Seminal Papers in Complexity
Locked
123
123
 
Administrator
|
Several of us have been attending the SFI Summer School this year.
One thing that has stood out for me is that there are very few appropriate texts on the detailed, seminal ideas within complexity. Either the books are "popular" or they are technical/formal enough, but without broad view of complexity itself. Indeed, they may be *too* advanced in their speciality for the broad use complexity wishes to make. One example today was the intersection of computational theory and statistical mechanics given by Cris Moore: A Tale of Two Cultures: Phase Transitions in Physics and Computer Science Here are the slides: http://www.santafe.edu/~moore/Oxford.pdf You'd be unlikely to find a book bridging algorithms, computational complexity, and statistical mechanics. This leads me to believe that seminal papers are likely to be a good solution for bridging the various cultures, hopefully with some that *do* bridge gaps between specialties. Sooo -- gentle reader -- this brings me to a request: I'd like to start a collection of seminal papers who's goal is to bridge the gap between popular books and over-specialized texts, which are formal enough to be useful for multi-discipline complexity work. This may be daft, but I think not. As an example, I'd say Shannon's 1948 paper A Mathematical Theory of Communication would be good. -- Owen |
Seminal Papers in Complexity
|
|
Unfortunately, I've always had this visceral, "dictionary" autonomic
response to the word "seminal": Main Entry: *sem?i?nal* <javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?semina01.wav=seminal')> Pronunciation: 'se-m&-n&l Function: *adjective* Etymology: Middle English, from Latin *seminalis,* from *semin-, semen* seed -- more at SEMEN <http://webster.com/dictionary/semen> *1* *:* of, relating to, or consisting of seed or semen *2* *:* containing or contributing the seeds of later development *: * Now, I realize that you probably were focussed on the second meaning of the word, Owen, yet... Perhaps had you used the word "significant", or "important", or, "not complete garbage-class academic mental exhibititionist garbage"... Alas, my train of thought is now irretrievably derailed. -- Doug Roberts, RTI International droberts at rti.org doug at parrot-farm.net 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell --Doug On 6/15/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote: > > Several of us have been attending the SFI Summer School this year. > One thing that has stood out for me is that there are very few > appropriate texts on the detailed, seminal ideas within complexity. > Either the books are "popular" or they are technical/formal enough, > but without broad view of complexity itself. Indeed, they may be > *too* advanced in their speciality for the broad use complexity > wishes to make. > > One example today was the intersection of computational theory and > statistical mechanics given by Cris Moore: > A Tale of Two Cultures: Phase Transitions in > Physics and Computer Science > Here are the slides: http://www.santafe.edu/~moore/Oxford.pdf > You'd be unlikely to find a book bridging algorithms, computational > complexity, and statistical mechanics. > > This leads me to believe that seminal papers are likely to be a good > solution for bridging the various cultures, hopefully with some that > *do* bridge gaps between specialties. > > Sooo -- gentle reader -- this brings me to a request: I'd like to > start a collection of seminal papers who's goal is to bridge the gap > between popular books and over-specialized texts, which are formal > enough to be useful for multi-discipline complexity work. This may > be daft, but I think not. > > As an example, I'd say Shannon's 1948 paper A Mathematical Theory of > Communication would be good. > > -- Owen > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070615/1bb01979/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
One problem with the seminal papers on complexity is that they don't
connect. Take the foundational works of H.T. Odum, the systems ecologist(1) or the cybernetic systems thinkers Ross Ashby (2) or Norbert Wiener(3). It's hard to link them to other branches of complex systems study like Prigigene's 'Exploring Complexity' or Wolfram's 'New kind of Science' or Barabasi's 'Linked' (leaving out numerous important others). As a consequence few people are aware of the general timeline of complexity as a subject(4), and any timeline of the field is bound to be missing major contributions. The problem seems is partly that the study of complex systems is interdisciplinary, because systems are, and what happens is each discipline goes off on its own tangent and acts like it is trying to take over the subject as a whole, each vying to erase each other rather than connect with each other. My work seems to be an example of an attempt to link approaches, a new form of physics intended expressly for use by any discipline, and incorporating unique useful pieces of what's been developed from all the disciplines I've been exposed to. My work may be 'odd' in more ways than that, but it's partly because I'm trying to write in a common language that makes it look 'foreign' to every discipline, so no one'll publish it... Catch 22! :-) (1) Odum: 1994 'Ecological and General Systems' (see http://www.eoearth.org/article/Odum,_Howard_T.) (2) Ross Ashby's 1947 'Ecological and General Systems' or his 1956 "Introduction to Cybernetics" (& see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Ross_Ashby) (3) Weiner 1948 'Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine' (3) complex systems thinking timeline from the cybernetics soc. (http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundations/timeline.htm), Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 7:38 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: [FRIAM] Seminal Papers in Complexity > > > Several of us have been attending the SFI Summer School this year. > One thing that has stood out for me is that there are very few > appropriate texts on the detailed, seminal ideas within complexity. > Either the books are "popular" or they are technical/formal enough, > but without broad view of complexity itself. Indeed, they may be > *too* advanced in their speciality for the broad use complexity > wishes to make. > > One example today was the intersection of computational theory and > statistical mechanics given by Cris Moore: > A Tale of Two Cultures: Phase Transitions in > Physics and Computer Science > Here are the slides: http://www.santafe.edu/~moore/Oxford.pdf > You'd be unlikely to find a book bridging algorithms, computational > complexity, and statistical mechanics. > > This leads me to believe that seminal papers are likely to be a good > solution for bridging the various cultures, hopefully with some that > *do* bridge gaps between specialties. > > Sooo -- gentle reader -- this brings me to a request: I'd like to > start a collection of seminal papers who's goal is to bridge the gap > between popular books and over-specialized texts, which are formal > enough to be useful for multi-discipline complexity work. This may > be daft, but I think not. > > As an example, I'd say Shannon's 1948 paper A Mathematical Theory of > Communication would be good. > > -- Owen > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Owen Densmore wrote:
> Several of us have been attending the SFI Summer School this year. > One thing that has stood out for me is that there are very few > appropriate texts on the detailed, seminal ideas within complexity. > Either the books are "popular" or they are technical/formal enough, > but without broad view of complexity itself. Indeed, they may be > *too* advanced in their speciality for the broad use complexity > wishes to make. > > One example today was the intersection of computational theory and > statistical mechanics given by Cris Moore: > A Tale of Two Cultures: Phase Transitions in > Physics and Computer Science > Here are the slides: http://www.santafe.edu/~moore/Oxford.pdf > You'd be unlikely to find a book bridging algorithms, computational > complexity, and statistical mechanics. > > This leads me to believe that seminal papers are likely to be a good > solution for bridging the various cultures, hopefully with some that > *do* bridge gaps between specialties. > > Sooo -- gentle reader -- this brings me to a request: I'd like to > start a collection of seminal papers who's goal is to bridge the gap > between popular books and over-specialized texts, which are formal > enough to be useful for multi-discipline complexity work. This may > be daft, but I think not. > > As an example, I'd say Shannon's 1948 paper A Mathematical Theory of > Communication would be good. > > -- Owen > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > > I took advantage of the CNLS printer to print LOTS of articles about complexity that seemed to do more than just gestate in utero (let's all feminize seminal). Before I toss them all, I will pass on a few suggestions for the list. Do you want the titles annotated? -Merle- |
Seminal Papers in Complexity
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
Here are a few bibliographies:
http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/bibliography.htm http://www.santafe.edu/~jpc/EvDynBib.html http://www.barn.org/FILES/eybiblio.html -Shawn > One problem with the seminal papers on complexity is that they don't > connect. Take the foundational works of H.T. Odum, the systems > ecologist(1) or the cybernetic systems thinkers Ross Ashby (2) or > Norbert Wiener(3). It's hard to link them to other branches of complex > systems study like Prigigene's 'Exploring Complexity' or Wolfram's 'New > kind of Science' or Barabasi's 'Linked' (leaving out numerous important > others). As a consequence few people are aware of the general timeline > of complexity as a subject(4), and any timeline of the field is bound to > be missing major contributions. > > The problem seems is partly that the study of complex systems is > interdisciplinary, because systems are, and what happens is each > discipline goes off on its own tangent and acts like it is trying to > take over the subject as a whole, each vying to erase each other rather > than connect with each other. My work seems to be an example of an > attempt to link approaches, a new form of physics intended expressly for > use by any discipline, and incorporating unique useful pieces of what's > been developed from all the disciplines I've been exposed to. My work > may be 'odd' in more ways than that, but it's partly because I'm trying > to write in a common language that makes it look 'foreign' to every > discipline, so no one'll publish it... Catch 22! :-) > > (1) Odum: 1994 'Ecological and General Systems' (see > http://www.eoearth.org/article/Odum,_Howard_T.) > (2) Ross Ashby's 1947 'Ecological and General Systems' or his 1956 > "Introduction to Cybernetics" (& see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Ross_Ashby) > (3) Weiner 1948 'Control and Communication in the Animal and the > Machine' > (3) complex systems thinking timeline from the cybernetics soc. > (http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundations/timeline.htm), > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com >> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore >> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 7:38 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: [FRIAM] Seminal Papers in Complexity >> >> >> Several of us have been attending the SFI Summer School this year. >> One thing that has stood out for me is that there are very few >> appropriate texts on the detailed, seminal ideas within complexity. >> Either the books are "popular" or they are technical/formal enough, >> but without broad view of complexity itself. Indeed, they may be >> *too* advanced in their speciality for the broad use complexity >> wishes to make. >> >> One example today was the intersection of computational theory and >> statistical mechanics given by Cris Moore: >> A Tale of Two Cultures: Phase Transitions in >> Physics and Computer Science >> Here are the slides: http://www.santafe.edu/~moore/Oxford.pdf >> You'd be unlikely to find a book bridging algorithms, computational >> complexity, and statistical mechanics. >> >> This leads me to believe that seminal papers are likely to be a good >> solution for bridging the various cultures, hopefully with some that >> *do* bridge gaps between specialties. >> >> Sooo -- gentle reader -- this brings me to a request: I'd like to >> start a collection of seminal papers who's goal is to bridge the gap >> between popular books and over-specialized texts, which are formal >> enough to be useful for multi-discipline complexity work. This may >> be daft, but I think not. >> >> As an example, I'd say Shannon's 1948 paper A Mathematical Theory of >> Communication would be good. >> >> -- Owen >> >> >> >> ===========================================================> 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 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 > > |
|
|
Last fall at the NECSI conference I was talking to an editor of a
complexity encyclopedia now in process by Springer http:// refworks.springer.com/complexity/. I asked him, is there any common thread running through the conversations you've had and the sections you've commissioned so far? Only anti-reductionism, he said. So I just wrote that story and all of a sudden wondered, what the hell is reductionism anyway? Cheated by looking it up in Wikipedia and of course there's many different kinds. The old philosophy joke is, when faced with a contradiction, make a distinction. The first line of the major Wikipedia entry is, "In philosophy, reductionism is a theory that asserts that the nature of complex things is reduced to the nature of sums of simpler or more fundamental things." Sums. So is nonlinearity the key to the kingdom? Are we really looking for germinal papers in nonlinearity? Mike On Jun 16, 2007, at 1:47 PM, sbarr at clarku.edu wrote: > Here are a few bibliographies: > > http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/bibliography.htm > http://www.santafe.edu/~jpc/EvDynBib.html > http://www.barn.org/FILES/eybiblio.html > > -Shawn > >> One problem with the seminal papers on complexity is that they don't >> connect. Take the foundational works of H.T. Odum, the systems >> ecologist(1) or the cybernetic systems thinkers Ross Ashby (2) or >> Norbert Wiener(3). It's hard to link them to other branches of >> complex >> systems study like Prigigene's 'Exploring Complexity' or Wolfram's >> 'New >> kind of Science' or Barabasi's 'Linked' (leaving out numerous >> important >> others). As a consequence few people are aware of the general >> timeline >> of complexity as a subject(4), and any timeline of the field is >> bound to >> be missing major contributions. >> >> The problem seems is partly that the study of complex systems is >> interdisciplinary, because systems are, and what happens is each >> discipline goes off on its own tangent and acts like it is trying to >> take over the subject as a whole, each vying to erase each other >> rather >> than connect with each other. My work seems to be an example of an >> attempt to link approaches, a new form of physics intended >> expressly for >> use by any discipline, and incorporating unique useful pieces of >> what's >> been developed from all the disciplines I've been exposed to. My >> work >> may be 'odd' in more ways than that, but it's partly because I'm >> trying >> to write in a common language that makes it look 'foreign' to every >> discipline, so no one'll publish it... Catch 22! :-) >> >> (1) Odum: 1994 'Ecological and General Systems' (see >> http://www.eoearth.org/article/Odum,_Howard_T.) >> (2) Ross Ashby's 1947 'Ecological and General Systems' or his 1956 >> "Introduction to Cybernetics" (& see >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Ross_Ashby) >> (3) Weiner 1948 'Control and Communication in the Animal and the >> Machine' >> (3) complex systems thinking timeline from the cybernetics soc. >> (http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundations/timeline.htm), >> >> >> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> 680 Ft. Washington Ave >> NY NY 10040 >> tel: 212-795-4844 >> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com >> explorations: www.synapse9.com >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com >>> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore >>> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 7:38 PM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: [FRIAM] Seminal Papers in Complexity >>> >>> >>> Several of us have been attending the SFI Summer School this year. >>> One thing that has stood out for me is that there are very few >>> appropriate texts on the detailed, seminal ideas within complexity. >>> Either the books are "popular" or they are technical/formal enough, >>> but without broad view of complexity itself. Indeed, they may be >>> *too* advanced in their speciality for the broad use complexity >>> wishes to make. >>> >>> One example today was the intersection of computational theory and >>> statistical mechanics given by Cris Moore: >>> A Tale of Two Cultures: Phase Transitions in >>> Physics and Computer Science >>> Here are the slides: http://www.santafe.edu/~moore/Oxford.pdf >>> You'd be unlikely to find a book bridging algorithms, computational >>> complexity, and statistical mechanics. >>> >>> This leads me to believe that seminal papers are likely to be a good >>> solution for bridging the various cultures, hopefully with some that >>> *do* bridge gaps between specialties. >>> >>> Sooo -- gentle reader -- this brings me to a request: I'd like to >>> start a collection of seminal papers who's goal is to bridge the gap >>> between popular books and over-specialized texts, which are formal >>> enough to be useful for multi-discipline complexity work. This may >>> be daft, but I think not. >>> >>> As an example, I'd say Shannon's 1948 paper A Mathematical Theory of >>> Communication would be good. >>> >>> -- Owen >>> >>> >>> >>> ===========================================================> 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 >> 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 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/20070616/5ae8a375/attachment.html |
Seminal Papers in --- reading nature's book--
|
|
I mentioned it before, but it's worth mentioning again. There's a new
way to reveal structures of real complex physical systems that is amenable to analysis, that is, other than the one way we've been using for the past few hundred years, i.e. assigning numbers to them. Assigning numbers to things is what I always thought of as being the 'reduction' part of reductionism. That aside, when you consider a system as a network of internal relations, as network science does, and study it as a cell with a topology, it gives you a whole new kind of analytical window on real complex systems. Real complex systems are probably not the only kind worth studying, and projecting their internal networks for analysis is still 'reductionist' in a real sense, but it's a reduction having far more depth and a true relation to the original thing than representing things as numbers does. Whether it goes fast or slow, I think NetSci forms a whole new kind of horizon for analytical methods. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Agar Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 4:42 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Seminal Papers in Complexity Last fall at the NECSI conference I was talking to an editor of a complexity encyclopedia now in process by Springer http://refworks.springercom/complexity/ <http://refworks.springer.com/complexity/> . I asked him, is there any common thread running through the conversations you've had and the sections you've commissioned so far? Only anti-reductionism, he said. So I just wrote that story and all of a sudden wondered, what the hell is reductionism anyway? Cheated by looking it up in Wikipedia and of course there's many different kinds. The old philosophy joke is, when faced with a contradiction, make a distinction. The first line of the major Wikipedia entry is, "In <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy> philosophy, reductionism is a theory that asserts that the nature of complex things is <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_%28philosophy%29> reduced to the nature of sums of simpler or more fundamental things." Sums. So is nonlinearity the key to the kingdom? Are we really looking for germinal papers in nonlinearity? Mike On Jun 16, 2007, at 1:47 PM, sbarr at clarku.edu wrote: Here are a few bibliographies: http://wwwpsych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/bibliography.htm <http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/bibliography.htm> http://www.santafe.edu/~jpc/EvDynBib.html http://www.barn.org/FILES/eybiblio.html -Shawn One problem with the seminal papers on complexity is that they don't connect. Take the foundational works of H.T. Odum, the systems ecologist(1) or the cybernetic systems thinkers Ross Ashby (2) or Norbert Wiener(3). It's hard to link them to other branches of complex systems study like Prigigene's 'Exploring Complexity' or Wolfram's 'New kind of Science' or Barabasi's 'Linked' (leaving out numerous important others). As a consequence few people are aware of the general timeline of complexity as a subject(4), and any timeline of the field is bound to be missing major contributions. The problem seems is partly that the study of complex systems is interdisciplinary, because systems are, and what happens is each discipline goes off on its own tangent and acts like it is trying to take over the subject as a whole, each vying to erase each other rather than connect with each other. My work seems to be an example of an attempt to link approaches, a new form of physics intended expressly for use by any discipline, and incorporating unique useful pieces of what's been developed from all the disciplines I've been exposed to. My work may be 'odd' in more ways than that, but it's partly because I'm trying to write in a common language that makes it look 'foreign' to every discipline, so no one'll publish it... Catch 22! :-) (1) Odum: 1994 'Ecological and General Systems' (see http://www.eoearth.org/article/Odum,_Howard_T.) (2) Ross Ashby's 1947 'Ecological and General Systems' or his 1956 "Introduction to Cybernetics" (& see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Ross_Ashby) (3) Weiner 1948 'Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine' (3) complex systems thinking timeline from the cybernetics soc. (http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundations/timeline.htm), Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 7:38 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Seminal Papers in Complexity Several of us have been attending the SFI Summer School this year. One thing that has stood out for me is that there are very few appropriate texts on the detailed, seminal ideas within complexity. Either the books are "popular" or they are technical/formal enough, but without broad view of complexity itself. Indeed, they may be *too* advanced in their speciality for the broad use complexity wishes to make. One example today was the intersection of computational theory and statistical mechanics given by Cris Moore: A Tale of Two Cultures: Phase Transitions in Physics and Computer Science Here are the slides: http://www.santafe.edu/~moore/Oxford.pdf You'd be unlikely to find a book bridging algorithms, computational complexity, and statistical mechanics. This leads me to believe that seminal papers are likely to be a good solution for bridging the various cultures, hopefully with some that *do* bridge gaps between specialties. Sooo -- gentle reader -- this brings me to a request: I'd like to start a collection of seminal papers who's goal is to bridge the gap between popular books and over-specialized texts, which are formal enough to be useful for multi-discipline complexity work. This may be daft, but I think not. As an example, I'd say Shannon's 1948 paper A Mathematical Theory of Communication would be good. -- Owen ===========================================================> 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 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 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/20070616/43057ff6/attachment.html |
Seminal Papers in --- reading nature's book--
|
|
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 09:15:54PM -0400, Phil Henshaw wrote:
> I mentioned it before, but it's worth mentioning again. There's a new > way to reveal structures of real complex physical systems that is > amenable to analysis, that is, other than the one way we've been using > for the past few hundred years, i.e. assigning numbers to them. > Assigning numbers to things is what I always thought of as being the > 'reduction' part of reductionism. > No, its the analytical part in expressions like analytical geometry. One can be analytical without being reductionist, but it helps to have a computer :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Seminal Papers in Complexity
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Agar
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:42:12PM -0600, Michael Agar wrote:
> Last fall at the NECSI conference I was talking to an editor of a > complexity encyclopedia now in process by Springer http:// > refworks.springer.com/complexity/. I asked him, is there any common > thread running through the conversations you've had and the sections > you've commissioned so far? Only anti-reductionism, he said. > > So I just wrote that story and all of a sudden wondered, what the > hell is reductionism anyway? Cheated by looking it up in Wikipedia > and of course there's many different kinds. The old philosophy joke > is, when faced with a contradiction, make a distinction. The first > line of the major Wikipedia entry is, "In philosophy, reductionism is > a theory that asserts that the nature of complex things is reduced to > the nature of sums of simpler or more fundamental things." > > Sums. So is nonlinearity the key to the kingdom? Are we really > looking for germinal papers in nonlinearity? > > > Mike > "Sum of the parts" is more metaphoric than literal. IMHO, the key to the kingdom is emergence, and nonlinearity is only necessary to distinguish between simple or "resultant" emergence, and the more general kind. Whereas some nonlinear systems (eg a two body gravitationally bound system) are not complex in anyone's book. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russell Standish
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 I submit the following for criticism: It's always seemed to me that reductionism and the use of "nonlinearity" as a pretentious and hermetic placeholder for synergy has its roots in characterizing the expectations of the observer. Anti-reductionists are just as silly as reductionists when they assert that they have or manipulate some deep understanding of what's out there (onto-). We can't _reduce_ the actual world anymore than the actual world is "summed" or composed of actual components. It's _all_ in your head. None of this is real or concrete. Interactions with the world happen in the medium of actions. Hence, the extent to which any mechanism or phenomenon is reducible is identical to the extent to which the mechanism or phenomenon can be discretely acted upon. Likewise, the extent to which any mechanism or phenomenon is emergent is identical to the extent to which it can be discretely acted upon (or to which it discretely acts). And that begs the question of discretion. I don't think one can construct a bullet-proof argument that reality is either purely continuous or purely discrete. One is limited to approximations and estimating within some tolerance. So, it all boils down to whether you believe reality is continuous or discrete. Those who believe it is continuous tend to be anti-reductionists and submit that every action affects (to whatever tiny degree) all mechanisms and phenomena in the universe. Those who believe it is discrete tend to be reductionist and submit that the effect of (at least some) actions are purely local and don't affect distant mechanisms or phenomena. The trick is that those who advocate for emergence face consistency problems. On the one hand, they want to suggest that a) causes are indiscrete/inseparable/nonanalytic (or at least occult) and b) the _thing_ that emerges is, somehow, discrete/separable/identifiable from its environment. (a) =><= (b). Reductionists don't have this problem. They have a different one: namely that they cannot demonstrate that reality is completely discrete. And that means that they're forever wandering around cutting things up in different ways and hoping that this cut or that cut will stick and prove true. Michael Agar wrote: > So I just wrote that story and all of a sudden wondered, what the > hell is reductionism anyway? Cheated by looking it up in Wikipedia > and of course there's many different kinds. The old philosophy joke > is, when faced with a contradiction, make a distinction. The first > line of the major Wikipedia entry is, "In philosophy, reductionism is > a theory that asserts that the nature of complex things is reduced to > the nature of sums of simpler or more fundamental things." > > Sums. So is nonlinearity the key to the kingdom? Are we really > looking for germinal papers in nonlinearity? Phil Henshaw wrote: > Assigning numbers to things is what I always thought of as being the > 'reduction' part of reductionism. Russell Standish wrote: > No, its the analytical part in expressions like analytical geometry. > One can be analytical without being reductionist, but it helps to > have a computer :) [...] "Sum of the parts" is more metaphoric than > literal. IMHO, the key to the kingdom is emergence, and nonlinearity > is only necessary to distinguish between simple or "resultant" > emergence, and the more general kind. - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. -- P.J. O'Rourke -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdqeVZeB+vOTnLkoRAu6GAKCKm0yRFFL0t9OcbTfrUYFtD3twagCfcs87 rtDWLbZKA/Ny8FI077Kkhps= =Cv38 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Seminal Papers in Complexity
|
|
In reply to this post by Russell Standish
Hello Russell,
> "Sum of the parts" is more metaphoric than literal. IMHO, the key to > the kingdom is emergence, and nonlinearity is only necessary to I used to throw around the word "emergence" around until I noticed that I used it there where I did not understand what was really going on, like in: "consciousness? - simple - an emergent process" Since then I have stopped using the word - it is, in fact, vacuous to call something emergent - whereas ie. nonlinear has definite meaning. The problem is that emergence seems to be the opposite of a mechanistic or an algorithmic process; or an analytical one. So it becomes a stop-gap concept for all processes which elude our common problem solution techniques. But no new explanation is obtained when one calls a process emergent - on gets instead a false sense of security, of having grasped something which in reality still eludes our understanding. Best 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 |
Seminal Papers in Complexity
|
|
I like the response below. I've felt that the phrase "emergent behavior"
has been overused for quite some time now. In the early days of running TRANSIMS (a large-scale traffic simulator) we often found ourselves saying "I didn't expect that behavior" upon seeing an unexpected series of traffic flow patterns 'emerge' in simulations of a city with 8.6 million people driving around over a 24 hour period. Indeed, often times some of the results were unexpected, however once analyzed they always made perfect sense. --Doug -- Doug Roberts, RTI International droberts at rti.org doug at parrot-farm.net 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On 6/18/07, G?nther Greindl <guenther.greindl at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Russell, > > > "Sum of the parts" is more metaphoric than literal. IMHO, the key to > > the kingdom is emergence, and nonlinearity is only necessary to > > I used to throw around the word "emergence" around until I noticed > that I used it there where I did not understand what was really going > on, like in: "consciousness? - simple - an emergent process" > Since then I have stopped using the word - it is, in fact, vacuous to > call something emergent - whereas ie. nonlinear has definite meaning. > > The problem is that emergence seems to be the opposite of a > mechanistic or an algorithmic process; or an analytical one. > So it becomes a stop-gap concept for all processes which elude > our common problem solution techniques. > > But no new explanation is obtained when one calls a process > emergent - on gets instead a false sense of security, of having > grasped something which in reality still eludes our understanding. > > Best 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 > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070618/742318d0/attachment.html |
Seminal Papers in Complexity
|
|
In reply to this post by Günther Greindl
Yes, there is an enormous amount of confused writings about
emergence, but no this doesn't mean emergence isn't a well-defined and meaningful term. I think the best introduction to this topic is my paper "on complexity and emergence", precisely because it is concise and to the point. However, there are other good expositions of emergence, such as Jochen Fromm's book (a sometimes lurker on this list). Mark Bedau has also written some stuff which is well thought out. Cheers On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:56:46PM +0200, G?nther Greindl wrote: > Hello Russell, > > > "Sum of the parts" is more metaphoric than literal. IMHO, the key to > > the kingdom is emergence, and nonlinearity is only necessary to > > I used to throw around the word "emergence" around until I noticed > that I used it there where I did not understand what was really going > on, like in: "consciousness? - simple - an emergent process" > Since then I have stopped using the word - it is, in fact, vacuous to > call something emergent - whereas ie. nonlinear has definite meaning. > > The problem is that emergence seems to be the opposite of a > mechanistic or an algorithmic process; or an analytical one. > So it becomes a stop-gap concept for all processes which elude > our common problem solution techniques. > > But no new explanation is obtained when one calls a process > emergent - on gets instead a false sense of security, of having > grasped something which in reality still eludes our understanding. > > Best 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
I would contend that this criticism may well be valid for certain
forms literary criticism, but only when the author is unaware of the precise mathematical or scientific definitions of the terms. I have seen the terms "nonlinear", "reductionism", "emergence" and "complexity" all abused to lend some kind of scientific credential to a topic, when all it does is obscure the point the author was trying to make. When I use "emergence" (or "complexity") in a scientific paper, I have to define exactly what I mean by these terms, precisely because of these past abuses. For that reason, it is convenient to have a short paper outlining thise definitions, hence "On complexity and Emergence". On the other hand, I needn't define nonlinearity - most of my readers understand perfectly well what a linear function is: one that obeys f(a*x+b*y) = a*f(x)+b*f(y) If neither * or + are defined for your objects of discussion, you cannot talk about (non-)linearity. I've never really used reductionism in my published works, but where I do, I really mean something "ignoring presence of emergent processes", or "belief that emergence doesn't exist" or something like that. As I say in my book "Theory of Nothing": "Thus it appears that emergence stands in opposition to {\em reductionism},\index{reductionism} a paradigm of understanding something by studying its constituent parts. To someone wedded to the notion of reductionism, emergence can appear rather mysterious and strange. I make these strong claims precisely so that some bright spark can point out why they are wrong, or need nuancing. Too many people are wishy-washy, and end up sowing confusion. That is the pomo way. Cheers On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:41:09AM -0700, Glen E. P. Ropella wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I submit the following for criticism: > > It's always seemed to me that reductionism and the use of "nonlinearity" > as a pretentious and hermetic placeholder for synergy has its roots in > characterizing the expectations of the observer. > > Anti-reductionists are just as silly as reductionists when they assert > that they have or manipulate some deep understanding of what's out there > (onto-). We can't _reduce_ the actual world anymore than the actual > world is "summed" or composed of actual components. It's _all_ in your > head. None of this is real or concrete. > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Doug,
Well, I think the better choice is to try to understand why English needs the word 'emerge' to letting us talk about the world. Emerging is appearing from nowhere, or coming out of the shadows or passing through an opening or becoming fully formed. The last one there points to what we really want to mean by the term, right? I think the others apply to our perception or awareness of the things that change from being unformed to fully formed, the subjective part of it. The way I've been using to point to what and where emergence is, in the 'becoming fully formed' sense, is by identifying the growth of the network of relations that is actually doing it, i.e. the network that is becoming formed. It takes a while to sort the categories of the all the kinds of growth processes (trends with all derivatives positive) and all the kinds of emergence (new networks of relationships), but once you make a little headway with that you find that growth and emergence are very oddly related 1 to 1, that every kind of growth accompanies a kind of emergence and every kind of emergence accompanies a kind of growth. Must be somehow connected! :,) Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 6:18 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Seminal Papers in Complexity I like the response below. I've felt that the phrase "emergent behavior" has been overused for quite some time now. In the early days of running TRANSIMS (a large-scale traffic simulator) we often found ourselves saying "I didn't expect that behavior" upon seeing an unexpected series of traffic flow patterns 'emerge' in simulations of a city with 8.6 million people driving around over a 24 hour period. Indeed, often times some of the results were unexpected, however once analyzed they always made perfect sense. --Doug -- Doug Roberts, RTI International droberts at rti.org doug at parrot-farm.net 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On 6/18/07, G?nther Greindl <guenther.greindl at gmail.com> wrote: Hello Russell, > "Sum of the parts" is more metaphoric than literal. IMHO, the key to > the kingdom is emergence, and nonlinearity is only necessary to I used to throw around the word "emergence" around until I noticed that I used it there where I did not understand what was really going on, like in: "consciousness? - simple - an emergent process" Since then I have stopped using the word - it is, in fact, vacuous to call something emergent - whereas ie. nonlinear has definite meaning. The problem is that emergence seems to be the opposite of a mechanistic or an algorithmic process; or an analytical one. So it becomes a stop-gap concept for all processes which elude our common problem solution techniques. But no new explanation is obtained when one calls a process emergent - on gets instead a false sense of security, of having grasped something which in reality still eludes our understanding. Best 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 <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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070618/989f5847/attachment.html |
Seminal Papers in Complexity
|
|
I disagree. Some counterexamples.
Game of Life is not a growth process. Yet it exhibits clear emergence in the form of gliders. So you supposed connection is one-sided at best. Whilst most growth processes involving interacting particles will produce emergence, if the particles do not interact, there will be nothing other than trivial, or resultant emergence. Not sure I can think of a physical example - after all, inert objects will still interact via elastic collisions, which gives rise to some emergent properties. But one can easily imagin coding an agent-based model in which none of the agents interact with themselves or the environment. You would need to ensure that the container allows multiple agents to occupy the same position (otherwise they're interacting elastically). If you did that, and set the system up to add agents one at a time, what would you have? At each time step, you would just have n(t) agents, with only resultant properties such as average, standard deviation etc. Cheers On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:12:38PM -0400, Phil Henshaw wrote: > Doug, > > Well, I think the better choice is to try to understand why English > needs the word 'emerge' to letting us talk about the world. Emerging > is appearing from nowhere, or coming out of the shadows or passing > through an opening or becoming fully formed. The last one there points > to what we really want to mean by the term, right? I think the others > apply to our perception or awareness of the things that change from > being unformed to fully formed, the subjective part of it. > > The way I've been using to point to what and where emergence is, in the > 'becoming fully formed' sense, is by identifying the growth of the > network of relations that is actually doing it, i.e. the network that is > becoming formed. It takes a while to sort the categories of the all > the kinds of growth processes (trends with all derivatives positive) and > all the kinds of emergence (new networks of relationships), but once you > make a little headway with that you find that growth and emergence are > very oddly related 1 to 1, that every kind of growth accompanies a kind > of emergence and every kind of emergence accompanies a kind of growth. > Must be somehow connected! :,) > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > Behalf Of Douglas Roberts > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 6:18 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Seminal Papers in Complexity > > > I like the response below. I've felt that the phrase "emergent > behavior" has been overused for quite some time now. In the early days > of running TRANSIMS (a large-scale traffic simulator) we often found > ourselves saying "I didn't expect that behavior" upon seeing an > unexpected series of traffic flow patterns 'emerge' in simulations of a > city with 8.6 million people driving around over a 24 hour period. > Indeed, often times some of the results were unexpected, however once > analyzed they always made perfect sense. > > --Doug > > -- > Doug Roberts, RTI International > droberts at rti.org > doug at parrot-farm.net > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > > On 6/18/07, G?nther Greindl <guenther.greindl at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Russell, > > > "Sum of the parts" is more metaphoric than literal. IMHO, the key to > > the kingdom is emergence, and nonlinearity is only necessary to > > I used to throw around the word "emergence" around until I noticed > that I used it there where I did not understand what was really going > on, like in: "consciousness? - simple - an emergent process" > Since then I have stopped using the word - it is, in fact, vacuous to > call something emergent - whereas ie. nonlinear has definite meaning. > > The problem is that emergence seems to be the opposite of a > mechanistic or an algorithmic process; or an analytical one. > So it becomes a stop-gap concept for all processes which elude > our common problem solution techniques. > > But no new explanation is obtained when one calls a process > emergent - on gets instead a false sense of security, of having > grasped something which in reality still eludes our understanding. > > Best 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 > <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 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
Glen,
I think that's a very consistent argument, and very similar to the one Bohr used as the basis for the Copenhagen convention and dumping Einstein's idea of the physical world. As I recall, the argument was that science is information and so nothing exists for science except what exists as scientific information, and so uncertainties that define a limit to scientific knowledge also define a limit to any meaningful scientific reality. So as scientists, reality does not exist beyond what is knowable. I think it was that slim logical thread that kept the otherwise very unsatisfying assertion that phenomena are created by our observations from being tossed out as ridiculous. For most people the question comes down to which way they *like* thinking about the world, since either one can be made satisfying if that's what you like... I prefer, and find more productive, thinking that I'm exploring a world that exists without my knowledge of it, and is built in such a complicated way that my descriptions will inevitably be flawed. That's the 'bad' part of it I suppose. It also leaves me always beginning my learning rather than trying to end it, and open to being surprised. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Glen E. P. Ropella > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 11:41 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: [FRIAM] reductionism > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I submit the following for criticism: > > It's always seemed to me that reductionism and the use of > "nonlinearity" as a pretentious and hermetic placeholder for > synergy has its roots in characterizing the expectations of > the observer. > > Anti-reductionists are just as silly as reductionists when > they assert that they have or manipulate some deep > understanding of what's out there (onto-). We can't _reduce_ > the actual world anymore than the actual world is "summed" or > composed of actual components. It's _all_ in your head. > None of this is real or concrete. > > Interactions with the world happen in the medium of actions. > Hence, the extent to which any mechanism or phenomenon is > reducible is identical to the extent to which the mechanism > or phenomenon can be discretely acted upon. Likewise, the > extent to which any mechanism or phenomenon is emergent is > identical to the extent to which it can be discretely acted > upon (or to which it discretely acts). > > And that begs the question of discretion. I don't think one > can construct a bullet-proof argument that reality is either > purely continuous or purely discrete. One is limited to > approximations and estimating within some tolerance. So, it > all boils down to whether you believe reality is continuous > or discrete. Those who believe it is continuous tend to be > anti-reductionists and submit that every action affects (to > whatever tiny degree) all mechanisms and phenomena in the > universe. Those who believe it is discrete tend to be > reductionist and submit that the effect of (at least some) > actions are purely local and don't affect distant mechanisms > or phenomena. > > The trick is that those who advocate for emergence face > consistency problems. On the one hand, they want to suggest > that a) causes are indiscrete/inseparable/nonanalytic (or at > least occult) and b) the _thing_ that emerges is, somehow, > discrete/separable/identifiable from its environment. (a) =><= (b). > > Reductionists don't have this problem. They have a different > one: namely that they cannot demonstrate that reality is > completely discrete. And that means that they're forever > wandering around cutting things up in different ways and > hoping that this cut or that cut will stick and prove true. > > Michael Agar wrote: > > So I just wrote that story and all of a sudden wondered, > what the hell > > is reductionism anyway? Cheated by looking it up in > Wikipedia and of > > course there's many different kinds. The old philosophy > joke is, when > > faced with a contradiction, make a distinction. The first > line of the > > major Wikipedia entry is, "In philosophy, reductionism is a theory > > that asserts that the nature of complex things is reduced to the > > nature of sums of simpler or more fundamental things." > > > > Sums. So is nonlinearity the key to the kingdom? Are we > really looking > > for germinal papers in nonlinearity? > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > Assigning numbers to things is what I always thought of as being the > > 'reduction' part of reductionism. > > Russell Standish wrote: > > No, its the analytical part in expressions like analytical > geometry. > > One can be analytical without being reductionist, but it > helps to have > > a computer :) [...] "Sum of the parts" is more metaphoric than > > literal. IMHO, the key to the kingdom is emergence, and > nonlinearity > > is only necessary to distinguish between simple or "resultant" > > emergence, and the more general kind. > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the > first things to be bought and sold are legislators. -- P.J. O'Rourke > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFGdqeVZeB+vOTnLkoRAu6GAKCKm0yRFFL0t9OcbTfrUYFtD3twagCfcs87 > rtDWLbZKA/Ny8FI077Kkhps= > =Cv38 > -----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 > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russell Standish
This thread is sliding around some, but still I?d like to add this
overlong comment in case it?s useful. The emails have been good brain food. The problem I keep worrying about in my own work is, I use many core concepts metaphorically because they work at the human organizational scale in powerful and useful ways that I believe respect their scientific origins but at the same time allow the human/ social world to see and understand and act differently. But I also want to be clear on those origins, to know and describe when and where and how I?m stretching the concepts. The problem I have is, up close the conceptual basis of ?complexity? more often than not turns to mush. Mea culpa much of the time, I?m sure, but look what happened to reductionism in this thread. Even Wikipedia has several entries. I don?t know how much credence to give them, but here they are: 0.1 Varieties of reductionism 0.1.1 Ontological reductionism 0.1.2 Methodological reductionism 0.1.3 Methodological individualism 0.1.4 Theoretical reductionism 0.1.5 Scientific reductionism 0.1.6 Set-Theoretic Reductionism 0.1.7 Linguistic reductionism 0.1.8 Greedy reductionism 0.1.9 Eliminativism And now emergence. I?ve heard it used in several ways. Way back when, we used it in anthropology as a form of methodological defense against the usual social science model of everything planned in a modular way before the research started. Emergence was shorthand for ?I can?t tell you what I?m going to do until I get there and learn what?s worth learning and how to learn it.? Then it?s also used more generally as shorthand for ?surprise,? the presence and nature of which depends on perspective and prior knowledge of observer. Then it?s used for the end result of a deterministic process that has characteristics unlike the elements of that process, like water out of hydrogen and oxygen. Then it?s used for the need for different concepts and methods for different levels of a phenomenon, like phonology, morphology and syntax in linguistics. Then it?s used for unexpected evolutionary and historical transitions, like the Cambrian explosion. Probably many other uses if we sampled a lot of texts and conversations. Probably some of the sources cited already in the thread help with the problem. I need to read them. Maybe the field has outgrown the concepts that got it started. If true, that?s probably a good sign. So I think I?ll work on nonlinearity for awhile. Russell writes: ?most of my readers understand perfectly well what a linear function is: one that obeys f(a*x+b*y) = a*f(x)+b*f(y).? That?s clear, resembles the definition in the Wikipedia entry. But then he writes : ?If neither * or + are defined for your objects of discussion, you cannot talk about (non-)linearity.? That won?t do. I have to be able to talk about nonlinear effects of, say, mental health policy on local programs in a qualitative way. I know it makes sense to do so from experience. Problem is to make it clear what the term means in that context. If the math won?t do it, something else has to. I?ll puzzle over the NECSI definition and the opening pages of Strogatz? book for awhile. So maybe nonlinearity won?t be so easy either. There?s the famous Einstein quote for inspiration: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Maybe we need a new nonlinear kind of math. Maybe it exists. Enough already. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070619/1dc20128/attachment.html |
Seminal Papers in Complexity
|
|
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:41:14AM -0600, Michael Agar wrote:
> > So I think I?ll work on nonlinearity for awhile. Russell writes: > ?most of my readers understand perfectly well what a linear function > is: one that obeys f(a*x+b*y) = a*f(x)+b*f(y).? That?s clear, > resembles the definition in the Wikipedia entry. But then he writes : > ?If neither * or + are defined for your objects of discussion, you > cannot talk about (non-)linearity.? That won?t do. I have to be able > to talk about nonlinear effects of, say, mental health policy on > local programs in a qualitative way. When I hear "nonlinear effects of mental health policy" I immediately think of some variable (eg some measure of social good) that depends on some other variable (eg money) in a nonlinear way (eg social good varies as the square of money spent). Whilst you may be using the term a little imprecisely by not being quantitative, it is still a perfectly valid use of the term. However, if the above paragraph is not what you mean, then you've immediately lost one of your readers. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Seminal Papers in Complexity
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Agar
On 6/19/07, Michael Agar <magar at anth.umd.edu> wrote:
> > > This thread is sliding around some, but still I'd like to add this overlong > comment in case it's useful. The emails have been good brain food. The > problem I keep worrying about in my own work is, I use many core concepts > metaphorically because they work at the human organizational scale in > powerful and useful ways that I believe respect their scientific origins but > at the same time allow the human/social world to see and understand and act > differently. But I also want to be clear on those origins, to know and > describe when and where and how I'm stretching the concepts. The problem I > have is, up close the conceptual basis of "complexity" more often than not > turns to mush. Stimulating as the discussion is, it's only making me averse to the whole idea of defining, categorizing, describing, distinguishing this kind of science. Maybe Wolfram got that part exactly right: New KInd, and leave it at that. If this really is another kind of science, then the historians and philosophers of science will catch on eventually and give it all the names it deserves. But for doing this/these kind(s) of science, the categories don't help do it and they don't help explain it. It doesn't help in the doing because the (alleged) category hides a large variety of phenomena and methods of analysis and explanation, which is part of why the category so stubbornly resists definition. It doesn't help in the explaining because the (alleged) category becomes another thing to explain above and beyond the method(s) of analysis and explanation themselves. People like categories because they allow them to reason about the categorized things in shorthand and people do a lot of bad reasoning that way. But even the most careful will be misled if you give them a bum category to start from. Anyway, what I'd like to see is a catalog of examples, listing the phenomena, the traditional method of analysis/explanation, why it failed, the non-traditional method of analysis/explanation, and why it succeeded. If you can agree on a subset of examples which are complexity science, then you can proceed to craft a definition which will allow further examples to be categorized. The catalog will be useful whether it leads to a category definition or not. You could use it to index the papers Owen wanted or the (alleged) properties of complexity science. -- rec -- |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |