> Science is the search for truth. And truth can be sought using > any > > >> language... any language at all. Some domains, particularly the > > ones > > >> resistant to rigor are best studied with languages that have a > high > > >> tolerance for ambiguity... e.g. English. > > >> > > >> Some domains that are not so resistant to rigor are best studied > > with > > >> math. Often, it takes a great deal of work using ambiguity > tolerant > > >> languages like English before an ambiguity intolerant language > like > > >> math > > >> can be effectively used. > > >> > > >> If and when less ambiguous languages can be used, _then_ those > > >> languages > > >> become more effective than the more ambiguous languages. > > >> > > >> From 50,000 metaphorical feet, this can be seen as a simple case > of > > >> specialization. A generalist uses coarse tools and a specialist > > uses > > >> fine tools. Math is a fine tool that can only be used after the > > >> generalists have done their upstream work in the domain. Neither > is > > >> really "better", of course, when taking a synoptic view of the > whole > > >> evolution of the domain. But math is definitely more refined... > > more > > >> special. > > >> > > >> > > >>> Interestingly enough, all advances in science stem from the uses > of > > >>> metaphor - not mathematics. (see Quine) The premature rush to > > >>> > > >> abandon > > >> > > >>> the language of metaphor and publish using arcane squiggles is > the > > >>> > > >> real > > >> > > >>> - in my not very humble opinion - barrier to progress. > > >>> > > >> I agree. Likewise, the tendency to stick with a coarse language > > when a > > >> more refined language is called for is also a real barrier to > > >> progress... "progress" defined as: the evolution of a domain from > > >> general to special, coarse to fine. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > >> > > >> > > >> ============================================================ > > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Phil,
I certainly agree that complex systems as an observable phenomenon is important, and I even go so far as to assert that such phenomenon can be modeled (not with deterministic methods). However, the collapse you speak of might be a period of self-organizing criticality. The causal relationship between financial advantage of resource depletion, if it exists, may not survive the avalanche - then again, it may. The difficulty you speak of is entropy building in the system - missing information between real value and monetary gain. Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:47 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > Not to raise the subject necessarily... but just to note that > I've been consistently accurate with my foresight and > descriptions of how our complex system collapse has been > developing. It would really pay you guys to consider the > possibility that interpreting systems as observable physical > processes as I do might be useful. > > Our own whole complex throughput system is still operating in > a global environment of increasing difficulty in using > diminishing resources and still have a financial system > multiplying investments in depleting them. > That's going to just run into ever bigger disappointments > till we stop, one way or another. > > Phil > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On > > Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:17 PM > > To: FRIAM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity > > > > Carl, > > > > Well, It depends on whether you're the kind of person who, when > > finding that nature has a habit of changing the title of the course > > and the text shortly before her exams, continues to study the wrong > > text because that's the course they signed up for... > > [ph] > > > > > > > > > > > > Holding ourselves apart from nature, We are surprised when nature > > > pays our work no mind. > > > Were our methods unsound? > > > > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > > > I think what may be holding back the math is our > failure to go to > > the > > > next > > > > level and consider change as a physical process. When > you do that > > > you find > > > > what nature actually does much more interesting and > inspiring than > > > anything > > > > we can invent. > > > > > > > > Using a physical systems model the process now bringing > about our > > > whole > > > > system collapse was seen coming a long way off and it could have > > > inspired > > > > the math to demonstrate the turn onto another path instead too. > > > Live and > > > > learn I guess. > > > > > > > > The 2006 paper by Bettencourt is easily generalized to > reach this > > > > implication, acknowledging that for the physical growth > system he > > > considered > > > > "achieving major innovation cycles must be generated at > > > > continually accelerating rates"( > > > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7301.abstract). > > > > That's remarkably close to the basis of proof for the general > > > principle I > > > > offered in my "Infinite Society" paper in 1979 > > > > (http://www.synapse9.com/UnhidPatt-theInfiniteSoc.pdf). The > > general > > > > principle being the theorem that I've been using ever since with > > > excellent > > > > forecasting results. In physical systems "growth runs into > > > complications" > > > > and nature does a lot of creative stuff with it. You just look > > for > > > the > > > > complications coming and then 'voila', cool new science at every > > > turn! > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: [hidden email] > > > >> [mailto:[hidden email]] > > > On > > > >> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > > > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:10 PM > > > >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > > > >> > > > >> Prof David West wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>> We have also talked about the lack of rigorous mathematical > > > >>>> representation of complexity and that being a barrier to > > progress > > > >>>> in the science. > > > >>>> > > > >>> the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above sentence > > > >>> raises > > > >>> > > > >> mine. > > > >> > > > >>> implicit in the sentence is some variation of > "mathematics is a > > > >>> > > > >> better / > > > >> > > > >>> superior / privileged / real language compared to all other > > > languages > > > >>> used by humans to think and therefore we cannot really think > > > properly > > > >>> > > > >> or > > > >> > > > >>> rigorously unless we are thinking mathematically." > > > >>> > > > >> I don't think that inference is implied by that sentence. I so > > > believe > > > >> math is a better language with which to describe reality than, > > say, > > > >> English. But, that's not what the sentence above says. The > > > sentence > > > >> above states that a _lack_ of math rigor is a barrier to one > > > particular > > > >> domain: plectics. > > > >> > > > >> Your inference goes quite a bit further than the > David's sentence. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> this annoying attitude is expressed / believed by a > majority of > > > >>> intellectuals and academicians - not just mathematicians. We > > > cannot > > > >>> > > > >> be > > > >> > > > >>> "scientists" unless we 'mathematize' our field of enquiry. > > > >>> > > > >> And although I believe that math is the best known > language for > > > >> describing reality, I don't believe that one must mathematize > > every > > > >> scientific field or that one cannot be a scientist without > > > >> mathematizing their field. > > > >> > > > >> Science is the search for truth. And truth can be sought using > > any > > > >> language... any language at all. Some domains, > particularly the > > > ones > > > >> resistant to rigor are best studied with languages that have a > > high > > > >> tolerance for ambiguity... e.g. English. > > > >> > > > >> Some domains that are not so resistant to rigor are > best studied > > > with > > > >> math. Often, it takes a great deal of work using ambiguity > > tolerant > > > >> languages like English before an ambiguity intolerant language > > like > > > >> math > > > >> can be effectively used. > > > >> > > > >> If and when less ambiguous languages can be used, _then_ those > > > >> languages become more effective than the more ambiguous > > > >> languages. > > > >> > > > >> From 50,000 metaphorical feet, this can be seen as a > simple case > > of > > > >> specialization. A generalist uses coarse tools and a > specialist > > > uses > > > >> fine tools. Math is a fine tool that can only be used > after the > > > >> generalists have done their upstream work in the > domain. Neither > > is > > > >> really "better", of course, when taking a synoptic view of the > > whole > > > >> evolution of the domain. But math is definitely more > refined... > > > more > > > >> special. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Interestingly enough, all advances in science stem > from the uses > > of > > > >>> metaphor - not mathematics. (see Quine) The > premature rush to > > > >>> > > > >> abandon > > > >> > > > >>> the language of metaphor and publish using arcane squiggles is > > the > > > >>> > > > >> real > > > >> > > > >>> - in my not very humble opinion - barrier to progress. > > > >>> > > > >> I agree. Likewise, the tendency to stick with a > coarse language > > > when a > > > >> more refined language is called for is also a real barrier to > > > >> progress... "progress" defined as: the evolution of a > domain from > > > >> general to special, coarse to fine. > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ============================================================ > > > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > 9a-11:30 at > > > >> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps > > > >> at http://www.friam.org > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > 9a-11:30 at > > > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps > > > > at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > 9a-11:30 at cafe > > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
You refer to "a period of self-organizing criticality" as if that were an
observable thing, whereas it appears to me to be a statistical concept for a set of chaotic equations. Part of what that model leaves out is the conserved processes of development that complex systems display, and how they begin and end with processes of conserved change. Complex systems change by accumulative organizational and path-building processes, not by statistics. That is what lets nature use development as the place where the designs of things are both built and recorded. Your idea seems to be that having everything fall apart might just be a way for it to all fall together in disguise, so pushing it to criticality is possibly a good idea not a bad idea. Isn't that the sense of it? That's a kind of "hail Mary plan" saying we're down to acts of complete desperation. "We've just got to try something" does seem to be the more or less universal mantra of the scientific community in proposing improbable mega schemes with exceedingly low levels of confidence. I think the survival of our way of life deserves something better than "hail Mary plans". In football if you can't think of what else to do, just throw the hell out of it. This is not football, and winners and losers can not all look forward to a good meal with friends and having the same world to live in the next morning. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Lloyd [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:05 AM > To: [hidden email]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee > Group' > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > Phil, > > I certainly agree that complex systems as an observable phenomenon is > important, and I even go so far as to assert that such phenomenon can > be > modeled (not with deterministic methods). > > However, the collapse you speak of might be a period of self-organizing > criticality. The causal relationship between financial advantage of > resource > depletion, if it exists, may not survive the avalanche - then again, it > may. > The difficulty you speak of is entropy building in the system - missing > information between real value and monetary gain. > > > Ken > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [hidden email] > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:47 AM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > > > Not to raise the subject necessarily... but just to note that > > I've been consistently accurate with my foresight and > > descriptions of how our complex system collapse has been > > developing. It would really pay you guys to consider the > > possibility that interpreting systems as observable physical > > processes as I do might be useful. > > > > Our own whole complex throughput system is still operating in > > a global environment of increasing difficulty in using > > diminishing resources and still have a financial system > > multiplying investments in depleting them. > > That's going to just run into ever bigger disappointments > > till we stop, one way or another. > > > > Phil > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [hidden email] > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On > > > Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:17 PM > > > To: FRIAM > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity > > > > > > Carl, > > > > > > Well, It depends on whether you're the kind of person who, when > > > finding that nature has a habit of changing the title of the course > > > and the text shortly before her exams, continues to study the wrong > > > text because that's the course they signed up for... > > > [ph] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Holding ourselves apart from nature, We are surprised when nature > > > > pays our work no mind. > > > > Were our methods unsound? > > > > > > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > > > > I think what may be holding back the math is our > > failure to go to > > > the > > > > next > > > > > level and consider change as a physical process. When > > you do that > > > > you find > > > > > what nature actually does much more interesting and > > inspiring than > > > > anything > > > > > we can invent. > > > > > > > > > > Using a physical systems model the process now bringing > > about our > > > > whole > > > > > system collapse was seen coming a long way off and it could > have > > > > inspired > > > > > the math to demonstrate the turn onto another path instead too. > > > > Live and > > > > > learn I guess. > > > > > > > > > > The 2006 paper by Bettencourt is easily generalized to > > reach this > > > > > implication, acknowledging that for the physical growth > > system he > > > > considered > > > > > "achieving major innovation cycles must be generated at > > > > > continually accelerating rates"( > > > > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7301.abstract). > > > > > That's remarkably close to the basis of proof for the general > > > > principle I > > > > > offered in my "Infinite Society" paper in 1979 > > > > > (http://www.synapse9.com/UnhidPatt-theInfiniteSoc.pdf). The > > > general > > > > > principle being the theorem that I've been using ever since > with > > > > excellent > > > > > forecasting results. In physical systems "growth runs into > > > > complications" > > > > > and nature does a lot of creative stuff with it. You just > look > > > for > > > > the > > > > > complications coming and then 'voila', cool new science at > every > > > > turn! > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: [hidden email] > > > > >> [mailto:[hidden email]] > > > > On > > > > >> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > > > > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:10 PM > > > > >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > > > > >> > > > > >> Prof David West wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>>> We have also talked about the lack of rigorous mathematical > > > > >>>> representation of complexity and that being a barrier to > > > progress > > > > >>>> in the science. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above sentence > > > > >>> raises > > > > >>> > > > > >> mine. > > > > >> > > > > >>> implicit in the sentence is some variation of > > "mathematics is a > > > > >>> > > > > >> better / > > > > >> > > > > >>> superior / privileged / real language compared to all other > > > > languages > > > > >>> used by humans to think and therefore we cannot really think > > > > properly > > > > >>> > > > > >> or > > > > >> > > > > >>> rigorously unless we are thinking mathematically." > > > > >>> > > > > >> I don't think that inference is implied by that sentence. I > so > > > > believe > > > > >> math is a better language with which to describe reality than, > > > say, > > > > >> English. But, that's not what the sentence above says. The > > > > sentence > > > > >> above states that a _lack_ of math rigor is a barrier to one > > > > particular > > > > >> domain: plectics. > > > > >> > > > > >> Your inference goes quite a bit further than the > > David's sentence. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> this annoying attitude is expressed / believed by a > > majority of > > > > >>> intellectuals and academicians - not just mathematicians. We > > > > cannot > > > > >>> > > > > >> be > > > > >> > > > > >>> "scientists" unless we 'mathematize' our field of enquiry. > > > > >>> > > > > >> And although I believe that math is the best known > > language for > > > > >> describing reality, I don't believe that one must mathematize > > > every > > > > >> scientific field or that one cannot be a scientist without > > > > >> mathematizing their field. > > > > >> > > > > >> Science is the search for truth. And truth can be sought > using > > > any > > > > >> language... any language at all. Some domains, > > particularly the > > > > ones > > > > >> resistant to rigor are best studied with languages that have a > > > high > > > > >> tolerance for ambiguity... e.g. English. > > > > >> > > > > >> Some domains that are not so resistant to rigor are > > best studied > > > > with > > > > >> math. Often, it takes a great deal of work using ambiguity > > > tolerant > > > > >> languages like English before an ambiguity intolerant language > > > like > > > > >> math > > > > >> can be effectively used. > > > > >> > > > > >> If and when less ambiguous languages can be used, _then_ those > > > > >> languages become more effective than the more ambiguous > > > > >> languages. > > > > >> > > > > >> From 50,000 metaphorical feet, this can be seen as a > > simple case > > > of > > > > >> specialization. A generalist uses coarse tools and a > > specialist > > > > uses > > > > >> fine tools. Math is a fine tool that can only be used > > after the > > > > >> generalists have done their upstream work in the > > domain. Neither > > > is > > > > >> really "better", of course, when taking a synoptic view of the > > > whole > > > > >> evolution of the domain. But math is definitely more > > refined... > > > > more > > > > >> special. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> Interestingly enough, all advances in science stem > > from the uses > > > of > > > > >>> metaphor - not mathematics. (see Quine) The > > premature rush to > > > > >>> > > > > >> abandon > > > > >> > > > > >>> the language of metaphor and publish using arcane squiggles > is > > > the > > > > >>> > > > > >> real > > > > >> > > > > >>> - in my not very humble opinion - barrier to progress. > > > > >>> > > > > >> I agree. Likewise, the tendency to stick with a > > coarse language > > > > when a > > > > >> more refined language is called for is also a real barrier to > > > > >> progress... "progress" defined as: the evolution of a > > domain from > > > > >> general to special, coarse to fine. > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> ============================================================ > > > > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > > 9a-11:30 at > > > > >> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > > unsubscribe, maps > > > > >> at http://www.friam.org > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > > 9a-11:30 at > > > > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > > unsubscribe, maps > > > > > at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > > 9a-11:30 at cafe > > > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Phil,
Tell a skier that to an avalanche is just a statistical concept, or Ising or Potts fields to a physicist. SOC is the way most electronics work, SCR's and thus TRIAC's, Josephson junctions, and lasers. Lasers are my favorite example - SOC of light. I'm not sure the above fall into "Hail Mary" strategies. Plus, I'm not sure what terms like good and bad have to do with a description of a physical phenomena. Finally, equations and static logic only work for equilibrium systems, unless you utilize functors as functions of functions. So try computing with percolation theory. Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Henshaw [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:32 AM > To: [hidden email]; 'The Friday Morning Applied > Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > You refer to "a period of self-organizing criticality" as if > that were an observable thing, whereas it appears to me to be > a statistical concept for a set of chaotic equations. Part > of what that model leaves out is the conserved processes of > development that complex systems display, and how they begin > and end with processes of conserved change. Complex systems > change by accumulative organizational and path-building > processes, not by > statistics. That is what lets nature use development as the > place where > the designs of things are both built and recorded. > > Your idea seems to be that having everything fall apart might > just be a way for it to all fall together in disguise, so > pushing it to criticality is > possibly a good idea not a bad idea. Isn't that the sense of > it? That's a > kind of "hail Mary plan" saying we're down to acts of > complete desperation. > "We've just got to try something" does seem to be the more or > less universal mantra of the scientific community in > proposing improbable mega schemes with > exceedingly low levels of confidence. > > I think the survival of our way of life deserves something > better than "hail Mary plans". In football if you can't > think of what else to do, just throw the hell out of it. > This is not football, and winners and losers can not all look > forward to a good meal with friends and having the same world > to live in the next morning. > > Phil > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ken Lloyd [mailto:[hidden email]] > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:05 AM > > To: [hidden email]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee > > Group' > > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > > > Phil, > > > > I certainly agree that complex systems as an observable > phenomenon is > > important, and I even go so far as to assert that such > phenomenon can > > be modeled (not with deterministic methods). > > > > However, the collapse you speak of might be a period of > > self-organizing criticality. The causal relationship > between financial > > advantage of resource depletion, if it exists, may not survive the > > avalanche - then again, it may. > > The difficulty you speak of is entropy building in the system - > > missing information between real value and monetary gain. > > > > > > Ken > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [hidden email] > > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:47 AM > > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > > Subject: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > > > > > Not to raise the subject necessarily... but just to note > that I've > > > been consistently accurate with my foresight and > descriptions of how > > > our complex system collapse has been developing. It would really > > > pay you guys to consider the possibility that > interpreting systems > > > as observable physical processes as I do might be useful. > > > > > > Our own whole complex throughput system is still operating in a > > > global environment of increasing difficulty in using diminishing > > > resources and still have a financial system multiplying > investments > > > in depleting them. > > > That's going to just run into ever bigger disappointments till we > > > stop, one way or another. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [hidden email] > > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On > > > > Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:17 PM > > > > To: FRIAM > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity > > > > > > > > Carl, > > > > > > > > Well, It depends on whether you're the kind of person who, when > > > > finding that nature has a habit of changing the title of the > > > > course and the text shortly before her exams, continues > to study > > > > the wrong text because that's the course they signed up for... > > > > [ph] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Holding ourselves apart from nature, We are surprised when > > > > > nature pays our work no mind. > > > > > Were our methods unsound? > > > > > > > > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > > > > > I think what may be holding back the math is our > > > failure to go to > > > > the > > > > > next > > > > > > level and consider change as a physical process. When > > > you do that > > > > > you find > > > > > > what nature actually does much more interesting and > > > inspiring than > > > > > anything > > > > > > we can invent. > > > > > > > > > > > > Using a physical systems model the process now bringing > > > about our > > > > > whole > > > > > > system collapse was seen coming a long way off and it could > > have > > > > > inspired > > > > > > the math to demonstrate the turn onto another path > instead too. > > > > > Live and > > > > > > learn I guess. > > > > > > > > > > > > The 2006 paper by Bettencourt is easily generalized to > > > reach this > > > > > > implication, acknowledging that for the physical growth > > > system he > > > > > considered > > > > > > "achieving major innovation cycles must be generated at > > > > > > continually accelerating rates"( > > > > > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7301.abstract). > > > > > > That's remarkably close to the basis of proof for > the general > > > > > principle I > > > > > > offered in my "Infinite Society" paper in 1979 > > > > > > (http://www.synapse9.com/UnhidPatt-theInfiniteSoc.pdf). The > > > > general > > > > > > principle being the theorem that I've been using ever since > > with > > > > > excellent > > > > > > forecasting results. In physical systems "growth runs into > > > > > complications" > > > > > > and nature does a lot of creative stuff with it. You just > > look > > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > complications coming and then 'voila', cool new science at > > every > > > > > turn! > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: [hidden email] > > > > > >> [mailto:[hidden email]] > > > > > On > > > > > >> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:10 PM > > > > > >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Prof David West wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> We have also talked about the lack of rigorous > mathematical > > > > > >>>> representation of complexity and that being a barrier to > > > > progress > > > > > >>>> in the science. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above > sentence > > > > > >>> raises > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> mine. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> implicit in the sentence is some variation of > > > "mathematics is a > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> better / > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> superior / privileged / real language compared to > all other > > > > > languages > > > > > >>> used by humans to think and therefore we cannot > really think > > > > > properly > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> or > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> rigorously unless we are thinking mathematically." > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> I don't think that inference is implied by that > sentence. I > > so > > > > > believe > > > > > >> math is a better language with which to describe reality > > > > > >> than, > > > > say, > > > > > >> English. But, that's not what the sentence above > says. The > > > > > sentence > > > > > >> above states that a _lack_ of math rigor is a > barrier to one > > > > > particular > > > > > >> domain: plectics. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Your inference goes quite a bit further than the > > > David's sentence. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> this annoying attitude is expressed / believed by a > > > majority of > > > > > >>> intellectuals and academicians - not just > mathematicians. > > > > > >>> We > > > > > cannot > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> be > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> "scientists" unless we 'mathematize' our field of enquiry. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> And although I believe that math is the best known > > > language for > > > > > >> describing reality, I don't believe that one must > mathematize > > > > every > > > > > >> scientific field or that one cannot be a scientist without > > > > > >> mathematizing their field. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Science is the search for truth. And truth can be sought > > using > > > > any > > > > > >> language... any language at all. Some domains, > > > particularly the > > > > > ones > > > > > >> resistant to rigor are best studied with languages > that have > > > > > >> a > > > > high > > > > > >> tolerance for ambiguity... e.g. English. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Some domains that are not so resistant to rigor are > > > best studied > > > > > with > > > > > >> math. Often, it takes a great deal of work using ambiguity > > > > tolerant > > > > > >> languages like English before an ambiguity intolerant > > > > > >> language > > > > like > > > > > >> math > > > > > >> can be effectively used. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> If and when less ambiguous languages can be used, _then_ > > > > > >> those languages become more effective than the > more ambiguous > > > > > >> languages. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> From 50,000 metaphorical feet, this can be seen as a > > > simple case > > > > of > > > > > >> specialization. A generalist uses coarse tools and a > > > specialist > > > > > uses > > > > > >> fine tools. Math is a fine tool that can only be used > > > after the > > > > > >> generalists have done their upstream work in the > > > domain. Neither > > > > is > > > > > >> really "better", of course, when taking a synoptic view of > > > > > >> the > > > > whole > > > > > >> evolution of the domain. But math is definitely more > > > refined... > > > > > more > > > > > >> special. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Interestingly enough, all advances in science stem > > > from the uses > > > > of > > > > > >>> metaphor - not mathematics. (see Quine) The > > > premature rush to > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> abandon > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> the language of metaphor and publish using arcane > squiggles > > is > > > > the > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> real > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> - in my not very humble opinion - barrier to progress. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> I agree. Likewise, the tendency to stick with a > > > coarse language > > > > > when a > > > > > >> more refined language is called for is also a real > barrier to > > > > > >> progress... "progress" defined as: the evolution of a > > > domain from > > > > > >> general to special, coarse to fine. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > ============================================================ > > > > > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > > > 9a-11:30 at > > > > > >> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > > > unsubscribe, maps > > > > > >> at http://www.friam.org > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > > > 9a-11:30 at > > > > > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > > > unsubscribe, maps > > > > > > at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > > > 9a-11:30 at cafe > > > > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at > > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at > > > http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Ken,
Right. I'm quite comfortable discussing it from the observed physical phenomena. If you watch individual physical events develop what I think you quickly discover are developmental processes that statistical models can't duplicate. Nature does not actually work by 'cause and effect' until some complex developmental process sets up the environment for some 'cause' to have an 'effect'. When you watch individual events closely you notice each one develops individually. The statistical models can't model it because,.. development always follows an individual path of exploration in an individual environment. You can guess the outcome, but that's not how nature brings it about. In the general scope of natural processes, the statistical models work well mainly for the physical systems that science has been most successful with. That's sort of 'tautological', since what traditional science relies on is statistical models for everything, and where we've found them to work well has been the developmental path of science. I'm using science to explore other paths for other domains of natural process. My approach is quite sophisticated, asking somewhat simpler questions, but about the developmental processes which are local and unique. I use the emergence of conserved change and developmental continuity as the handle to grab onto them with. It's making an artificial model with equations. It's considering complex system processes as being their own 'model' and learning how to explore them. If I had someone with your knowledge of statistical physics 'get it' and help prove some very general statistical theorems, I think there is good work to be done that way too. Some would have to do with a theory of whole system measure, and things like limits of development defined by diminishing environmental returns on development, with the certainty of any exploration switching from unbounded to bounded accumulation. It offers a completely general envelope of explanations for why any avalanche or ionization wave, etc. begins and ends. My reference to football refers to all the grand schemes I keep hearing about at the conferences, and the curious popularity of the expression "extremely challenging" when the proposers are asked how sure they are that they'll work. If you go into the detail one by one I think you find the 'positive' spin they're presented with does not come from the science or engineering. The true "hail Mary" part is that they all conveniently ignore the continual acceleration of change and exploding complexity and resource conflicts they all imply. The simple problem they all incorporate is proposing unlimited growth from resources we choose to not to consider the limits of. It's totally 'cookie' how we got into such a profoundly non-self-critical frame of mind for the most important decisions of our own survival. I'm not sure if Joe Tainter or Jared Diamond talked about any example of collapse being caused by ever narrowing mental fixation on ever less reliable options, but that's clearly what's happening to us. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Lloyd [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:30 AM > To: [hidden email] > Cc: Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > Phil, > > Tell a skier that to an avalanche is just a statistical concept, or > Ising or > Potts fields to a physicist. > > SOC is the way most electronics work, SCR's and thus TRIAC's, Josephson > junctions, and lasers. Lasers are my favorite example - SOC of light. > > I'm not sure the above fall into "Hail Mary" strategies. Plus, I'm not > sure > what terms like good and bad have to do with a description of a > physical > phenomena. > > Finally, equations and static logic only work for equilibrium systems, > unless you utilize functors as functions of functions. So try > computing > with percolation theory. > > Ken > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Phil Henshaw [mailto:[hidden email]] > > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:32 AM > > To: [hidden email]; 'The Friday Morning Applied > > Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > > > You refer to "a period of self-organizing criticality" as if > > that were an observable thing, whereas it appears to me to be > > a statistical concept for a set of chaotic equations. Part > > of what that model leaves out is the conserved processes of > > development that complex systems display, and how they begin > > and end with processes of conserved change. Complex systems > > change by accumulative organizational and path-building > > processes, not by > > statistics. That is what lets nature use development as the > > place where > > the designs of things are both built and recorded. > > > > Your idea seems to be that having everything fall apart might > > just be a way for it to all fall together in disguise, so > > pushing it to criticality is > > possibly a good idea not a bad idea. Isn't that the sense of > > it? That's a > > kind of "hail Mary plan" saying we're down to acts of > > complete desperation. > > "We've just got to try something" does seem to be the more or > > less universal mantra of the scientific community in > > proposing improbable mega schemes with > > exceedingly low levels of confidence. > > > > I think the survival of our way of life deserves something > > better than "hail Mary plans". In football if you can't > > think of what else to do, just throw the hell out of it. > > This is not football, and winners and losers can not all look > > forward to a good meal with friends and having the same world > > to live in the next morning. > > > > Phil > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ken Lloyd [mailto:[hidden email]] > > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:05 AM > > > To: [hidden email]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee > > > Group' > > > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > > > > > Phil, > > > > > > I certainly agree that complex systems as an observable > > phenomenon is > > > important, and I even go so far as to assert that such > > phenomenon can > > > be modeled (not with deterministic methods). > > > > > > However, the collapse you speak of might be a period of > > > self-organizing criticality. The causal relationship > > between financial > > > advantage of resource depletion, if it exists, may not survive the > > > avalanche - then again, it may. > > > The difficulty you speak of is entropy building in the system - > > > missing information between real value and monetary gain. > > > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [hidden email] > > > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:47 AM > > > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > > > Subject: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > > > > > > > Not to raise the subject necessarily... but just to note > > that I've > > > > been consistently accurate with my foresight and > > descriptions of how > > > > our complex system collapse has been developing. It would really > > > > pay you guys to consider the possibility that > > interpreting systems > > > > as observable physical processes as I do might be useful. > > > > > > > > Our own whole complex throughput system is still operating in a > > > > global environment of increasing difficulty in using diminishing > > > > resources and still have a financial system multiplying > > investments > > > > in depleting them. > > > > That's going to just run into ever bigger disappointments till we > > > > stop, one way or another. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [hidden email] > > > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On > > > > > Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:17 PM > > > > > To: FRIAM > > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity > > > > > > > > > > Carl, > > > > > > > > > > Well, It depends on whether you're the kind of person who, when > > > > > finding that nature has a habit of changing the title of the > > > > > course and the text shortly before her exams, continues > > to study > > > > > the wrong text because that's the course they signed up for... > > > > > [ph] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Holding ourselves apart from nature, We are surprised when > > > > > > nature pays our work no mind. > > > > > > Were our methods unsound? > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > > > > > > I think what may be holding back the math is our > > > > failure to go to > > > > > the > > > > > > next > > > > > > > level and consider change as a physical process. When > > > > you do that > > > > > > you find > > > > > > > what nature actually does much more interesting and > > > > inspiring than > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > we can invent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Using a physical systems model the process now bringing > > > > about our > > > > > > whole > > > > > > > system collapse was seen coming a long way off and it could > > > have > > > > > > inspired > > > > > > > the math to demonstrate the turn onto another path > > instead too. > > > > > > Live and > > > > > > > learn I guess. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 2006 paper by Bettencourt is easily generalized to > > > > reach this > > > > > > > implication, acknowledging that for the physical growth > > > > system he > > > > > > considered > > > > > > > "achieving major innovation cycles must be generated at > > > > > > > continually accelerating rates"( > > > > > > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7301.abstract). > > > > > > > That's remarkably close to the basis of proof for > > the general > > > > > > principle I > > > > > > > offered in my "Infinite Society" paper in 1979 > > > > > > > (http://www.synapse9.com/UnhidPatt-theInfiniteSoc.pdf). > The > > > > > general > > > > > > > principle being the theorem that I've been using ever since > > > with > > > > > > excellent > > > > > > > forecasting results. In physical systems "growth runs into > > > > > > complications" > > > > > > > and nature does a lot of creative stuff with it. You just > > > look > > > > > for > > > > > > the > > > > > > > complications coming and then 'voila', cool new science at > > > every > > > > > > turn! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > >> From: [hidden email] > > > > > > >> [mailto:[hidden email]] > > > > > > On > > > > > > >> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:10 PM > > > > > > >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Prof David West wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>>> We have also talked about the lack of rigorous > > mathematical > > > > > > >>>> representation of complexity and that being a barrier to > > > > > progress > > > > > > >>>> in the science. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above > > sentence > > > > > > >>> raises > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> mine. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> implicit in the sentence is some variation of > > > > "mathematics is a > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> better / > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> superior / privileged / real language compared to > > all other > > > > > > languages > > > > > > >>> used by humans to think and therefore we cannot > > really think > > > > > > properly > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> or > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> rigorously unless we are thinking mathematically." > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> I don't think that inference is implied by that > > sentence. I > > > so > > > > > > believe > > > > > > >> math is a better language with which to describe reality > > > > > > >> than, > > > > > say, > > > > > > >> English. But, that's not what the sentence above > > says. The > > > > > > sentence > > > > > > >> above states that a _lack_ of math rigor is a > > barrier to one > > > > > > particular > > > > > > >> domain: plectics. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Your inference goes quite a bit further than the > > > > David's sentence. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> this annoying attitude is expressed / believed by a > > > > majority of > > > > > > >>> intellectuals and academicians - not just > > mathematicians. > > > > > > >>> We > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> "scientists" unless we 'mathematize' our field of > enquiry. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> And although I believe that math is the best known > > > > language for > > > > > > >> describing reality, I don't believe that one must > > mathematize > > > > > every > > > > > > >> scientific field or that one cannot be a scientist without > > > > > > >> mathematizing their field. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Science is the search for truth. And truth can be sought > > > using > > > > > any > > > > > > >> language... any language at all. Some domains, > > > > particularly the > > > > > > ones > > > > > > >> resistant to rigor are best studied with languages > > that have > > > > > > >> a > > > > > high > > > > > > >> tolerance for ambiguity... e.g. English. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Some domains that are not so resistant to rigor are > > > > best studied > > > > > > with > > > > > > >> math. Often, it takes a great deal of work using > ambiguity > > > > > tolerant > > > > > > >> languages like English before an ambiguity intolerant > > > > > > >> language > > > > > like > > > > > > >> math > > > > > > >> can be effectively used. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> If and when less ambiguous languages can be used, _then_ > > > > > > >> those languages become more effective than the > > more ambiguous > > > > > > >> languages. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> From 50,000 metaphorical feet, this can be seen as a > > > > simple case > > > > > of > > > > > > >> specialization. A generalist uses coarse tools and a > > > > specialist > > > > > > uses > > > > > > >> fine tools. Math is a fine tool that can only be used > > > > after the > > > > > > >> generalists have done their upstream work in the > > > > domain. Neither > > > > > is > > > > > > >> really "better", of course, when taking a synoptic view of > > > > > > >> the > > > > > whole > > > > > > >> evolution of the domain. But math is definitely more > > > > refined... > > > > > > more > > > > > > >> special. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Interestingly enough, all advances in science stem > > > > from the uses > > > > > of > > > > > > >>> metaphor - not mathematics. (see Quine) The > > > > premature rush to > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> abandon > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> the language of metaphor and publish using arcane > > squiggles > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> real > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> - in my not very humble opinion - barrier to progress. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> I agree. Likewise, the tendency to stick with a > > > > coarse language > > > > > > when a > > > > > > >> more refined language is called for is also a real > > barrier to > > > > > > >> progress... "progress" defined as: the evolution of a > > > > domain from > > > > > > >> general to special, coarse to fine. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > ============================================================ > > > > > > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > > > > 9a-11:30 at > > > > > > >> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > > > > unsubscribe, maps > > > > > > >> at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > > > > 9a-11:30 at > > > > > > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > > > > unsubscribe, maps > > > > > > > at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > > > > 9a-11:30 at cafe > > > > > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > > > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at > > > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > > unsubscribe, maps at > > > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |