Robert Rosen
Locked
 
|
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 > > 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 > > > 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 > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > > > > @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; > > 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 > > > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > > 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] > > > 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, > > > > 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 > > 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 > > > > > > 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: > > > > /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 > > > 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 > > > > 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: > > > > /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 > > > 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 > > > 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 : > > > > /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 > > 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 > > > 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: > > > > /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 > > > 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 > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > 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 > > > > 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: > > > > /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: > > > > /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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
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 > > |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |