Friam

Rosen

Classic

List

Threaded

2 messages Options

Nick Thompson

Rosen

I havent been able to follow the conversation but the following caught my
eye

>Machines are the produce of a self-consistent model
> in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex learning
> processes that grow out of their own environments like all other natural
> systems..etc.

Please dont forget the whip sockets on the early model A's.

NIck

> [Original Message]
> From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Date: 4/26/2008 10:00:38 AM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 58, 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. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella)
> 2. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella)
> 3. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw)
> 4. Re: recap on Rosen (Russell Standish)
> 5. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw)
> 6. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels)
> 7. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw)
> 8. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:13:08 -0700
> From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <48123B54.90707 at tempusdictum.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> phil henshaw wrote:
> > Self-consistent models represent environments very well, just omitting

their

> > living parts, "mind without matter".
> >
> > Would any of the things you guys suggested fix that?
>
> I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a
> good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to state
> (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
> context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore,
> contributes immensely to the solution.
>
> I.e. if the problem is that our modeling methods only capture isolable
> (separable, "linear", analytic, etc.) systems _well_, then we need other
> modeling methods to capture holistic ("nonlinear", non-analytic)
> systems. As I understand it, this is the basic conception behind the
> "sustainability movement", somehow capturing or understanding
> externalities and engineering organizations so that their waste is more
> useful to other organizations.
>
> What Rosen tried to do (in my _opinion_) is help us specify what parts
> of our modeling methods are inadequate to the task of capturing certain
> broken closures. I.e. I think he tried to explain _why_ so many of our
> models are so fragile, namely, because they cannot capture the closure
> of efficient cause (agency). That concept requires no mathematics (ala
> category theory). But he tried to communicate the concept using
> mathematics and logic via the discussions of Poincare's
> "impredicativity" and rhetorical vs. causal loops.
>
> So, yes, I think these things can help with our understanding of the
> fragility of _simple_ models ("mechanism" in Rosen's peculiar
> terminology). Even if Rosen's MR-systems or his "closure to efficient
> cause" are inadequate to the task (which I think they _are_), at least
> considering those attempts and how/where they may fail facilitates our
> progress toward other, hopefully more successful, solutions.
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. -- Omar N. Bradley
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFIEjtUpVJZMHoGoM8RAt6gAJkB0y2YDBB3/LsFr8i561UrfEPvsgCggAKu
> I8mcbIbWrFljoixYiONhrCg=
> =CxBC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:25:46 -0700
> From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <48123E4A.2030108 at tempusdictum.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> G?nther Greindl wrote:
> >> OK. So RR makes a prohibitive claim ... something like "living
> >> systems cannot be accurately modeled with a UTM because MR systems
> >> cannot be realized". And you are refuting that claim by a
> >> counter-claim that MR systems _can_ be realized, emphasizing that
> >> the recursion theorem is crucial to such a realization.
> >>
> >> Do I have it right?
> >
> > Yes that's basically my claim - RR also mentions his closed efficient
> > cause, that's where the rec. theorem comes in: you can code whatever
> > behaviour you like and then replicate it indefinitely.
>
> OK. But you must realize that this is not really a _refutation_ or
> disproof. It's just one guy (Rosen) arguing with another guy (G?nther).
> For an actual refutation (proof that Rosen's claim is false), you'd
> have to provide an explicit (effective) construction of a computational
> living system.
>
> And you haven't done that. [grin] Hence, you haven't proven Rosen wrong
> ... yet. ALifers across the planet are working on this constructive
> proof feverishly, of course.
>
> Or, you could show us specifically where Rosen's claim contradicts the
> recursion theorem. But to my knowledge nobody has formalized Rosen's
> work to the degree of specificity we'd need to show such a
> contradiction. I could easily be wrong about that, of course. So, if
> you'll point to such a rigorous formulation of Rosen's claim and
> precisely how it contradicts the recursion theorem, then we could say
> that one or the other (Rosen's or the recursion theorem) is refuted.
>
> > What is _not_ addressed in the (M,R) model is how it comes up in the
> > first place (= origin of life);
>
> Nobody (including the most zealous Rosenite, I think) would disagree
> with that.
>
> > that is where evolution comes in, and a machine model is at no
> > disadvantage here, again.
>
> It would be interesting to augment MR systems with some reasonably
> accurate formulation of evolution.
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> Almost nobody dances sober, unless they happen to be insane. -- H. P.
> Lovecraft
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFIEj5KpVJZMHoGoM8RAkx0AJ4ivFZFJgaCq9gdvoMWnbON3fnYzwCgqR/A
> tG+AVzNzHle0kEt6dKpDeww=
> =o6uQ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:21:59 -0400
> From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <021a01c8a744$4f143c00$ed3cb400$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> How does that
> >
> > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > Self-consistent models represent environments very well, just
> > omitting their
> > > living parts, "mind without matter".
> > >
> > > Would any of the things you guys suggested fix that?
> >
> > I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a
> > good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to
> > state
> > (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
> > context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore,
> > contributes immensely to the solution.
>
> [ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of

independent

> organisms or communities things you have no information about because they
> never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that?
>
>
> > I.e. if the problem is that our modeling methods only capture isolable
> > (separable, "linear", analytic, etc.) systems _well_, then we need
> > other
> > modeling methods to capture holistic ("nonlinear", non-analytic)
> > systems. As I understand it, this is the basic conception behind the
> > "sustainability movement", somehow capturing or understanding
> > externalities and engineering organizations so that their waste is more
> > useful to other organizations.
> >
> > What Rosen tried to do (in my _opinion_) is help us specify what parts
> > of our modeling methods are inadequate to the task of capturing certain
> > broken closures. I.e. I think he tried to explain _why_ so many of our
> > models are so fragile, namely, because they cannot capture the closure
> > of efficient cause (agency). That concept requires no mathematics (ala
> > category theory). But he tried to communicate the concept using
> > mathematics and logic via the discussions of Poincare's
> > "impredicativity" and rhetorical vs. causal loops.
>
> [ph] I haven't studied Rosen enough the really know if he's pointing to

the
> same conflict between living things and machines that I am, but there
> clearly is a conflict. Machines are the produce of a self-consistent
model

> in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex learning
> processes that grow out of their own environments like all other natural
> systems..etc.
>
> Phil
> >
> > So, yes, I think these things can help with our understanding of the
> > fragility of _simple_ models ("mechanism" in Rosen's peculiar
> > terminology). Even if Rosen's MR-systems or his "closure to efficient
> > cause" are inadequate to the task (which I think they _are_), at least
> > considering those attempts and how/where they may fail facilitates our
> > progress toward other, hopefully more successful, solutions.
> >
> > - --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> > Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. -- Omar N.
> > Bradley
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFIEjtUpVJZMHoGoM8RAt6gAJkB0y2YDBB3/LsFr8i561UrfEPvsgCggAKu
> > I8mcbIbWrFljoixYiONhrCg=
> > =CxBC
> > -----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: 4
> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:37:28 +1000
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <20080426023728.GG27289 at bloody-dell.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:21:59PM -0400, phil henshaw wrote:
> >
> > [ph] I haven't studied Rosen enough the really know if he's pointing to

the
> > same conflict between living things and machines that I am, but there
> > clearly is a conflict. Machines are the produce of a self-consistent
model
> > in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex
learning

> > processes that grow out of their own environments like all other natural
> > systems..etc.
> >
> > Phil
>
> Only simple machines. More complex machines (eg the Intel Pentium
> processor) show definite signs of evolutionary accretion, as no one
> person can design such a complex thing from scratch, but rather
> previous designs are used and optimised.
>
> --
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:04:45 -0400
> From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <023101c8a752$aa00dfc0$fe029f40$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> >
> > Only simple machines. More complex machines (eg the Intel Pentium
> > processor) show definite signs of evolutionary accretion, as no one
> > person can design such a complex thing from scratch, but rather
> > previous designs are used and optimised.
>
> [ph] Right! Layered design is sort of a universal signature of learning
> processes, in this case the chip designers resourcefully adapting pieces

of
> the old design in making new designs for new problems. Eventually any
> direction of development or learning runs into diminishing returns, either
> inherent in the design, or relative to competition with some other.
>
> I understand there's also a great deal of arguably creative machine design
> in chip design too, still accumulative in nature, but I don't think we
have
> processors that 'design themselves', however, nor would they do very well
> with multiple disconnected parts with different operating systems that
only
> communicated by dumping their waste products on each other... :-) that's
> the trick that organisms do so nicely and that our way of explaining them
> misses when we describe their functions and relationships in a
> self-consistent way. Unlike a logical medium, a physical medium
tolerates
> inconsistently designed and behaving things and allows them to capitalize
on

> each other's unintended side behavior and effects.
>
> Phil
>
> > --
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:36:28 -0600
> From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <4812B14C.2000804 at snoutfarm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> phil henshaw wrote:
> > Glen wrote:
> >
> >> I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a
> >> good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to
> >> state
> >> (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
> >> context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore,
> >> contributes immensely to the solution.
> >>
> >
> > [ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of

independent
> > organisms or communities things you have no information about because
they

> > never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that?
> >
> Find a function that well describes a state of a thing or aggregate
> measurement of interest at t - 2 that gives the state at t - 1 that
> gives a state at t. Then prediction is a matter of applying the
> function more times. Add more functions to describe more individual
> things or aggregates and note when there are shared functions in those
> definitions (e.g. food web fundamentally depends photosynthesis).
>
> If you want to define all things to be independent, then there is no
> point in talking about interactions -- you've already defined away the
> possibility of that! Covariance is zero.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:47:44 -0400
> From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <025401c8a7a4$1b1cb340$515619c0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Ok, 'find a function' assumes there is one to find, but the problem set is
> running into behavior which has already had major consequences (like
> starvation for 100million people because of an unexpected world food price
> level shift) and the question is what 'function' would you use to not be
> caught flat footed like that. Is there some general function to use in
> cases where you have no function and don't even know what the problem
> definition will be?
>
> I actually have a very good one, but you won't like it because it means
> using the models to understand what they fail to describe rather than the
> usual method of using them to represent other things.
>
> Phil Henshaw???????????????????
> ??? ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040? tel: 212-795-4844?????
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com?????explorations: www.synapse9.com??
> ?in the last 200 years the amount of change that once needed a century?of
> thought now takes just five weeks?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:36 AM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> >
> > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > Glen wrote:
> > >
> > >> I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a
> > >> good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to
> > >> state
> > >> (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
> > >> context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore,
> > >> contributes immensely to the solution.
> > >>
> > >
> > > [ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of
> > independent
> > > organisms or communities things you have no information about because
> > they
> > > never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that?
> > >
> > Find a function that well describes a state of a thing or aggregate
> > measurement of interest at t - 2 that gives the state at t - 1 that
> > gives a state at t. Then prediction is a matter of applying the
> > function more times. Add more functions to describe more individual
> > things or aggregates and note when there are shared functions in those
> > definitions (e.g. food web fundamentally depends photosynthesis).
> >
> > If you want to define all things to be independent, then there is no
> > point in talking about interactions -- you've already defined away the
> > possibility of that! Covariance is zero.
> >
> > 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: 8
> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:44:46 -0600
> From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <48133FDE.2070309 at snoutfarm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> phil henshaw wrote:
> > Ok, 'find a function' assumes there is one to find, but the problem set

is
> > running into behavior which has already had major consequences (like
> > starvation for 100million people because of an unexpected world food
price

> > level shift) and the question is what 'function' would you use to not be
> > caught flat footed like that.
> The caloric requirements of a person are autocorrelated, but probably
> for a lot of models a constant will suffice -- a certain amount of body
> weight decrease, and then the probability of death goes up. As for
> price fluctuations, that's a matter of modeling the natural resources
> that go in to food, the costs and benefits to motivate farmers, the
> commodity markets, and so on. Certainly we can try to understand how
> each of these work, and then do what-if scenarios when one or more
> components are perturbed (or destroyed). It's still a matter of
> finding stories (functions) to fit observables. The availability and
> accuracy of those observables may be poor, and sometimes all that is
> possible to imagine worst and best cases, run the numbers, and see how
> the result changes.
> > Is there some general function to use in
> > cases where you have no function and don't even know what the problem
> > definition will be?
> >
> I think you do know what the problem could look like, but most details
> remain unspecified. If you can construct an example that has
> catastrophes of the kind you often talk about, and spell out all of the
> details of your work of fiction (that even may happen to resemble
> reality), such that the what-if scenarios can be reproduced in
> simulations, then others can study the sensitivities. If there is a
> `forcing structure' that will occur in many, many variant forms, then
> you can demonstrate that.
> > I actually have a very good one, but you won't like it because it means
> > using the models to understand what they fail to describe rather than

the

> > usual method of using them to represent other things.
> Right. Model predicts something, it turns out to have some error
> structure and that structure suggests ways to improve the model or make
> a new one. Paper published. Meanwhile another guy makes a different
> model on the same phenomena and publishes a paper. Third person reads
> the two papers and has idea that accounts for problems in both. So she
> makes a new model!
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 25
> *************************************

Phil Henshaw-2

Rosen

Right, it was well understood that people would not buy a car unless it made
provision for being pulled by a horse!!

It's an excellent point, that many of the user interface features of the
controlled systems of machines are themselves intended for people coping
with an out of control world where lots of things behave in altogether new
ways unexpectedly.

Phil Henshaw???????????????????
??? ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040? tel: 212-795-4844?????
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com?????explorations: www.synapse9.com??
?in the last 200 years the amount of change that once needed a century?of
thought now takes just five weeks?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:18 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rosen
>
> I havent been able to follow the conversation but the following caught
> my
> eye
>
> >Machines are the produce of a self-consistent model
> > in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex
> learning
> > processes that grow out of their own environments like all other
> natural
> > systems..etc.
>
> Please dont forget the whip sockets on the early model A's.
>
> NIck
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> > To: <friam at redfish.com>
> > Date: 4/26/2008 10:00:38 AM
> > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 58, 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. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella)
> > 2. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella)
> > 3. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw)
> > 4. Re: recap on Rosen (Russell Standish)
> > 5. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw)
> > 6. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels)
> > 7. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw)
> > 8. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels)
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:13:08 -0700
> > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <48123B54.90707 at tempusdictum.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > Self-consistent models represent environments very well, just
> omitting
> their
> > > living parts, "mind without matter".
> > >
> > > Would any of the things you guys suggested fix that?
> >
> > I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a
> > good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to
> state
> > (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
> > context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore,
> > contributes immensely to the solution.
> >
> > I.e. if the problem is that our modeling methods only capture
> isolable
> > (separable, "linear", analytic, etc.) systems _well_, then we need
> other
> > modeling methods to capture holistic ("nonlinear", non-analytic)
> > systems. As I understand it, this is the basic conception behind the
> > "sustainability movement", somehow capturing or understanding
> > externalities and engineering organizations so that their waste is
> more
> > useful to other organizations.
> >
> > What Rosen tried to do (in my _opinion_) is help us specify what
> parts
> > of our modeling methods are inadequate to the task of capturing
> certain
> > broken closures. I.e. I think he tried to explain _why_ so many of
> our
> > models are so fragile, namely, because they cannot capture the
> closure
> > of efficient cause (agency). That concept requires no mathematics
> (ala
> > category theory). But he tried to communicate the concept using
> > mathematics and logic via the discussions of Poincare's
> > "impredicativity" and rhetorical vs. causal loops.
> >
> > So, yes, I think these things can help with our understanding of the
> > fragility of _simple_ models ("mechanism" in Rosen's peculiar
> > terminology). Even if Rosen's MR-systems or his "closure to
> efficient
> > cause" are inadequate to the task (which I think they _are_), at
> least
> > considering those attempts and how/where they may fail facilitates
> our
> > progress toward other, hopefully more successful, solutions.
> >
> > - --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> > Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. -- Omar N.
> Bradley
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFIEjtUpVJZMHoGoM8RAt6gAJkB0y2YDBB3/LsFr8i561UrfEPvsgCggAKu
> > I8mcbIbWrFljoixYiONhrCg=
> > =CxBC
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:25:46 -0700
> > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <48123E4A.2030108 at tempusdictum.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > G?nther Greindl wrote:
> > >> OK. So RR makes a prohibitive claim ... something like "living
> > >> systems cannot be accurately modeled with a UTM because MR systems
> > >> cannot be realized". And you are refuting that claim by a
> > >> counter-claim that MR systems _can_ be realized, emphasizing that
> > >> the recursion theorem is crucial to such a realization.
> > >>
> > >> Do I have it right?
> > >
> > > Yes that's basically my claim - RR also mentions his closed
> efficient
> > > cause, that's where the rec. theorem comes in: you can code
> whatever
> > > behaviour you like and then replicate it indefinitely.
> >
> > OK. But you must realize that this is not really a _refutation_ or
> > disproof. It's just one guy (Rosen) arguing with another guy
> (G?nther).
> > For an actual refutation (proof that Rosen's claim is false), you'd
> > have to provide an explicit (effective) construction of a
> computational
> > living system.
> >
> > And you haven't done that. [grin] Hence, you haven't proven Rosen
> wrong
> > ... yet. ALifers across the planet are working on this constructive
> > proof feverishly, of course.
> >
> > Or, you could show us specifically where Rosen's claim contradicts
> the
> > recursion theorem. But to my knowledge nobody has formalized Rosen's
> > work to the degree of specificity we'd need to show such a
> > contradiction. I could easily be wrong about that, of course. So,
> if
> > you'll point to such a rigorous formulation of Rosen's claim and
> > precisely how it contradicts the recursion theorem, then we could say
> > that one or the other (Rosen's or the recursion theorem) is refuted.
> >
> > > What is _not_ addressed in the (M,R) model is how it comes up in
> the
> > > first place (= origin of life);
> >
> > Nobody (including the most zealous Rosenite, I think) would disagree
> > with that.
> >
> > > that is where evolution comes in, and a machine model is at no
> > > disadvantage here, again.
> >
> > It would be interesting to augment MR systems with some reasonably
> > accurate formulation of evolution.
> >
> > - --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> > Almost nobody dances sober, unless they happen to be insane. -- H. P.
> > Lovecraft
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFIEj5KpVJZMHoGoM8RAkx0AJ4ivFZFJgaCq9gdvoMWnbON3fnYzwCgqR/A
> > tG+AVzNzHle0kEt6dKpDeww=
> > =o6uQ
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:21:59 -0400
> > From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <021a01c8a744$4f143c00$ed3cb400$@com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > How does that
> > >
> > > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > > Self-consistent models represent environments very well, just
> > > omitting their
> > > > living parts, "mind without matter".
> > > >
> > > > Would any of the things you guys suggested fix that?
> > >
> > > I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in
> a
> > > good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to
> > > state
> > > (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
> > > context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore,
> > > contributes immensely to the solution.
> >
> > [ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of
> independent
> > organisms or communities things you have no information about because
> they
> > never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that?
> >
> >
> > > I.e. if the problem is that our modeling methods only capture
> isolable
> > > (separable, "linear", analytic, etc.) systems _well_, then we need
> > > other
> > > modeling methods to capture holistic ("nonlinear", non-analytic)
> > > systems. As I understand it, this is the basic conception behind
> the
> > > "sustainability movement", somehow capturing or understanding
> > > externalities and engineering organizations so that their waste is
> more
> > > useful to other organizations.
> > >
> > > What Rosen tried to do (in my _opinion_) is help us specify what
> parts
> > > of our modeling methods are inadequate to the task of capturing
> certain
> > > broken closures. I.e. I think he tried to explain _why_ so many of
> our
> > > models are so fragile, namely, because they cannot capture the
> closure
> > > of efficient cause (agency). That concept requires no mathematics
> (ala
> > > category theory). But he tried to communicate the concept using
> > > mathematics and logic via the discussions of Poincare's
> > > "impredicativity" and rhetorical vs. causal loops.
> >
> > [ph] I haven't studied Rosen enough the really know if he's pointing
> to
> the
> > same conflict between living things and machines that I am, but there
> > clearly is a conflict. Machines are the produce of a self-consistent
> model
> > in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex
> learning
> > processes that grow out of their own environments like all other
> natural
> > systems..etc.
> >
> > Phil
> > >
> > > So, yes, I think these things can help with our understanding of
> the
> > > fragility of _simple_ models ("mechanism" in Rosen's peculiar
> > > terminology). Even if Rosen's MR-systems or his "closure to
> efficient
> > > cause" are inadequate to the task (which I think they _are_), at
> least
> > > considering those attempts and how/where they may fail facilitates
> our
> > > progress toward other, hopefully more successful, solutions.
> > >
> > > - --
> > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> > > Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. -- Omar N.
> > > Bradley
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> > >
> > > iD8DBQFIEjtUpVJZMHoGoM8RAt6gAJkB0y2YDBB3/LsFr8i561UrfEPvsgCggAKu
> > > I8mcbIbWrFljoixYiONhrCg=
> > > =CxBC
> > > -----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: 4
> > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:37:28 +1000
> > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <20080426023728.GG27289 at bloody-dell.localdomain>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:21:59PM -0400, phil henshaw wrote:
> > >
> > > [ph] I haven't studied Rosen enough the really know if he's
> pointing to
> the
> > > same conflict between living things and machines that I am, but
> there
> > > clearly is a conflict. Machines are the produce of a self-
> consistent
> model
> > > in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex
> learning
> > > processes that grow out of their own environments like all other
> natural
> > > systems..etc.
> > >
> > > Phil
> >
> > Only simple machines. More complex machines (eg the Intel Pentium
> > processor) show definite signs of evolutionary accretion, as no one
> > person can design such a complex thing from scratch, but rather
> > previous designs are used and optimised.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > Mathematics
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:04:45 -0400
> > From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <023101c8a752$aa00dfc0$fe029f40$@com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > >
> > > Only simple machines. More complex machines (eg the Intel Pentium
> > > processor) show definite signs of evolutionary accretion, as no one
> > > person can design such a complex thing from scratch, but rather
> > > previous designs are used and optimised.
> >
> > [ph] Right! Layered design is sort of a universal signature of
> learning
> > processes, in this case the chip designers resourcefully adapting
> pieces
> of
> > the old design in making new designs for new problems. Eventually
> any
> > direction of development or learning runs into diminishing returns,
> either
> > inherent in the design, or relative to competition with some other.
> >
> > I understand there's also a great deal of arguably creative machine
> design
> > in chip design too, still accumulative in nature, but I don't think
> we
> have
> > processors that 'design themselves', however, nor would they do very
> well
> > with multiple disconnected parts with different operating systems
> that
> only
> > communicated by dumping their waste products on each other... :-)
> that's
> > the trick that organisms do so nicely and that our way of explaining
> them
> > misses when we describe their functions and relationships in a
> > self-consistent way. Unlike a logical medium, a physical medium
> tolerates
> > inconsistently designed and behaving things and allows them to
> capitalize
> on
> > each other's unintended side behavior and effects.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > > --
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -----
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:36:28 -0600
> > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <4812B14C.2000804 at snoutfarm.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > Glen wrote:
> > >
> > >> I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in
> a
> > >> good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to
> > >> state
> > >> (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
> > >> context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore,
> > >> contributes immensely to the solution.
> > >>
> > >
> > > [ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of
> independent
> > > organisms or communities things you have no information about
> because
> they
> > > never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that?
> > >
> > Find a function that well describes a state of a thing or aggregate
> > measurement of interest at t - 2 that gives the state at t - 1 that
> > gives a state at t. Then prediction is a matter of applying the
> > function more times. Add more functions to describe more individual
> > things or aggregates and note when there are shared functions in
> those
> > definitions (e.g. food web fundamentally depends photosynthesis).
> >
> > If you want to define all things to be independent, then there is no
> > point in talking about interactions -- you've already defined away
> the
> > possibility of that! Covariance is zero.
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:47:44 -0400
> > From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <025401c8a7a4$1b1cb340$515619c0$@com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > Ok, 'find a function' assumes there is one to find, but the problem
> set is
> > running into behavior which has already had major consequences (like
> > starvation for 100million people because of an unexpected world food
> price
> > level shift) and the question is what 'function' would you use to not
> be
> > caught flat footed like that. Is there some general function to use
> in
> > cases where you have no function and don't even know what the problem
> > definition will be?
> >
> > I actually have a very good one, but you won't like it because it
> means
> > using the models to understand what they fail to describe rather than
> the
> > usual method of using them to represent other things.
> >
> > Phil Henshaw???????????????????
> > ??? ????.?? ? `?.????
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040? tel: 212-795-4844?????
> > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com?????explorations: www.synapse9.com??
> > ?in the last 200 years the amount of change that once needed a
> century?of
> > thought now takes just five weeks?
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:36 AM
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > >
> > > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > > Glen wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies
> in a
> > > >> good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able
> to
> > > >> state
> > > >> (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in
> which
> > > >> context and which closures are broken in which context,
> therefore,
> > > >> contributes immensely to the solution.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > [ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of
> > > independent
> > > > organisms or communities things you have no information about
> because
> > > they
> > > > never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that?
> > > >
> > > Find a function that well describes a state of a thing or aggregate
> > > measurement of interest at t - 2 that gives the state at t - 1 that
> > > gives a state at t. Then prediction is a matter of applying the
> > > function more times. Add more functions to describe more
> individual
> > > things or aggregates and note when there are shared functions in
> those
> > > definitions (e.g. food web fundamentally depends photosynthesis).
> > >
> > > If you want to define all things to be independent, then there is
> no
> > > point in talking about interactions -- you've already defined away
> the
> > > possibility of that! Covariance is zero.
> > >
> > > 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: 8
> > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:44:46 -0600
> > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <48133FDE.2070309 at snoutfarm.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >
> > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > Ok, 'find a function' assumes there is one to find, but the problem
> set
> is
> > > running into behavior which has already had major consequences
> (like
> > > starvation for 100million people because of an unexpected world
> food
> price
> > > level shift) and the question is what 'function' would you use to
> not be
> > > caught flat footed like that.
> > The caloric requirements of a person are autocorrelated, but probably
> > for a lot of models a constant will suffice -- a certain amount of
> body
> > weight decrease, and then the probability of death goes up. As for
> > price fluctuations, that's a matter of modeling the natural resources
> > that go in to food, the costs and benefits to motivate farmers, the
> > commodity markets, and so on. Certainly we can try to understand
> how
> > each of these work, and then do what-if scenarios when one or more
> > components are perturbed (or destroyed). It's still a matter of
> > finding stories (functions) to fit observables. The availability and
> > accuracy of those observables may be poor, and sometimes all that is
> > possible to imagine worst and best cases, run the numbers, and see
> how
> > the result changes.
> > > Is there some general function to use in
> > > cases where you have no function and don't even know what the
> problem
> > > definition will be?
> > >
> > I think you do know what the problem could look like, but most
> details
> > remain unspecified. If you can construct an example that has
> > catastrophes of the kind you often talk about, and spell out all of
> the
> > details of your work of fiction (that even may happen to resemble
> > reality), such that the what-if scenarios can be reproduced in
> > simulations, then others can study the sensitivities. If there is a
> > `forcing structure' that will occur in many, many variant forms, then
> > you can demonstrate that.
> > > I actually have a very good one, but you won't like it because it
> means
> > > using the models to understand what they fail to describe rather
> than
> the
> > > usual method of using them to represent other things.
> > Right. Model predicts something, it turns out to have some error
> > structure and that structure suggests ways to improve the model or
> make
> > a new one. Paper published. Meanwhile another guy makes a different
> > model on the same phenomena and publishes a paper. Third person
> reads
> > the two papers and has idea that accounts for problems in both. So
> she
> > makes a new model!
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Friam mailing list
> > Friam at redfish.com
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> >
> >
> > End of Friam Digest, Vol 58, 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