Robert Rosen

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Robert Rosen

Nick Thompson
Thanks, Russell,

Does anybody in the Mother Church have a copy s/he could bring to Friday's
Meeting????

Nick


> [Original Message]
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>

> Date: 11/29/2007 1:10:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen
>
> Try http://www3.vcu.edu/complex/
>
> However, you'll probably find it easier to borrow one of Rosen's books
> from the library and read that, rather than to try to understand what
> others make of him. It's sort of the reverse of David Bohm...
>
> Cheers
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:46:55AM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > Glen
> > ,
> >
> > Everybody but me seems to know what Robert Rosen work you are referring
to.
> > If I apologize for being an ill-educated bounder, could you provide me
with

> > a netref or two to work with?  
> >
> > I apologize.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > (if you give me the reference, will that be an instance of causality?)  
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> > > To: <friam at redfish.com>
> > > Date: 11/28/2007 10:04:16 AM
> > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 53, Issue 25
> > >
> > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> > > friam at redfish.com
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > friam-request at redfish.com
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > friam-owner at redfish.com
> > >
> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > >    1. Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and
> > >       Causality) (Nicholas Thompson)
> > >    2. [Fwd: New AAAI Conference - ICWSM 2008] (Robert Cordingley)
> > >    3. Re: Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and
> > >       Causality) (Robert Cordingley)
> > >    4. Re: Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and
> > >       Causality) (Glen E. P. Ropella)
> > >    5. some thoughts on the educational aspect of 632 (Prof David West)
> > >    6. Re: Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM
> > >       andCausality) (Nicholas Thompson)
> > >    7. one laptop per child (Marcus G. Daniels)
> > >    8. Re: one laptop per child (Carl Tollander)
> > >    9. Re: one laptop per child (Alfredo Covaleda)
> > >   10. My employer in the news (Douglas Roberts)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:22:54 -0700
> > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and
> > > Causality)
> > > To: friam at redfish.com
> > > Cc: echarles <echarles at clarku.edu>, gbarker at bucknell.edu
> > > Message-ID: <380-2200711227182254480 at earthlink.net>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I confess I have not followed the mathematical side of this discussion
> > into
> > > the blue underlined stuff.  Nor do I claim to understand all of the
plain
> > > text.
> > >
> > > However, I am tempted by the idea of a mathematical formalization of
> > > "natural design".  Here is the argument:  What EVERYBODY --from the
most
> > > dyed in the wool Natural Theologist to the most flaming Dawkinsian --
> > > agrees on is that there is some property of natural objects which we
might
> > > roughly call their designedness.  Tremendous confusion has been sewn
by
> > > biologists by confusing that property -- whatever it might be --
with the
> > > CAUSES of that property, variously God or Natural selection, or
> > > what-have-you.   So much of what passes for causal explanation in
biology
> > > is actually description of the "adaptation relation" or what I call,
just
> > > to be a trouble-maker, "natural design".  
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you mathematicians could do a great deal for
biology
> > by
> > > putting your minds to a formalization of "natural design".  It would
put
> > > Darwin's theory -- "natural selection begets natural design" out of
the
> > > reach of tautology once and for all.  What I am looking for here is a
> > > mathematical formalization of the relations --hierarchy of relations,
I
> > > would suppose -- that leads to attributions of "designedness".
Assuming
> > > that one had put a computer on a British Survey Vessel and sent it
round
> > > the world for five years looking at the creatures and their
surroundings,
> > > what is the mathematical description of the relation that would have
to be
> > > obtained before the computer would come home saying that creatures
were
> > > designed (and rocks weren't).   Then -- and only then -- are we in a
> > > position to ask the question, "is natural selection the best
explanation
> > > for this property.  
> > >
> > > My supposition is that ALL current theories will not survive such an
> > > analysis.  Indeed, we may need a new metaphor altogether.  Many of you
> > will
> > > be familiar with the notion of fitness landscape.  For intuitive
purposes,
> > > let me turn the landscape upside down, so its peaks are chasms and its
> > > valleys are peaks.  Now, drop a ball at random into the upside down
> > > landscape.  Assuming that the landscape is rigid, the ball will roll
> > around
> > > until it finds a local minimum.  If you put some jitter in the
rolling, it
> > > might, depending on the size of the jitter and the roughness of the
> > > landscape, find the absolute minimum.  But all of this assumes that
the
> > > ball has no effect on the landscape!  If we turn the landscape into a
> > > semi-rigid net so that the ball deforms the landscape as it rolls
through
> > > it, then we have a much better metaphor for the relation between an
> > > organism's design and the environment in which it is operating.  Some
> > > organisms -- weedy species -- cause the environment to rise under
their
> > > feet, so to speak, so they are constantly driven out of whatever
valley
> > > they settle in;  Other organisms modify the environment in their
favor and
> > > in effect, dig their way into a pit in the landscape.  If the ball
> > > representing such organisms has inadequate jitter or the landscape is
not
> > > sufficiently springy, such an organism can dig its way  into a pit and
> > then
> > > go extinct.  
> > >
> > > In short we need a dynamical theory.  But such a theory will never
happen

> > > until we have a  sufficiently subtle (and verbalizable) mathematical
> > > formalization of the momentary relation between organisms and their
> > > environments that we are trying to explain.   Get at it, you
> > > mathematicians!!!!
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > D'Espagnat gives a very biased view of QM. For a critical view of
the
> > > > book see for instance
> > > >
> > > > Esfeld, Michael
> > > > Review of "Bernard d'Espagnat, On physics and philosophy,
Princeton:
> > > > Princeton University Press 2006", Studies in History and Philosophy
of
> > > > Modern Physics 38B (2007), pp. 989-992
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/shared/DocsPerso/EsfeldMichael/2007/Esp
> > > agnat-SHPMP07.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Gus Koehler wrote:
> > > > > Bernard D'Espagnat, practicing and well know physicist, in his
2006 On

> > > > > Physics and Philosophy makes the following points based on
> > contemporary
> > > > > limits that nature has imposed us via quantum mechanics:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > G?nther
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > G?nther Greindl
> > > > Department of Philosophy of Science
> > > > University of Vienna
> > > > guenther.greindl at univie.ac.at
> > > > http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/
> > > >
> > > > Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
> > > > Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 5
> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:05:38 +0000
> > > > From: sy at synapse9.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
> > > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID:
> > > >
> > >
> >
        <1164569392-1196172318-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1644186245-
> > > @bxe010.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
> > > >
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> > > >
> > > > Glen,
> > > > Nearly all you say fits closely with my approach, except the word
'any'
> > > in the following quote.
> > > >
> > > > " To the contrary, I assume every actual system has an inherent
> > > > "hierarchicability" (following the word "extensibility") with
respect to
> > > > any observer(s).  In other words, a system can be projected onto any
> > > > ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by the projection."
> > > >
> > > > If you insert 'an' there instead, the combination of the possible
and

> > > discovered orderings will reveal an image of other things.
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > > >
> > > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:51:12
> > > > To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > G?nther Greindl on 11/21/2007 04:48 PM:
> > > > > So you probably won't even support sup/inf hierarchy, I gather;
I'm
> > no
> > > > > Relativity pundit - do you think that follows from SR or is it a
> > > > > philosophical view?
> > > >
> > > > It's somewhere in between.  But I don't derive the principle from
SR.  I
> > > > derive it from everyday experience.  I tend to believe that any
measure
> > > > (including relative ones like ordering and sup/inf) are mere
aspects of
> > > > the underlying relations.  So, it's not that I don't support
hierarchy.
> > > >  To the contrary, I assume every actual system has an inherent
> > > > "hierarchicability" (following the word "extensibility") with
respect to
> > > > any observer(s).  In other words, a system can be projected onto any
> > > > ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by the projection.
> > > >
> > > > No single ordering will tell us much about the system because
(assuming
> > > > it's accurate) it only shows us one aspect (interpretation, usage)
of
> > > > the system.  In order to make a claim that we've identified a
> > > > cause-effect graph, we have to make several (in some cases infinite)
> > > > projections based on various imputed attributes.
> > > >
> > > > >> Such distinctions do NOT require one to consider
[in]determinism.
> > But,
> > > > >> they do require one to consider historical accumulation and
> > > canalization
> > > > >> of causes, i.e. where and how ignorance (particularly of
"negligible"
> > > > >> influences e.g. events very FAR away in space or time) affects
> > > causality.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, I see what you mean - but just to be careful with
terminology: I
> > > > > guess you mean "affects the process under investigation causally"
and
> > > > > not "affects causality" (last two words above paragraph)
> > > > > Former interpretation: we agree. Latter interpretation: we should
> > > > > discuss ;-))
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm.  At first blush, I'd say I agree with _both_ phrasings.  I'd
say
> > > > (weakly) that ignorance -affects the process under investigation
> > > > causally-.  And I'd say (strongly) that ignorance -affects
causality-.

> > > > How do those phrases make a difference to you?
> > > >
> > > > - --
> > > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> > > > The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly
> > > > enforced. -- Frank Zappa
> > > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> > > >
> > > > iD8DBQFHSrMwZeB+vOTnLkoRAnBEAKDUVstCXsAVcclg8ASwwkT7B3peXACeLKzm
> > > > uExfuxs71G/8vLHcUXzu2fM=
> > > > =02+D
> > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 6
> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:01:38 -0800
> > > > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
> > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID: <474C3152.9080500 at tempusdictum.com>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> > > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > sy at synapse9.com on 11/27/2007 06:05 AM:
> > > > > Nearly all you say fits closely with my approach, except the word
> > > > > 'any' in the following quote.
> > > > >
> > > > > "To the contrary, I assume every actual system has an inherent
> > > > > 'hierarchicability' (following the word 'extensibility') with
respect
> > > > > to any observer(s).  In other words, a system can be projected
onto
> > > > > any ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by the
projection."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you insert 'an' there instead, the combination of the possible
and
> > > > > discovered orderings will reveal an image of other things.
> > > >
> > > > Good point.  I was just thinking this over as I read Esfeld's review
> > > > (thanks G?nther).  On the one hand, the system can be projected onto
> > > > _any_ ordering.  But, as I think you're pointing out, some orderings
> > > > will be a close fit ("natural") and others will be like putting a
square
> > > > peg into a round hole.  So, some projections will work better than
> > > > others.  (I have to qualify that with "for a particular purpose"
> > > > however. ;-)  And the projections that work best provide a better
> > > > measure of the system than others (for that particular purpose).
> > > >
> > > > The part of Esfeld's review that got me thinking this way was the
idea
> > > > that nonseparability and holism do not necessarily imply that we
cannot
> > > > understand a system.  Similarly, the "hierarchicability" concept I
used
> > > > is not intended to imply that all imputations of hierarchy/order are
> > > > equally [use|meaning]ful.
> > > >
> > > > Another thought that keeps ricocheting around in my head is the
problem
> > > > of my use of the word "ignorance".  My usage of the word is often
> > > > challenged; but, I keep using it anyway. [grin]  I'm stubborn.
But, by
> > > > "ignorance", I don't _merely_ mean "lack of knowledge" of a given
person
> > > > or a set of people.  It also means the act or possibility of some
> > > > influence (element of cause) being negligible ... or marginalized.
This
> > > > semantic hair splitting comes up in the Esfeld review, too, when he
> > says:
> > > >
> > > > "In none of these interpretations is any link from nonseparability
and
> > > > holism to our ignorance of what nature is in itself."
> > > >
> > > > If I use my definition of "ignorance", then nonseparability and
holism
> > > > _do_ imply that a form of ignorance (i.e. the marginalization of
> > > > particular influences) always obtains.  Because we cannot know or
> > > > understand _everything_... because our models, by definition, cannot
> > > > ever be completely accurate, we _must_ consider some parts
negligible.
> > > > (And by "we", I mean "any bounded entity that uses transduction
across
> > > > that boundary to understand its environment" ... e.g. trees, ants,
> > > > cells, humans, etc.)
> > > >
> > > > In the case of complex cause, we can make multiple projections into
> > > > various orderings and select the ones that work best (for a
particular
> > > > purpose).  By such selection we can _approach_ an accurate
understanding

> > > > of the system; but it is a limit process.
> > > >
> > > > - --
> > > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> > > > There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. --
> > > > Milton Friedman
> > > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> > > >
> > > > iD8DBQFHTDFSZeB+vOTnLkoRAkIkAJ9mrSUXXLc6xlRU9Z/Mi7IyDT6kWQCg40pi
> > > > AQ+O5hTPgb73a/9/ZrKBfio=
> > > > =WfS3
> > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 7
> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:55:08 -0800
> > > > From: "Gus Koehler" <gus at timestructures.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is mathematical pattern the theory of
everything?

> > > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> > > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID: <001701c8310d$e5f84c90$6401a8c0 at EA5E71A6DE4A4D9>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for drawing this excellent review to our attention.
> > References
> > > to
> > > > differing views from D'Espaganat is very helpful.  In any case, the
> > review
> > > > does not negate my essential point but only adds to it, and that is
the
> > > > fundamental difficulties with trying to establish some foundation
for
> > > > realism given quantum mechanics.  These implications need to be
brought

> > > > forward in the Friam discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Gus
> > > > Gus Koehler, Ph.D.
> > > > President and Principal
> > > > Time Structures, Inc.
> > > > 1545 University Ave.
> > > > Sacramento, CA 95825
> > > > 916-564-8683, Fax: 916-564-7895
> > > > Cell: 916-716-1740
> > > > www.timestructures.com
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com]
On
> > > Behalf
> > > > Of G?nther Greindl
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:27 AM
> > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is mathematical pattern the theory of
everything?
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > D'Espagnat gives a very biased view of QM. For a critical view of
the
> > book
> > > > see for instance
> > > >
> > > > Esfeld, Michael
> > > > Review of "Bernard d'Espagnat, On physics and philosophy,
Princeton:
> > > > Princeton University Press 2006", Studies in History and Philosophy
of
> > > > Modern Physics 38B (2007), pp. 989-992
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/shared/DocsPerso/EsfeldMichael/2007/Esp
> > > > agnat-SHPMP07.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Gus Koehler wrote:
> > > > > Bernard D'Espagnat, practicing and well know physicist, in his
2006
> > On
> > > > > Physics and Philosophy makes the following points based on
> > > > > contemporary limits that nature has imposed us via quantum
mechanics:

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > G?nther
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > G?nther Greindl
> > > > Department of Philosophy of Science
> > > > University of Vienna
> > > > guenther.greindl at univie.ac.at
> > > > http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/
> > > >
> > > > Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
> > > > Site: http://www.complexitystudies.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 mailing list
> > > > Friam at redfish.com
> > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 53, Issue 24
> > > > *************************************
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:50:54 -0600
> > > From: Robert Cordingley <robert at cirrillian.com>
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] [Fwd: New AAAI Conference - ICWSM 2008]
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > <Friam at redfish.com>
> > > Message-ID: <474C670E.9020004 at cirrillian.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >
> > >
> > > Some on this list may find the following announcement of interest..
> > > Thanks
> > > Robert Cordingley
> > >
> > > ************************************
> > > ICWSM 2008
> > > Papers Due: Monday, December 3, 2007
> > > ************************************
> > >
> > > Dear AAAI Members,
> > >
> > > I am delighted to announce that AAAI has welcomed a new conference to
its
> > ranks -- the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
ICWSM,

> > which grew out of a series of workshops and a very successful 2006 AAAI
> > spring symposium, launched its inaugural conference in 2007. It has now
> > forged a formal alliance with AAAI for 2008 and beyond.
> > >
> > > ICWSM 2008 will be held in Seattle, Washington at the Seattle Hilton,
> > March 31 -- April 3. The conference will bring together academic and
> > industrial practitioners to present and to discuss new research,
> > applications, thoughts and ideas that are shaping the future of social
> > media analysis. The conference aims to bring together researchers from
> > different subject areas including computer science, linguistics,
> > psychology, statistics, sociology, multimedia and semantic web
technologies.
> > >
> > > Please note the following important upcoming deadlines:
> > >
> > > * Paper Submission: December 3, 2007
> > > * Tutorial Proposals: December 3, 2007
> > > * Poster/Demo Submission: January 6, 2008
> > >
> > > For complete submission details, please see
http://www.icwsm.org/2008/.
> > >
> > > An impressive line-up of invited speakers will be included in the 2008
> > program, including Bernardo A. Huberman (HP Labs), who will speak on
> > "Social Dynamics in the Age of the Web;" David Sifry (Founder,
Technorati,
> > Sputnik, and Linuxcare); and Brad Fitzpatrick (LiverJournal Founder). In
> > addition, two tutorials are planned, including "Subjectivity and
Sentiment

> > Analysis" by Jan Wiebe (University of Pittsburgh) and "Graph Mining
> > Techniques for Social Media Analysis" by Mary McGlohon and Christos
> > Faloutsos (Carnegie Mellon University).
> > >
> > > For further information, please write to icwsm08 at aaai.org or
> > info at icwsm.org.
> > >
> > > Warmest regards,
> > >
> > > Carol Hamilton
> > > Executive Director, AAAI
> > >
> > > --
> > > "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
> > what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
> > and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
> > >
> > > There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
> > >
> > > Douglas Adams
> > >
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL:
> >
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071127/9d348cae

> > /attachment-0001.html
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 3
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:12:20 -0600
> > > From: Robert Cordingley <robert at cirrillian.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM
> > > and Causality)
> > > To: nickthompson at earthlink.net, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> > > Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> > > Message-ID: <474C8834.8050300 at cirrillian.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >
> > > Quick thought.  Isn't 'designedness' directly proportional to a local
> > > reduction in entropy (= a measure of disorder, etc.) ?  There's lots
of
> > > math on entropy.
> > > Robert C
> > >
> > > Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > I confess I have not followed the mathematical side of this
discussion
> > into
> > > > the blue underlined stuff.  Nor do I claim to understand all of the
> > plain
> > > > text.
> > > >
> > > > However, I am tempted by the idea of a mathematical formalization of
> > > > "natural design".  Here is the argument:  What EVERYBODY --from the
most
> > > > dyed in the wool Natural Theologist to the most flaming Dawkinsian
--
> > > > agrees on is that there is some property of natural objects which we
> > might
> > > > roughly call their designedness.  Tremendous confusion has been
sewn by
> > > > biologists by confusing that property -- whatever it might be --
with

> > the
> > > > CAUSES of that property, variously God or Natural selection, or
> > > > what-have-you.   So much of what passes for causal explanation in
> > biology
> > > > is actually description of the "adaptation relation" or what I call,
> > just
> > > > to be a trouble-maker, "natural design".  
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that you mathematicians could do a great deal for
> > biology by
> > > > putting your minds to a formalization of "natural design".  It
would put
> > > > Darwin's theory -- "natural selection begets natural design" out of
the
> > > > reach of tautology once and for all.  What I am looking for here is
a
> > > > mathematical formalization of the relations --hierarchy of
relations, I
> > > > would suppose -- that leads to attributions of "designedness".
Assuming
> > > > that one had put a computer on a British Survey Vessel and sent it
round
> > > > the world for five years looking at the creatures and their
> > surroundings,
> > > > what is the mathematical description of the relation that would
have to
> > be
> > > > obtained before the computer would come home saying that creatures
were
> > > > designed (and rocks weren't).   Then -- and only then -- are we in a
> > > > position to ask the question, "is natural selection the best
explanation
> > > > for this property.  
> > > >
> > > > My supposition is that ALL current theories will not survive such an
> > > > analysis.  Indeed, we may need a new metaphor altogether.  Many of
you
> > will
> > > > be familiar with the notion of fitness landscape.  For intuitive
> > purposes,
> > > > let me turn the landscape upside down, so its peaks are chasms and
its
> > > > valleys are peaks.  Now, drop a ball at random into the upside down
> > > > landscape.  Assuming that the landscape is rigid, the ball will roll
> > around
> > > > until it finds a local minimum.  If you put some jitter in the
rolling,
> > it
> > > > might, depending on the size of the jitter and the roughness of the
> > > > landscape, find the absolute minimum.  But all of this assumes that
the
> > > > ball has no effect on the landscape!  If we turn the landscape into
a
> > > > semi-rigid net so that the ball deforms the landscape as it rolls
> > through
> > > > it, then we have a much better metaphor for the relation between an
> > > > organism's design and the environment in which it is operating.
Some
> > > > organisms -- weedy species -- cause the environment to rise under
their
> > > > feet, so to speak, so they are constantly driven out of whatever
valley
> > > > they settle in;  Other organisms modify the environment in their
favor
> > and
> > > > in effect, dig their way into a pit in the landscape.  If the ball
> > > > representing such organisms has inadequate jitter or the landscape
is
> > not
> > > > sufficiently springy, such an organism can dig its way  into a pit
and

> > then
> > > > go extinct.  
> > > >
> > > > In short we need a dynamical theory.  But such a theory will never
> > happen
> > > > until we have a  sufficiently subtle (and verbalizable) mathematical
> > > > formalization of the momentary relation between organisms and their
> > > > environments that we are trying to explain.   Get at it, you
> > > > mathematicians!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Nick
> > > >  
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL:
> >
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071127/0fe315c6

> > /attachment-0001.html
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 4
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:43:21 -0800
> > > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM
> > > and Causality)
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > Message-ID: <474C8F79.60605 at tempusdictum.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > Nicholas Thompson on 11/27/2007 10:22 AM:
> > > > In short we need a dynamical theory.  But such a theory will never
> > happen
> > > > until we have a  sufficiently subtle (and verbalizable) mathematical
> > > > formalization of the momentary relation between organisms and their
> > > > environments that we are trying to explain.   Get at it, you
> > > > mathematicians!!!!
> > >
> > > Isn't this what Robert Rosen tried to do?  Granted his work is
woefully

> > > incomplete; but do you see some fundamental flaw in his work that
> > > prevents it from providing (at least the foundations for) the
> > > formalization you're looking for?
> > >
> > > - --
> > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> > > The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully
> > > is prepared to die at any time. -- Mark Twain
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> > >
> > > iD8DBQFHTI95ZeB+vOTnLkoRAizcAJ9DeJre8Z6iqpsr43DMn67ZGDCp0gCg4Lpn
> > > 7vgcA85ZrRPxTVFzOXRJZOU=
> > > =qlNw
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 5
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:15:12 -0500
> > > From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] some thoughts on the educational aspect of 632
> > > To: advisory at santafecomplex.org, "The Friday Morning Applied
> > > Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com>
> > > Message-ID: <1196201712.2688.1223561485 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >
> > >
> > > I have spent too much time thinking about this and too little actually
> > > putting the ideas on paper.  Consider the attached to be an outline
that

> > > will be collectively developed and elaborated - or summarily rejected.
> > >
> > > Warning - the attached is highly idiosyncratic and biased, even though
> > > it is based on observations and interactions with the 632 and Friam
> > > community.
> > >
> > > Feedback - even jeers and catcalls - welcomed.
> > >
> > > dave west
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> > > Name: SFCEdu.doc
> > > Type: application/msword
> > > Size: 53248 bytes
> > > Desc: not available
> > > Url :
> >
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071127/0b345037

> > /attachment-0001.doc
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 6
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:14:51 -0700
> > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM
> > > andCausality)
> > > To: "Robert Cordingley" <robert at cirrillian.com>, "The Friday Morning
> > > Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com>
> > > Message-ID: <380-220071132801451635 at earthlink.net>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > >
> > > Well, given that I am referring to a PATTERN, and patterns are a form
of

> > negentropy, I think I am required to agree.  
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Robert Cordingley
> > > To: nickthompson at earthlink.net;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> > Coffee Group
> > > Sent: 11/27/2007 2:12:11 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM
> > andCausality)
> > >
> > >
> > > Quick thought.  Isn't 'designedness' directly proportional to a local
> > reduction in entropy (= a measure of disorder, etc.) ?  There's lots of
> > math on entropy.
> > > Robert C
> > >
> > > Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I confess I have not followed the mathematical side of this discussion
> > into
> > > the blue underlined stuff.  Nor do I claim to understand all of the
plain
> > > text.
> > >
> > > However, I am tempted by the idea of a mathematical formalization of
> > > "natural design".  Here is the argument:  What EVERYBODY --from the
most
> > > dyed in the wool Natural Theologist to the most flaming Dawkinsian --
> > > agrees on is that there is some property of natural objects which we
might
> > > roughly call their designedness.  Tremendous confusion has been sewn
by
> > > biologists by confusing that property -- whatever it might be --
with the
> > > CAUSES of that property, variously God or Natural selection, or
> > > what-have-you.   So much of what passes for causal explanation in
biology
> > > is actually description of the "adaptation relation" or what I call,
just
> > > to be a trouble-maker, "natural design".  
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you mathematicians could do a great deal for
biology
> > by
> > > putting your minds to a formalization of "natural design".  It would
put
> > > Darwin's theory -- "natural selection begets natural design" out of
the
> > > reach of tautology once and for all.  What I am looking for here is a
> > > mathematical formalization of the relations --hierarchy of relations,
I
> > > would suppose -- that leads to attributions of "designedness".
Assuming
> > > that one had put a computer on a British Survey Vessel and sent it
round
> > > the world for five years looking at the creatures and their
surroundings,
> > > what is the mathematical description of the relation that would have
to be
> > > obtained before the computer would come home saying that creatures
were
> > > designed (and rocks weren't).   Then -- and only then -- are we in a
> > > position to ask the question, "is natural selection the best
explanation
> > > for this property.  
> > >
> > > My supposition is that ALL current theories will not survive such an
> > > analysis.  Indeed, we may need a new metaphor altogether.  Many of you
> > will
> > > be familiar with the notion of fitness landscape.  For intuitive
purposes,
> > > let me turn the landscape upside down, so its peaks are chasms and its
> > > valleys are peaks.  Now, drop a ball at random into the upside down
> > > landscape.  Assuming that the landscape is rigid, the ball will roll
> > around
> > > until it finds a local minimum.  If you put some jitter in the
rolling, it
> > > might, depending on the size of the jitter and the roughness of the
> > > landscape, find the absolute minimum.  But all of this assumes that
the
> > > ball has no effect on the landscape!  If we turn the landscape into a
> > > semi-rigid net so that the ball deforms the landscape as it rolls
through
> > > it, then we have a much better metaphor for the relation between an
> > > organism's design and the environment in which it is operating.  Some
> > > organisms -- weedy species -- cause the environment to rise under
their
> > > feet, so to speak, so they are constantly driven out of whatever
valley
> > > they settle in;  Other organisms modify the environment in their
favor and
> > > in effect, dig their way into a pit in the landscape.  If the ball
> > > representing such organisms has inadequate jitter or the landscape is
not
> > > sufficiently springy, such an organism can dig its way  into a pit and
> > then
> > > go extinct.  
> > >
> > > In short we need a dynamical theory.  But such a theory will never
happen

> > > until we have a  sufficiently subtle (and verbalizable) mathematical
> > > formalization of the momentary relation between organisms and their
> > > environments that we are trying to explain.   Get at it, you
> > > mathematicians!!!!
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >  
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL:
> >
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071127/14281a98

> > /attachment-0001.html
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 7
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:09:30 -0700
> > > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] one laptop per child
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > Message-ID: <474CF80A.4010409 at snoutfarm.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > If I've been looking at the one laptop per child source code, and I'm
> > > amazed by how much stuff is available.  Better equipped for ABM stuff
> > > than a lot of full Linux distributions.   From Logo to Squeak to
Mozilla
> > > XULRunner, it's all there.    Could use them for classes for grown
ups,

> > > I would think.   The build tree is complex and well integrated -- it
> > > builds for hours and hours...
> > > I've only run the thing virtually, and I guess my only reservation is
> > > that the laptop itself will be slow.  Anyone put hands on one?  Also,
> > > has anyone actually had TamTam to play sound?   That app seems
> > > especially well done.   Holiday season, you know..  :-)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Marcus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 8
> > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:18:21 -0700
> > > From: Carl Tollander <carl at plektyx.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] one laptop per child
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > Message-ID: <474D082D.4030900 at plektyx.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> > >
> > > You might go blind programming the thing with the thing.  Screen is
> > > pretty small and the keyboard is not designed for big fingers.  
> > > Nevertheless, despite the language deficiencies  :-) I did the
> > > order/donation thing a couple days ago.  Not expecting to see any
OLPC

> > > atoms before the new year, but they say they will keep me posted of
> > > order progress by email.
> > >
> > > Maybe we could put Android on it.
> > >
> > > Carl
> > >
> > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > If I've been looking at the one laptop per child source code, and
I'm
> > > > amazed by how much stuff is available.  Better equipped for ABM
stuff
> > > > than a lot of full Linux distributions.   From Logo to Squeak to
> > Mozilla
> > > > XULRunner, it's all there.    Could use them for classes for grown
ups,
> > > > I would think.   The build tree is complex and well integrated --
it
> > > > builds for hours and hours...
> > > > I've only run the thing virtually, and I guess my only reservation
is
> > > > that the laptop itself will be slow.  Anyone put hands on one?
Also,

> > > > has anyone actually had TamTam to play sound?   That app seems
> > > > especially well done.   Holiday season, you know..  :-)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Marcus
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 9
> > > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:39:54 -0500
> > > From: "Alfredo Covaleda" <acovaleda at loslibrosusados.net>
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] one laptop per child
> > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <93fd7cc30711272239l3cfaea2bn2ec944083bfd78f at mail.gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > So much has been said about OLPC (one laptop per child) for poor
children
> > in
> > > the third world. It's wonderful and I'm sure it will help to reduce
> > poverty
> > > and enhance children's minds. Now Third world only got to get 200
millions
> > > of children out of their jobs and guarantee for many of them at least
one
> > > bread and one glass of milk per day. Oops!, " ?Bread and milk for
free?,
> > > ?What kind of dirty populist and criminal communist proposal is that?
".

> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > >
> > > Alfredo
> > >
> > >
> > > 2007/11/28, Marcus G. Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > If I've been looking at the one laptop per child source code, and
I'm
> > > > amazed by how much stuff is available.  Better equipped for ABM
stuff
> > > > than a lot of full Linux distributions.   From Logo to Squeak to
Mozilla
> > > > XULRunner, it's all there.    Could use them for classes for grown
ups,
> > > > I would think.   The build tree is complex and well integrated -- it
> > > > builds for hours and hours...
> > > > I've only run the thing virtually, and I guess my only reservation
is
> > > > that the laptop itself will be slow.  Anyone put hands on one?
Also,

> > > > has anyone actually had TamTam to play sound?   That app seems
> > > > especially well done.   Holiday season, you know..  :-)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Marcus
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL:
> >
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071128/4acc827a

> > /attachment-0001.html
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 10
> > > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:16:01 -0700
> > > From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net>
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] My employer in the news
> > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > > <Friam at redfish.com>
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <f16528920711280616m416a2183n47c406552127cd65 at mail.gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >
> > > http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/795087.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > > droberts at rti.org
> > > doug at parrot-farm.net
> > > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL:
> >
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071128/19d5fa35

> > /attachment-0001.html
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Friam mailing list
> > > Friam at redfish.com
> > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > >
> > >
> > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 53, Issue 25
> > > *************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> --
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics                        
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Robert Rosen

Stephen Guerin
I have "Life Itself" and "Essays on Life Itself". I'll bring them Friday...

-Stephen

--- -. .   ..-. .. ... ....   - .-- ---   ..-. .. ... ....
Stephen.Guerin at Redfish.com
www.Redfish.com
624 Agua Fria Street, Santa Fe, NM 87501
mobile: (505)577-5828
office: Santa Fe, NM (505)995-0206 / London, UK +44 (0) 20 7993 4769


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:nickthompson at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:16 PM
> To: Russell Standish; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen
>
> Thanks, Russell,
>
> Does anybody in the Mother Church have a copy s/he could
> bring to Friday's Meeting????
>
> Nick
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> > To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied
> > Complexity
> Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> > Date: 11/29/2007 1:10:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen
> >
> > Try http://www3.vcu.edu/complex/
> >
> > However, you'll probably find it easier to borrow one of
> Rosen's books
> > from the library and read that, rather than to try to
> understand what
> > others make of him. It's sort of the reverse of David Bohm...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:46:55AM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > > Glen
> > > ,
> > >
> > > Everybody but me seems to know what Robert Rosen work you are
> > > referring
> to.
> > > If I apologize for being an ill-educated bounder, could
> you provide
> > > me
> with
> > > a netref or two to work with?  
> > >
> > > I apologize.
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > > (if you give me the reference, will that be an instance of
> > > causality?)
> > >
> > >
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> > > > To: <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Date: 11/28/2007 10:04:16 AM
> > > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 53, Issue 25
> > > >
> > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> > > > friam at redfish.com
> > > >
> > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > > friam-request at redfish.com
> > > >
> > > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > > friam-owner at redfish.com
> > > >
> > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> > > > specific than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Today's Topics:
> > > >
> > > >    1. Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and
> > > >       Causality) (Nicholas Thompson)
> > > >    2. [Fwd: New AAAI Conference - ICWSM 2008] (Robert
> Cordingley)
> > > >    3. Re: Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and
> > > >       Causality) (Robert Cordingley)
> > > >    4. Re: Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM and
> > > >       Causality) (Glen E. P. Ropella)
> > > >    5. some thoughts on the educational aspect of 632
> (Prof David West)
> > > >    6. Re: Natural Design as a primitive property (was FRIAM
> > > >       andCausality) (Nicholas Thompson)
> > > >    7. one laptop per child (Marcus G. Daniels)
> > > >    8. Re: one laptop per child (Carl Tollander)
> > > >    9. Re: one laptop per child (Alfredo Covaleda)
> > > >   10. My employer in the news (Douglas Roberts)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ----
> > > >
> > > > Message: 1
> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:22:54 -0700
> > > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive property
> (was FRIAM and
> > > > Causality)
> > > > To: friam at redfish.com
> > > > Cc: echarles <echarles at clarku.edu>, gbarker at bucknell.edu
> > > > Message-ID: <380-2200711227182254480 at earthlink.net>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> > > >
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > I confess I have not followed the mathematical side of this
> > > > discussion
> > > into
> > > > the blue underlined stuff.  Nor do I claim to understand all of
> > > > the
> plain
> > > > text.
> > > >
> > > > However, I am tempted by the idea of a mathematical
> formalization
> > > > of "natural design".  Here is the argument:  What
> EVERYBODY --from
> > > > the
> most
> > > > dyed in the wool Natural Theologist to the most flaming
> Dawkinsian
> > > > -- agrees on is that there is some property of natural objects
> > > > which we
> might
> > > > roughly call their designedness.  Tremendous confusion has been
> > > > sewn
> by
> > > > biologists by confusing that property -- whatever it might be --
> with the
> > > > CAUSES of that property, variously God or Natural selection, or
> > > > what-have-you.   So much of what passes for causal
> explanation in
> biology
> > > > is actually description of the "adaptation relation" or what I
> > > > call,
> just
> > > > to be a trouble-maker, "natural design".  
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that you mathematicians could do a great deal for
> biology
> > > by
> > > > putting your minds to a formalization of "natural design".  It
> > > > would
> put
> > > > Darwin's theory -- "natural selection begets natural
> design" out
> > > > of
> the
> > > > reach of tautology once and for all.  What I am looking
> for here
> > > > is a mathematical formalization of the relations --hierarchy of
> > > > relations,
> I
> > > > would suppose -- that leads to attributions of "designedness".
> Assuming
> > > > that one had put a computer on a British Survey Vessel
> and sent it
> round
> > > > the world for five years looking at the creatures and their
> surroundings,
> > > > what is the mathematical description of the relation that would
> > > > have
> to be
> > > > obtained before the computer would come home saying
> that creatures
> were
> > > > designed (and rocks weren't).   Then -- and only then
> -- are we in a
> > > > position to ask the question, "is natural selection the best
> explanation
> > > > for this property.  
> > > >
> > > > My supposition is that ALL current theories will not
> survive such
> > > > an analysis.  Indeed, we may need a new metaphor
> altogether.  Many
> > > > of you
> > > will
> > > > be familiar with the notion of fitness landscape.  For intuitive
> purposes,
> > > > let me turn the landscape upside down, so its peaks are
> chasms and
> > > > its valleys are peaks.  Now, drop a ball at random into
> the upside
> > > > down landscape.  Assuming that the landscape is rigid, the ball
> > > > will roll
> > > around
> > > > until it finds a local minimum.  If you put some jitter in the
> rolling, it
> > > > might, depending on the size of the jitter and the roughness of
> > > > the landscape, find the absolute minimum.  But all of
> this assumes
> > > > that
> the
> > > > ball has no effect on the landscape!  If we turn the landscape
> > > > into a semi-rigid net so that the ball deforms the
> landscape as it
> > > > rolls
> through
> > > > it, then we have a much better metaphor for the
> relation between
> > > > an organism's design and the environment in which it is
> operating.  
> > > > Some organisms -- weedy species -- cause the
> environment to rise
> > > > under
> their
> > > > feet, so to speak, so they are constantly driven out of whatever
> valley
> > > > they settle in;  Other organisms modify the environment in their
> favor and
> > > > in effect, dig their way into a pit in the landscape.  
> If the ball
> > > > representing such organisms has inadequate jitter or
> the landscape
> > > > is
> not
> > > > sufficiently springy, such an organism can dig its way  
> into a pit
> > > > and
> > > then
> > > > go extinct.  
> > > >
> > > > In short we need a dynamical theory.  But such a theory
> will never
> happen
> > > > until we have a  sufficiently subtle (and verbalizable)
> > > > mathematical formalization of the momentary relation
> between organisms and their
> > > > environments that we are trying to explain.   Get at it, you
> > > > mathematicians!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Nick
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > D'Espagnat gives a very biased view of QM. For a
> critical view
> > > > > of
> the
> > > > > book see for instance
> > > > >
> > > > > Esfeld, Michael
> > > > > Review of "Bernard d'Espagnat, On physics and philosophy,
> Princeton:
> > > > > Princeton University Press 2006", Studies in History and
> > > > > Philosophy
> of
> > > > > Modern Physics 38B (2007), pp. 989-992
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/shared/DocsPerso/EsfeldMi
> chael/2007/Esp
> > > > agnat-SHPMP07.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > Gus Koehler wrote:
> > > > > > Bernard D'Espagnat, practicing and well know
> physicist, in his
> 2006 On
> > > > > > Physics and Philosophy makes the following points based on
> > > contemporary
> > > > > > limits that nature has imposed us via quantum mechanics:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > G?nther
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > G?nther Greindl
> > > > > Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna
> > > > > guenther.greindl at univie.ac.at
> > > > > http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/
> > > > >
> > > > > Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
> > > > > Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Message: 5
> > > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:05:38 +0000
> > > > > From: sy at synapse9.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
> > > > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > > > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > > Message-ID:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> <1164569392-1196172318-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.ne
> t-1644186245-
> > > > @bxe010.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
> > > > >
> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> > > > >
> > > > > Glen,
> > > > > Nearly all you say fits closely with my approach, except the
> > > > > word
> 'any'
> > > > in the following quote.
> > > > >
> > > > > " To the contrary, I assume every actual system has
> an inherent
> > > > > "hierarchicability" (following the word "extensibility") with
> respect to
> > > > > any observer(s).  In other words, a system can be
> projected onto
> > > > > any ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by
> the projection."
> > > > >
> > > > > If you insert 'an' there instead, the combination of the
> > > > > possible
> and
> > > > discovered orderings will reveal an image of other things.
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:51:12 To:The Friday Morning Applied
> > > > > Complexity Coffee Group
> > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > > >
> > > > > G?nther Greindl on 11/21/2007 04:48 PM:
> > > > > > So you probably won't even support sup/inf hierarchy, I
> > > > > > gather;
> I'm
> > > no
> > > > > > Relativity pundit - do you think that follows from
> SR or is it
> > > > > > a philosophical view?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's somewhere in between.  But I don't derive the principle
> > > > > from
> SR.  I
> > > > > derive it from everyday experience.  I tend to
> believe that any
> measure
> > > > > (including relative ones like ordering and sup/inf) are mere
> aspects of
> > > > > the underlying relations.  So, it's not that I don't support
> hierarchy.
> > > > >  To the contrary, I assume every actual system has an
> inherent
> > > > > "hierarchicability" (following the word "extensibility") with
> respect to
> > > > > any observer(s).  In other words, a system can be
> projected onto
> > > > > any ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by
> the projection.
> > > > >
> > > > > No single ordering will tell us much about the system because
> (assuming
> > > > > it's accurate) it only shows us one aspect (interpretation,
> > > > > usage)
> of
> > > > > the system.  In order to make a claim that we've identified a
> > > > > cause-effect graph, we have to make several (in some cases
> > > > > infinite) projections based on various imputed attributes.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Such distinctions do NOT require one to consider
> [in]determinism.
> > > But,
> > > > > >> they do require one to consider historical accumulation and
> > > > canalization
> > > > > >> of causes, i.e. where and how ignorance (particularly of
> "negligible"
> > > > > >> influences e.g. events very FAR away in space or time)
> > > > > >> affects
> > > > causality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, I see what you mean - but just to be careful with
> terminology: I
> > > > > > guess you mean "affects the process under
> investigation causally"
> and
> > > > > > not "affects causality" (last two words above paragraph)
> > > > > > Former interpretation: we agree. Latter interpretation: we
> > > > > > should discuss ;-))
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm.  At first blush, I'd say I agree with _both_
> phrasings.  
> > > > > I'd
> say
> > > > > (weakly) that ignorance -affects the process under
> investigation
> > > > > causally-.  And I'd say (strongly) that ignorance -affects
> causality-.
> > > > > How do those phrases make a difference to you?
> > > > >
> > > > > - --
> > > > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com The
> > > > > United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly
> > > > > enforced. -- Frank Zappa
> > > > >
> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > > > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> iD8DBQFHSrMwZeB+vOTnLkoRAnBEAKDUVstCXsAVcclg8ASwwkT7B3peXACeLKzm
> > > > > uExfuxs71G/8vLHcUXzu2fM=
> > > > > =02+D
> > > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > >
> > > > > ============================================================
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Message: 6
> > > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:01:38 -0800
> > > > > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM and causality
> > > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > > Message-ID: <474C3152.9080500 at tempusdictum.com>
> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> > > > >
> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > > >
> > > > > sy at synapse9.com on 11/27/2007 06:05 AM:
> > > > > > Nearly all you say fits closely with my approach,
> except the
> > > > > > word 'any' in the following quote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "To the contrary, I assume every actual system has
> an inherent
> > > > > > 'hierarchicability' (following the word
> 'extensibility') with
> respect
> > > > > > to any observer(s).  In other words, a system can
> be projected
> onto
> > > > > > any ordering, depending on the attributes imputed by the
> projection."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you insert 'an' there instead, the combination of the
> > > > > > possible
> and
> > > > > > discovered orderings will reveal an image of other things.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good point.  I was just thinking this over as I read Esfeld's
> > > > > review (thanks G?nther).  On the one hand, the system can be
> > > > > projected onto _any_ ordering.  But, as I think
> you're pointing
> > > > > out, some orderings will be a close fit ("natural")
> and others
> > > > > will be like putting a
> square
> > > > > peg into a round hole.  So, some projections will work better
> > > > > than others.  (I have to qualify that with "for a
> particular purpose"
> > > > > however. ;-)  And the projections that work best provide a
> > > > > better measure of the system than others (for that
> particular purpose).
> > > > >
> > > > > The part of Esfeld's review that got me thinking this way was
> > > > > the
> idea
> > > > > that nonseparability and holism do not necessarily
> imply that we
> cannot
> > > > > understand a system.  Similarly, the
> "hierarchicability" concept
> > > > > I
> used
> > > > > is not intended to imply that all imputations of
> hierarchy/order
> > > > > are equally [use|meaning]ful.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another thought that keeps ricocheting around in my
> head is the
> problem
> > > > > of my use of the word "ignorance".  My usage of the word is
> > > > > often challenged; but, I keep using it anyway. [grin]
>  I'm stubborn.
> But, by
> > > > > "ignorance", I don't _merely_ mean "lack of knowledge" of a
> > > > > given
> person
> > > > > or a set of people.  It also means the act or possibility of
> > > > > some influence (element of cause) being negligible
> ... or marginalized.
> This
> > > > > semantic hair splitting comes up in the Esfeld
> review, too, when
> > > > > he
> > > says:
> > > > >
> > > > > "In none of these interpretations is any link from
> > > > > nonseparability
> and
> > > > > holism to our ignorance of what nature is in itself."
> > > > >
> > > > > If I use my definition of "ignorance", then
> nonseparability and
> holism
> > > > > _do_ imply that a form of ignorance (i.e. the
> marginalization of
> > > > > particular influences) always obtains.  Because we
> cannot know
> > > > > or understand _everything_... because our models, by
> definition,
> > > > > cannot ever be completely accurate, we _must_ consider some
> > > > > parts
> negligible.
> > > > > (And by "we", I mean "any bounded entity that uses
> transduction
> across
> > > > > that boundary to understand its environment" ... e.g. trees,
> > > > > ants, cells, humans, etc.)
> > > > >
> > > > > In the case of complex cause, we can make multiple
> projections
> > > > > into various orderings and select the ones that work
> best (for a
> particular
> > > > > purpose).  By such selection we can _approach_ an accurate
> understanding
> > > > > of the system; but it is a limit process.
> > > > >
> > > > > - --
> > > > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
> http://tempusdictum.com There
> > > > > is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. --
> > > > > Milton Friedman
> > > > >
> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > > > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> iD8DBQFHTDFSZeB+vOTnLkoRAkIkAJ9mrSUXXLc6xlRU9Z/Mi7IyDT6kWQCg40pi
> > > > > AQ+O5hTPgb73a/9/ZrKBfio=
> > > > > =WfS3
> > > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Message: 7
> > > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:55:08 -0800
> > > > > From: "Gus Koehler" <gus at timestructures.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is mathematical pattern the theory of
> everything?
> > > > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> > > > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > > Message-ID: <001701c8310d$e5f84c90$6401a8c0 at EA5E71A6DE4A4D9>
> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for drawing this excellent review to our attention.
> > > References
> > > > to
> > > > > differing views from D'Espaganat is very helpful.  In
> any case,
> > > > > the
> > > review
> > > > > does not negate my essential point but only adds to
> it, and that
> > > > > is
> the
> > > > > fundamental difficulties with trying to establish some
> > > > > foundation
> for
> > > > > realism given quantum mechanics.  These implications
> need to be
> brought
> > > > > forward in the Friam discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Gus
> > > > > Gus Koehler, Ph.D.
> > > > > President and Principal
> > > > > Time Structures, Inc.
> > > > > 1545 University Ave.
> > > > > Sacramento, CA 95825
> > > > > 916-564-8683, Fax: 916-564-7895
> > > > > Cell: 916-716-1740
> > > > > www.timestructures.com
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> > > > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com]
> On
> > > > Behalf
> > > > > Of G?nther Greindl
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:27 AM
> > > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is mathematical pattern the theory of
> everything?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > D'Espagnat gives a very biased view of QM. For a
> critical view
> > > > > of
> the
> > > book
> > > > > see for instance
> > > > >
> > > > > Esfeld, Michael
> > > > > Review of "Bernard d'Espagnat, On physics and philosophy,
> Princeton:
> > > > > Princeton University Press 2006", Studies in History and
> > > > > Philosophy
> of
> > > > > Modern Physics 38B (2007), pp. 989-992
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/shared/DocsPerso/EsfeldMi
> chael/2007/Esp
> > > > > agnat-SHPMP07.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > Gus Koehler wrote:
> > > > > > Bernard D'Espagnat, practicing and well know
> physicist, in his
> 2006
> > > On
> > > > > > Physics and Philosophy makes the following points based on
> > > > > > contemporary limits that nature has imposed us via quantum
> mechanics:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > G?nther
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > G?nther Greindl
> > > > > Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna
> > > > > guenther.greindl at univie.ac.at
> > > > > http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/
> > > > >
> > > > > Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
> > > > > Site: http://www.complexitystudies.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 mailing list
> > > > > Friam at redfish.com
> > > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 53, Issue 24
> > > > > *************************************
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 2
> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:50:54 -0600
> > > > From: Robert Cordingley <robert at cirrillian.com>
> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] [Fwd: New AAAI Conference - ICWSM 2008]
> > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > > <Friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID: <474C670E.9020004 at cirrillian.com>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some on this list may find the following announcement
> of interest..
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Robert Cordingley
> > > >
> > > > ************************************
> > > > ICWSM 2008
> > > > Papers Due: Monday, December 3, 2007
> > > > ************************************
> > > >
> > > > Dear AAAI Members,
> > > >
> > > > I am delighted to announce that AAAI has welcomed a new
> conference
> > > > to
> its
> > > ranks -- the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
> ICWSM,
> > > which grew out of a series of workshops and a very
> successful 2006
> > > AAAI spring symposium, launched its inaugural conference
> in 2007. It
> > > has now forged a formal alliance with AAAI for 2008 and beyond.
> > > >
> > > > ICWSM 2008 will be held in Seattle, Washington at the Seattle
> > > > Hilton,
> > > March 31 -- April 3. The conference will bring together
> academic and
> > > industrial practitioners to present and to discuss new research,
> > > applications, thoughts and ideas that are shaping the future of
> > > social media analysis. The conference aims to bring together
> > > researchers from different subject areas including
> computer science,
> > > linguistics, psychology, statistics, sociology, multimedia and
> > > semantic web
> technologies.
> > > >
> > > > Please note the following important upcoming deadlines:
> > > >
> > > > * Paper Submission: December 3, 2007
> > > > * Tutorial Proposals: December 3, 2007
> > > > * Poster/Demo Submission: January 6, 2008
> > > >
> > > > For complete submission details, please see
> http://www.icwsm.org/2008/.
> > > >
> > > > An impressive line-up of invited speakers will be
> included in the
> > > > 2008
> > > program, including Bernardo A. Huberman (HP Labs), who
> will speak on
> > > "Social Dynamics in the Age of the Web;" David Sifry (Founder,
> Technorati,
> > > Sputnik, and Linuxcare); and Brad Fitzpatrick (LiverJournal
> > > Founder). In addition, two tutorials are planned, including
> > > "Subjectivity and
> Sentiment
> > > Analysis" by Jan Wiebe (University of Pittsburgh) and
> "Graph Mining
> > > Techniques for Social Media Analysis" by Mary McGlohon
> and Christos
> > > Faloutsos (Carnegie Mellon University).
> > > >
> > > > For further information, please write to icwsm08 at aaai.org or
> > > info at icwsm.org.
> > > >
> > > > Warmest regards,
> > > >
> > > > Carol Hamilton
> > > > Executive Director, AAAI
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers
> > > > exactly
> > > what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly
> > > disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre
> and inexplicable.
> > > >
> > > > There is another theory which states that this has
> already happened."
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Adams
> > > >
> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> > > > scrubbed...
> > > > URL:
> > >
> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/200
> 71127/9d348cae
> > > /attachment-0001.html
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 3
> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:12:20 -0600
> > > > From: Robert Cordingley <robert at cirrillian.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive
> property (was FRIAM
> > > > and Causality)
> > > > To: nickthompson at earthlink.net, The Friday
> Morning Applied Complexity
> > > > Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID: <474C8834.8050300 at cirrillian.com>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > >
> > > > Quick thought.  Isn't 'designedness' directly proportional to a
> > > > local reduction in entropy (= a measure of disorder, etc.) ?  
> > > > There's lots
> of
> > > > math on entropy.
> > > > Robert C
> > > >
> > > > Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > > > > All,
> > > > >
> > > > > I confess I have not followed the mathematical side of this
> discussion
> > > into
> > > > > the blue underlined stuff.  Nor do I claim to
> understand all of
> > > > > the
> > > plain
> > > > > text.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I am tempted by the idea of a mathematical
> > > > > formalization of "natural design".  Here is the
> argument:  What
> > > > > EVERYBODY --from the
> most
> > > > > dyed in the wool Natural Theologist to the most flaming
> > > > > Dawkinsian
> --
> > > > > agrees on is that there is some property of natural objects
> > > > > which we
> > > might
> > > > > roughly call their designedness.  Tremendous
> confusion has been
> sewn by
> > > > > biologists by confusing that property -- whatever it
> might be --
> with
> > > the
> > > > > CAUSES of that property, variously God or Natural
> selection, or
> > > > > what-have-you.   So much of what passes for causal
> explanation in
> > > biology
> > > > > is actually description of the "adaptation relation"
> or what I
> > > > > call,
> > > just
> > > > > to be a trouble-maker, "natural design".  
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems to me that you mathematicians could do a
> great deal for
> > > biology by
> > > > > putting your minds to a formalization of "natural design".  It
> would put
> > > > > Darwin's theory -- "natural selection begets natural
> design" out
> > > > > of
> the
> > > > > reach of tautology once and for all.  What I am
> looking for here
> > > > > is
> a
> > > > > mathematical formalization of the relations --hierarchy of
> relations, I
> > > > > would suppose -- that leads to attributions of
> "designedness".
> Assuming
> > > > > that one had put a computer on a British Survey
> Vessel and sent
> > > > > it
> round
> > > > > the world for five years looking at the creatures and their
> > > surroundings,
> > > > > what is the mathematical description of the relation
> that would
> have to
> > > be
> > > > > obtained before the computer would come home saying that
> > > > > creatures
> were
> > > > > designed (and rocks weren't).   Then -- and only then
> -- are we in a
> > > > > position to ask the question, "is natural selection the best
> explanation
> > > > > for this property.  
> > > > >
> > > > > My supposition is that ALL current theories will not survive
> > > > > such an analysis.  Indeed, we may need a new metaphor
> > > > > altogether.  Many of
> you
> > > will
> > > > > be familiar with the notion of fitness landscape.  
> For intuitive
> > > purposes,
> > > > > let me turn the landscape upside down, so its peaks
> are chasms
> > > > > and
> its
> > > > > valleys are peaks.  Now, drop a ball at random into
> the upside
> > > > > down landscape.  Assuming that the landscape is
> rigid, the ball
> > > > > will roll
> > > around
> > > > > until it finds a local minimum.  If you put some jitter in the
> rolling,
> > > it
> > > > > might, depending on the size of the jitter and the
> roughness of
> > > > > the landscape, find the absolute minimum.  But all of this
> > > > > assumes that
> the
> > > > > ball has no effect on the landscape!  If we turn the
> landscape
> > > > > into
> a
> > > > > semi-rigid net so that the ball deforms the landscape as it
> > > > > rolls
> > > through
> > > > > it, then we have a much better metaphor for the
> relation between
> > > > > an organism's design and the environment in which it
> is operating.
> Some
> > > > > organisms -- weedy species -- cause the environment to rise
> > > > > under
> their
> > > > > feet, so to speak, so they are constantly driven out
> of whatever
> valley
> > > > > they settle in;  Other organisms modify the
> environment in their
> favor
> > > and
> > > > > in effect, dig their way into a pit in the landscape.  If the
> > > > > ball representing such organisms has inadequate jitter or the
> > > > > landscape
> is
> > > not
> > > > > sufficiently springy, such an organism can dig its
> way  into a
> > > > > pit
> and
> > > then
> > > > > go extinct.  
> > > > >
> > > > > In short we need a dynamical theory.  But such a theory will
> > > > > never
> > > happen
> > > > > until we have a  sufficiently subtle (and verbalizable)
> > > > > mathematical formalization of the momentary relation
> between organisms and their
> > > > > environments that we are trying to explain.   Get at it, you
> > > > > mathematicians!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Nick
> > > > >  
> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> > > > scrubbed...
> > > > URL:
> > >
> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/200
> 71127/0fe315c6
> > > /attachment-0001.html
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 4
> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:43:21 -0800
> > > > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive
> property (was FRIAM
> > > > and Causality)
> > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID: <474C8F79.60605 at tempusdictum.com>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > Nicholas Thompson on 11/27/2007 10:22 AM:
> > > > > In short we need a dynamical theory.  But such a theory will
> > > > > never
> > > happen
> > > > > until we have a  sufficiently subtle (and verbalizable)
> > > > > mathematical formalization of the momentary relation
> between organisms and their
> > > > > environments that we are trying to explain.   Get at it, you
> > > > > mathematicians!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Isn't this what Robert Rosen tried to do?  Granted his work is
> woefully
> > > > incomplete; but do you see some fundamental flaw in his
> work that
> > > > prevents it from providing (at least the foundations for) the
> > > > formalization you're looking for?
> > > >
> > > > - --
> > > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
> http://tempusdictum.com The fear
> > > > of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives
> fully is
> > > > prepared to die at any time. -- Mark Twain
> > > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> > > >
> > > > iD8DBQFHTI95ZeB+vOTnLkoRAizcAJ9DeJre8Z6iqpsr43DMn67ZGDCp0gCg4Lpn
> > > > 7vgcA85ZrRPxTVFzOXRJZOU=
> > > > =qlNw
> > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 5
> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:15:12 -0500
> > > > From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] some thoughts on the educational aspect of 632
> > > > To: advisory at santafecomplex.org, "The Friday Morning Applied
> > > > Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID:
> > > > <1196201712.2688.1223561485 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have spent too much time thinking about this and too little
> > > > actually putting the ideas on paper.  Consider the
> attached to be
> > > > an outline
> that
> > > > will be collectively developed and elaborated - or
> summarily rejected.
> > > >
> > > > Warning - the attached is highly idiosyncratic and biased, even
> > > > though it is based on observations and interactions
> with the 632
> > > > and Friam community.
> > > >
> > > > Feedback - even jeers and catcalls - welcomed.
> > > >
> > > > dave west
> > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text
> attachment was
> > > > scrubbed...
> > > > Name: SFCEdu.doc
> > > > Type: application/msword
> > > > Size: 53248 bytes
> > > > Desc: not available
> > > > Url :
> > >
> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/200
> 71127/0b345037
> > > /attachment-0001.doc
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 6
> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:14:51 -0700
> > > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive
> property (was FRIAM
> > > > andCausality)
> > > > To: "Robert Cordingley" <robert at cirrillian.com>,
> "The Friday Morning
> > > > Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID: <380-220071132801451635 at earthlink.net>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > > >
> > > > Well, given that I am referring to a PATTERN, and
> patterns are a
> > > > form
> of
> > > negentropy, I think I am required to agree.  
> > > >
> > > > Nick
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Robert Cordingley
> > > > To: nickthompson at earthlink.net;The Friday Morning Applied
> > > > Complexity
> > > Coffee Group
> > > > Sent: 11/27/2007 2:12:11 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natural Design as a primitive
> property (was
> > > > FRIAM
> > > andCausality)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quick thought.  Isn't 'designedness' directly proportional to a
> > > > local
> > > reduction in entropy (= a measure of disorder, etc.) ?  
> There's lots
> > > of math on entropy.
> > > > Robert C
> > > >
> > > > Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > I confess I have not followed the mathematical side of this
> > > > discussion
> > > into
> > > > the blue underlined stuff.  Nor do I claim to understand all of
> > > > the
> plain
> > > > text.
> > > >
> > > > However, I am tempted by the idea of a mathematical
> formalization
> > > > of "natural design".  Here is the argument:  What
> EVERYBODY --from
> > > > the
> most
> > > > dyed in the wool Natural Theologist to the most flaming
> Dawkinsian
> > > > -- agrees on is that there is some property of natural objects
> > > > which we
> might
> > > > roughly call their designedness.  Tremendous confusion has been
> > > > sewn
> by
> > > > biologists by confusing that property -- whatever it might be --
> with the
> > > > CAUSES of that property, variously God or Natural selection, or
> > > > what-have-you.   So much of what passes for causal
> explanation in
> biology
> > > > is actually description of the "adaptation relation" or what I
> > > > call,
> just
> > > > to be a trouble-maker, "natural design".  
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that you mathematicians could do a great deal for
> biology
> > > by
> > > > putting your minds to a formalization of "natural design".  It
> > > > would
> put
> > > > Darwin's theory -- "natural selection begets natural
> design" out
> > > > of
> the
> > > > reach of tautology once and for all.  What I am looking
> for here
> > > > is a mathematical formalization of the relations --hierarchy of
> > > > relations,
> I
> > > > would suppose -- that leads to attributions of "designedness".
> Assuming
> > > > that one had put a computer on a British Survey Vessel
> and sent it
> round
> > > > the world for five years looking at the creatures and their
> surroundings,
> > > > what is the mathematical description of the relation that would
> > > > have
> to be
> > > > obtained before the computer would come home saying
> that creatures
> were
> > > > designed (and rocks weren't).   Then -- and only then
> -- are we in a
> > > > position to ask the question, "is natural selection the best
> explanation
> > > > for this property.  
> > > >
> > > > My supposition is that ALL current theories will not
> survive such
> > > > an analysis.  Indeed, we may need a new metaphor
> altogether.  Many
> > > > of you
> > > will
> > > > be familiar with the notion of fitness landscape.  For intuitive
> purposes,
> > > > let me turn the landscape upside down, so its peaks are
> chasms and
> > > > its valleys are peaks.  Now, drop a ball at random into
> the upside
> > > > down landscape.  Assuming that the landscape is rigid, the ball
> > > > will roll
> > > around
> > > > until it finds a local minimum.  If you put some jitter in the
> rolling, it
> > > > might, depending on the size of the jitter and the roughness of
> > > > the landscape, find the absolute minimum.  But all of
> this assumes
> > > > that
> the
> > > > ball has no effect on the landscape!  If we turn the landscape
> > > > into a semi-rigid net so that the ball deforms the
> landscape as it
> > > > rolls
> through
> > > > it, then we have a much better metaphor for the
> relation between
> > > > an organism's design and the environment in which it is
> operating.  
> > > > Some organisms -- weedy species -- cause the
> environment to rise
> > > > under
> their
> > > > feet, so to speak, so they are constantly driven out of whatever
> valley
> > > > they settle in;  Other organisms modify the environment in their
> favor and
> > > > in effect, dig their way into a pit in the landscape.  
> If the ball
> > > > representing such organisms has inadequate jitter or
> the landscape
> > > > is
> not
> > > > sufficiently springy, such an organism can dig its way  
> into a pit
> > > > and
> > > then
> > > > go extinct.  
> > > >
> > > > In short we need a dynamical theory.  But such a theory
> will never
> happen
> > > > until we have a  sufficiently subtle (and verbalizable)
> > > > mathematical formalization of the momentary relation
> between organisms and their
> > > > environments that we are trying to explain.   Get at it, you
> > > > mathematicians!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Nick
> > > >  
> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> > > > scrubbed...
> > > > URL:
> > >
> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/200
> 71127/14281a98
> > > /attachment-0001.html
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 7
> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:09:30 -0700
> > > > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] one laptop per child
> > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID: <474CF80A.4010409 at snoutfarm.com>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > If I've been looking at the one laptop per child source
> code, and
> > > > I'm amazed by how much stuff is available.  Better
> equipped for ABM stuff
> > > > than a lot of full Linux distributions.   From Logo to Squeak to
> Mozilla
> > > > XULRunner, it's all there.    Could use them for
> classes for grown
> ups,
> > > > I would think.   The build tree is complex and well
> integrated -- it
> > > > builds for hours and hours...
> > > > I've only run the thing virtually, and I guess my only
> reservation
> > > > is that the laptop itself will be slow.  Anyone put
> hands on one?  Also,
> > > > has anyone actually had TamTam to play sound?   That app seems
> > > > especially well done.   Holiday season, you know..  :-)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Marcus
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 8
> > > > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:18:21 -0700
> > > > From: Carl Tollander <carl at plektyx.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] one laptop per child
> > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID: <474D082D.4030900 at plektyx.com>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> > > >
> > > > You might go blind programming the thing with the
> thing.  Screen
> > > > is pretty small and the keyboard is not designed for
> big fingers.
> > > > Nevertheless, despite the language deficiencies  :-) I did the
> > > > order/donation thing a couple days ago.  Not expecting
> to see any
> OLPC
> > > > atoms before the new year, but they say they will keep
> me posted
> > > > of order progress by email.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we could put Android on it.
> > > >
> > > > Carl
> > > >
> > > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > If I've been looking at the one laptop per child source code,
> > > > > and
> I'm
> > > > > amazed by how much stuff is available.  Better
> equipped for ABM
> stuff
> > > > > than a lot of full Linux distributions.   From Logo
> to Squeak to
> > > Mozilla
> > > > > XULRunner, it's all there.    Could use them for
> classes for grown
> ups,
> > > > > I would think.   The build tree is complex and well
> integrated --
> it
> > > > > builds for hours and hours...
> > > > > I've only run the thing virtually, and I guess my only
> > > > > reservation
> is
> > > > > that the laptop itself will be slow.  Anyone put
> hands on one?
> Also,
> > > > > has anyone actually had TamTam to play sound?   That
> app seems
> > > > > especially well done.   Holiday season, you know..  :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcus
> > > > >
> > > > > ============================================================
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 9
> > > > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:39:54 -0500
> > > > From: "Alfredo Covaleda" <acovaleda at loslibrosusados.net>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] one laptop per child
> > > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > > > <friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID:
> > > >
> <93fd7cc30711272239l3cfaea2bn2ec944083bfd78f at mail.gmail.com>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > So much has been said about OLPC (one laptop per child) for poor
> children
> > > in
> > > > the third world. It's wonderful and I'm sure it will help to
> > > > reduce
> > > poverty
> > > > and enhance children's minds. Now Third world only got
> to get 200
> millions
> > > > of children out of their jobs and guarantee for many of them at
> > > > least
> one
> > > > bread and one glass of milk per day. Oops!, " ?Bread
> and milk for
> free?,
> > > > ?What kind of dirty populist and criminal communist
> proposal is that?
> ".
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alfredo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2007/11/28, Marcus G. Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > If I've been looking at the one laptop per child source code,
> > > > > and
> I'm
> > > > > amazed by how much stuff is available.  Better
> equipped for ABM
> stuff
> > > > > than a lot of full Linux distributions.   From Logo
> to Squeak to
> Mozilla
> > > > > XULRunner, it's all there.    Could use them for
> classes for grown
> ups,
> > > > > I would think.   The build tree is complex and well
> integrated -- it
> > > > > builds for hours and hours...
> > > > > I've only run the thing virtually, and I guess my only
> > > > > reservation
> is
> > > > > that the laptop itself will be slow.  Anyone put
> hands on one?
> Also,
> > > > > has anyone actually had TamTam to play sound?   That app seems
> > > > > especially well done.   Holiday season, you know..  :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcus
> > > > >
> > > > > ============================================================
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> > > > scrubbed...
> > > > URL:
> > >
> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/200
> 71128/4acc827a
> > > /attachment-0001.html
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 10
> > > > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:16:01 -0700
> > > > From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net>
> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] My employer in the news
> > > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > > > <Friam at redfish.com>
> > > > Message-ID:
> > > >
> <f16528920711280616m416a2183n47c406552127cd65 at mail.gmail.com>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > >
> > > > http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/795087.html
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > > > droberts at rti.org
> > > > doug at parrot-farm.net
> > > > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > > > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> > > > scrubbed...
> > > > URL:
> > >
> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/200
> 71128/19d5fa35
> > > /attachment-0001.html
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Friam mailing list
> > > > Friam at redfish.com
> > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 53, Issue 25
> > > > *************************************
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
> > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
> unsubscribe, maps at
> > > http://www.friam.org
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> > A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > Mathematics                        
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM 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
>
>