Friam

Self-*: Suggested Readings?

Classic

List

Threaded

9 messages Options

Owen Densmore

Self-*: Suggested Readings?

Administrator

I got an invite to submit a paper to self-*, a workshop in italy
looking into the various self-configuring, self-organizing,
self-managing and self-repairing systems:
http://www.cs.unibo.it/self-star/

Well, at the last minute, it occurred to me that our supply chain work
with the SFI Business Network, "ValueNet", had a bit of that: by adding
visibility or mesh networking to the simple beer game, it
self-organized into regular behavior from its previously chaotic
behavior.

Here's the preliminary paper:
http://backspaces.net/files/SelfStar.pdf

Could anyone recommend reading in the "self-*" area? I'd like to get a
good historical perspective before presenting.

-- Owen

Owen Densmore 908 Camino Santander Santa Fe, NM 87505
Cell: 505-570-0168 Home: 505-988-3787 http://backspaces.net

Stephen Guerin

Self-*: Suggested Readings?

Owen,

The self-* conference looks fun. Let me know if you need someone to carry
your laptop to Italy :-)

> Could anyone recommend reading in the "self-*" area? I'd like to get a
> good historical perspective before presenting.

The Heylighen article is a good historical overview of self-organization:
http://www.redfish.com/research/EOLSS-Self-Organiz.pdf

> Well, at the last minute, it occurred to me that our supply chain work
> with the SFI Business Network, "ValueNet", had a bit of that: by adding
> visibility or mesh networking to the simple beer game, it
> self-organized into regular behavior from its previously chaotic
> behavior.

Manoj and I are having an ongoing conversation on the use of the term
self-organization. We're wondering if there's something critically different
about A) dynamical systems finding an attractor and B) Systems where
organization arises in response to far-from-equilibrium driving conditions
with open to flows of energy and/or matter.

The first use of the term might describe:
- a pendulum "self-organizing" to a point or limit-cycle attractor
- crystal formation
- force-directed graph layout via energy minimization
- etc.

The second use of the term would describe:
- Benard Cell
- Tornado
- BZ Reaction
- Laser
- Flocking
- Ant Foraging Trails

I'm not completely happy with the criteria the separates the two categories.
I'd like to see something more rigorous. I'm wondering into which category
self-organization in the beer game may fall. I suspect it's the first.

-Steve
____________________________________________________
http://www.redfish.com [hidden email]
624 Agua Fria Street office: (505)995-0206
Santa Fe, NM 87501 mobile: (505)577-5828

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen Densmore [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:05 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: [FRIAM] Self-*: Suggested Readings?
>
>
> I got an invite to submit a paper to self-*, a workshop in italy
> looking into the various self-configuring, self-organizing,
> self-managing and self-repairing systems:
> http://www.cs.unibo.it/self-star/
>
> Well, at the last minute, it occurred to me that our supply chain work
> with the SFI Business Network, "ValueNet", had a bit of that: by adding
> visibility or mesh networking to the simple beer game, it
> self-organized into regular behavior from its previously chaotic
> behavior.
>
> Here's the preliminary paper:
> http://backspaces.net/files/SelfStar.pdf
>
> Could anyone recommend reading in the "self-*" area? I'd like to get a
> good historical perspective before presenting.

Carl Tollander-2

Self-*: Suggested Readings?

Steve,

Not sure it's a salient criteria, but I was reading some
Baez stuff on n-category theories and it struck me that Just Maybe
objects in the former category of phenomena tend to have a
lower "n" and objects in the latter category tend to have a higher "n".

Anyhow, from a modeling standpoint, it might give some more substance to
notions of "situated" and "autonomy". From an ABM tools standpoint, it's
certainly seems less slippery than talking about "nesting" or "hierarchy"
of patches or spaces (not that those terms aren't useful, I'm just starting
to think maybe there's a better path available).

I wonder into which "category" the Edelman stuff on self organizing
"neuronal nets" would fall?

See
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week49.html
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/categories.html

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On
Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:36 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Self-*: Suggested Readings?

Owen,

The self-* conference looks fun. Let me know if you need someone to carry
your laptop to Italy :-)

> Could anyone recommend reading in the "self-*" area? I'd like to get a
> good historical perspective before presenting.

The Heylighen article is a good historical overview of self-organization:
http://www.redfish.com/research/EOLSS-Self-Organiz.pdf

> Well, at the last minute, it occurred to me that our supply chain work
> with the SFI Business Network, "ValueNet", had a bit of that: by adding
> visibility or mesh networking to the simple beer game, it
> self-organized into regular behavior from its previously chaotic
> behavior.

Manoj and I are having an ongoing conversation on the use of the term
self-organization. We're wondering if there's something critically different
about A) dynamical systems finding an attractor and B) Systems where
organization arises in response to far-from-equilibrium driving conditions
with open to flows of energy and/or matter.

The first use of the term might describe:
- a pendulum "self-organizing" to a point or limit-cycle attractor
- crystal formation
- force-directed graph layout via energy minimization
- etc.

The second use of the term would describe:
- Benard Cell
- Tornado
- BZ Reaction
- Laser
- Flocking
- Ant Foraging Trails

I'm not completely happy with the criteria the separates the two categories.
I'd like to see something more rigorous. I'm wondering into which category
self-organization in the beer game may fall. I suspect it's the first.

-Steve
____________________________________________________
http://www.redfish.com [hidden email]
624 Agua Fria Street office: (505)995-0206
Santa Fe, NM 87501 mobile: (505)577-5828

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
http://www.friam.org

Robert Holmes

Self-*: Suggested Readings?

In reply to this post by Stephen Guerin

> Manoj and I are having an ongoing conversation on the use of
> the term self-organization. We're wondering if there's
> something critically different about A) dynamical systems
> finding an attractor and B) Systems where organization arises
> in response to far-from-equilibrium driving conditions with
> open to flows of energy and/or matter.
>

How about continuing this conversation at an upcoming Wednesday meeting?
Something I've been wondering about too (and I agree with your comment about
the beer game being a type A example of self-organisation. Much as a dropped
brick self-organizes itself into a stable state when it lands on the floor).

Robert

Bruce Sawhill

Self-*: Suggested Readings?

Dynamical systems finding an attractor include far from equilibrium
"open systems". Consider a driven dissipative harmonic oscillator. It
will find an attractor in phase space though it is never in
equilibrium. You can then convince yourself that things like BTW
sandpiles are no different, so that self organization is a subset of A.

Cheers,

Bruce Sawhill

On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 09:52 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:

>
>> Manoj and I are having an ongoing conversation on the use of
>> the term self-organization. We're wondering if there's
>> something critically different about A) dynamical systems
>> finding an attractor and B) Systems where organization arises
>> in response to far-from-equilibrium driving conditions with
>> open to flows of energy and/or matter.
>>
>
> How about continuing this conversation at an upcoming Wednesday
> meeting?
> Something I've been wondering about too (and I agree with your comment
> about
> the beer game being a type A example of self-organisation. Much as a
> dropped
> brick self-organizes itself into a stable state when it lands on the
> floor).
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.friam.org
>

Stephen Guerin

Self-*: Suggested Readings?

Bruce Sawhill writes:
> Dynamical systems finding an attractor include far from equilibrium
> "open systems". Consider a driven dissipative harmonic oscillator. It
> will find an attractor in phase space though it is never in
> equilibrium. You can then convince yourself that things like BTW
> sandpiles are no different, so that self organization is a subset of A.

Very good point, Bruce. I guess another way I could have stated it is that a
dynamical system with attractors is a necessary but not sufficient condition
for self-organization.

What might the sufficient conditions be? I'm reasonably confident they have
something to do with the creation of constraints. If you look at measures of
degrees of freedom of micro-level agents (particles or components) as a
system self-organizes, agents are increasingly constrained and lose degrees
of freedom. These constraints may come in the form of gradients in the
environment, additional internal rules or increased interactions with other
agents. In the single pendulum models, the brick falling to the floor, and
the beer game, I don't see the emergence of new constraints at the
micro/agent level.

Does this make sense?

-Steve

Robert Holmes

Self-*: Suggested Readings?

Oh bother, another mathematical term for us to get confused about. So what
*is* a constraint? When I've used this term, it's been in the context of
constrained optimization - finding the min/max of a surface subject to
constraints that are mathematically expressible (x > 0, xy < c, stuff like
that). So when I'm following a gradient, this isn't an example of a
constraint - the constraint only comes into play when my optimisation is
trying to push me (say) to x = -1 but my constraint is x > 0.

So in these terms, a brick landing on the floor is an example of a
constrained system (in the absence of floor it would just keep dropping). As
a parachutist friend of mine says, it's not the fall that kills you, it's
the landing.

R

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Guerin [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 01 April 2004 16:52
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Self-*: Suggested Readings?
>
>
> Bruce Sawhill writes:
> > Dynamical systems finding an attractor include far from equilibrium
> > "open systems". Consider a driven dissipative harmonic
> oscillator.
> > It will find an attractor in phase space though it is never in
> > equilibrium. You can then convince yourself that things like BTW
> > sandpiles are no different, so that self organization is a
> subset of
> > A.
>
> Very good point, Bruce. I guess another way I could have
> stated it is that a dynamical system with attractors is a
> necessary but not sufficient condition for self-organization.
>
> What might the sufficient conditions be? I'm reasonably
> confident they have something to do with the creation of
> constraints. If you look at measures of degrees of freedom of
> micro-level agents (particles or components) as a system
> self-organizes, agents are increasingly constrained and lose
> degrees of freedom. These constraints may come in the form of
> gradients in the environment, additional internal rules or
> increased interactions with other agents. In the single
> pendulum models, the brick falling to the floor, and the beer
> game, I don't see the emergence of new constraints at the
> micro/agent level.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> -Steve
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.: http://www.friam.org
>
>

Bruce Sawhill

Self-*: Suggested Readings?

I think self organization might be a term with no good definition,
perhaps it is subjective--
something with enough moving parts that does something cool far from
equilibrium is
"Self organized". And "Self organized Criticality" sounds cooler than
"dissipative perturbations"
or some such.

Bruce

On Friday, April 2, 2004, at 12:38 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:

> Oh bother, another mathematical term for us to get confused about. So
> what
> *is* a constraint? When I've used this term, it's been in the context
> of
> constrained optimization - finding the min/max of a surface subject to
> constraints that are mathematically expressible (x > 0, xy < c, stuff
> like
> that). So when I'm following a gradient, this isn't an example of a
> constraint - the constraint only comes into play when my optimisation
> is
> trying to push me (say) to x = -1 but my constraint is x > 0.
>
> So in these terms, a brick landing on the floor is an example of a
> constrained system (in the absence of floor it would just keep
> dropping). As
> a parachutist friend of mine says, it's not the fall that kills you,
> it's
> the landing.
>
> R
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Guerin [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: 01 April 2004 16:52
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Self-*: Suggested Readings?
>>
>>
>> Bruce Sawhill writes:
>>> Dynamical systems finding an attractor include far from equilibrium
>>> "open systems". Consider a driven dissipative harmonic
>> oscillator.
>>> It will find an attractor in phase space though it is never in
>>> equilibrium. You can then convince yourself that things like BTW
>>> sandpiles are no different, so that self organization is a
>> subset of
>>> A.
>>
>> Very good point, Bruce. I guess another way I could have
>> stated it is that a dynamical system with attractors is a
>> necessary but not sufficient condition for self-organization.
>>
>> What might the sufficient conditions be? I'm reasonably
>> confident they have something to do with the creation of
>> constraints. If you look at measures of degrees of freedom of
>> micro-level agents (particles or components) as a system
>> self-organizes, agents are increasingly constrained and lose
>> degrees of freedom. These constraints may come in the form of
>> gradients in the environment, additional internal rules or
>> increased interactions with other agents. In the single
>> pendulum models, the brick falling to the floor, and the beer
>> game, I don't see the emergence of new constraints at the
>> micro/agent level.
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
>> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.: http://www.friam.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.friam.org
>

Owen Densmore

Self-*: Suggested Readings?

Administrator

More on the conference itself. Seems like we could qualify as
controversial.

-- Owen

Owen Densmore 908 Camino Santander Santa Fe, NM 87505
Cell: 505-570-0168 Home: 505-988-3787 http://backspaces.net

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ozalp Babaoglu <[hidden email]>
> Date: April 2, 2004 8:45:33 AM MST
> To: Ozalp Babaoglu <[hidden email]>
> Subject: more SELF-STAR information
>
> dear colleagues,
>
> if you have not seen it yet, the preliminary program for SELF-STAR is
> available on the meeting web site
>
> http://www.cs.unibo.it/self-star/
>
> in revising your white paper, please keep in mind the spirit of the
> meeting --- interdisciplinary group, exploring new grounds and raising
> as many questions as answering them. try to be thought provoking and
> even controversial. you may want to refresh your memory about the
> issues raised in the initial invitation letter, which can be found in
> the web site.
>
> and syntactically, please adhere to the following:
>
> - an ABSOLUTE limit of 4 pages
> - US-letter or A4 page format with 2.5cm (1") margins
> - 10-point size font, two-column layout
> - NO page numbers (we will number them sequentially for the informal
> proceedings)
> - try to produce output as pdf
>
> i need to receive your files by 23 april 2004.
>
> and if you have not responded to the questions of my last message
> (confirm your participation, identify your guest, other special
> requests), please do so. best regards,
> ozalp babaoglu
>