QUERY Agent Based Modeling (ABM), Emergence, Evolution, and System Dynamics (SD)

[Justin Lyon]

Hi everyone,

As part of Simudyne's focus on the convergence of ABM
and SD in Simulation Science, I've been thinking about
the linkages between evolution by natural selection
(Darwin), agent-based modeling and emergence
(Kaufman), the game of life (Conway) and system
dynamics (Forrester).

We believe this convergence has tremendous commercial
value.

I would value your feedback.

on p644 of _The Origin of Order_ by Kaufmann, he says
that "Evolution is not just 'chance caught on the
wing.' It is not just a tinkering of the ad hoc, of
bricolage, of contraption. It is emergent order
honored and honed by selection." This would seem to be
a refutation of evolution by natural selection via the
power of self-organization, but it is not. Emergence
does not refute evolution by natural selection, nor do
I think (assumption here) that is what Kaufmann is
saying? Does anyone know his views on this as I'm not
that familiar with his thinking?

Dennet argues in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ on p226
that Kaufman is saying that "there are principles of
order that govern the design process, and that force
the tinker's hand. Even a blind tinker will find the
forced moves; it doesn't take a rocket scientist, as
one says." But, is that what Kaufman is really saying?

In Conway's game of life, we can see the emergence
from very simple rules what 'looks' like purposeful
movement (gliders, eaters, spaceships and many others
in the simulated world) but this emergence is clearly
not 'purposeful'. Yet, these simple automata are just
like the collection of automata that make up humans
and snakes and hawks and doves in the real world.

In biochemistry we have the repair of DNA by
'proteins' or 'enzymes' or 'agents' or 'automata' or
'robots' or 'macros' - choose your jargon. These
proteins, like DNA glycosylase and DNA polymerases,
follow simple 'rules,' much like cellular automata in
the Game of Life, and in following these simple rules
they repair large numbers of errors in DNA on a daily
basis (something like 20,000 bases are damaged every
day in human DNA). And from this (and a huge host of
other processes) emerges the complicated process of
DNA repair that keeps us alive and kicking and
choosing to dance the night happily away or spending a
quiet evening alone reading.

Or, consider the 'emergence' in bacteria of stopping
tryptophan production (trp) when it 'finds' trp
present in the environment (because it can 'eat' trp
from the environment). If trp is not present it starts
synthesizing it from chorismate. This process is
mediated by represession, transcription attenuation
and feedback. So, you can have simple rules
(synthesize trp when none available in the
environment) that emerge into something 'greater' ?
apparently purposeful bacteria that start producing
trp when it finds none to eat. Yet, bacteria are no
more purposeful than the 'robots' or 'agent's that
make us up as humans. You can model trp production
kinetics using a set of differential equations to
describe the trp operon behavior over time and solve
the equations using the fourth-order Runge-Kutta
algorithm. It's been done in Mexico by Moises
Santilla? and published in the Journal of Theoretical
Biology. Classic system dynamics.

Or, you can also model enzyme kintetics using
agent-based modeling where you decompose the system
into 'agents' or 'actors' or 'capsules' (in a rational
rose real-time model) ? choose your jargon.

Whether you use agent-based modeling or system
dynamics does not really matter -- it just depends on
the level of emergence that you are interested in
studying.

And, interestingly for the manipulation of high-level
emergent behavior in human systems like businesses,
you can use System Dynamics to model (1) oscillations
in supply chains, (2) limits to growth, (3) success to
the successful, (4) fixes that fail, and on and on . .
.

Does it not seem clear to other people that System
Dynamics is a meta-language for describing these
'principles of order' and the appearance of emergence
in systems (whether natural or created by humans)?

Are not the 'archetypes' of system dynamics the key to
unlocking and describing the seeming 'mystery' or
'magic' of emergence?

That is, is it possible that the 'archetypes' of
system dynamics are the 'physics of biology;' the
'meta-engineering' of life through the wonderful, yet
blind and simple algorithmic process of evolution by
natural selection of agents that replicate?

So, after ~10,000 years have we finally answered the
ultimate 'why' of all teleological arguments?