WHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD?
Locked
 
|
All, When I first moved here, seven years ago, Owen set me down and eldered me concerning "citizens like me" who have no respect for threads, whereas, people like YOU, people who really are experienced with computers, see the importance of not bending threads But this is the worst gang of @##!@&% thread benders I have ever had the misfortune to talk with. Thus, I now find myself in the unlikely role of the FRIAM thread fascist. Owen, you can pass me the Official Gavel, next time we meet. ANYWAY, thank you Glen for steering us back at least part toward the question I raised, which was about whether complexity and instability were related. Owen introduced what I would call the Jenga (quod googlet) model of complexity – you keep adding stuff until it’s so baroque the whole thing falls over when you touch it. But even tho I started the argument, I am not sure what is the operating definition of complexity we are working with. I have have two quite contradictory definitions floating around in my head: (1) the number of bits and pieces x the number of kinds of bits and pieces or (2)the number of organizational levels in the system. The two definitions work at cross purposes in my head because I think of heaps of stuff as being unstable and hierarchical systems as (usually) stable. Glen now introduces (with respect to programming languages) a new dimension, expressivity vs generality. I know j.s. about computer languages, but the metaphor of expressivity is intriguing to me, particularly when opposed to generality. Is the genetic code expressive or general? And how do they related to complexity. And what is YOUR working definition of complexity. N -----Original Message----- Edward Angel wrote at 02/08/2013 08:02 AM: > Although it might seem that I would have a similar view as Bruce since > we both support 3D graphics for educational purposes, my experience is > exactly the opposite of Bruce's. [...] Perhaps it's my own abstraction run amok, but this whole discussion reminds me of the recent one about Doug's friends Dick and Bart: glen wrote at 01/15/2013 03:37 PM: > I suspect Dick had methods he invented for his astrophysics and Bart > invented methods for ... billing people. 8^) And I suspect they were > competent with those tools. But I also suspect those tools did not > translate well to non-astrophysicists or non-lawyers ... or perhaps > even very many astrophysicists or very many lawyers. Forget complexity (kind or degree), the metric is universality. The more expressive a tool, the less likely any particular use case for the tool will apply across a large cohort. The less expressive a tool, the more likely a particular use case will translate, at least between commonly structured individuals. This discussion ranges over a very limited set of highly expressive tools. It makes complete sense that a particular use case for, say, a Mac would not translate between even very similar users. The beauty of on OS, a GUI, or a tightly coupled monolithically integrated toolchain is that it _limits_ the universality of the tool, thereby making it easier to translate any particular use case amongst the members of a cohort. If you're not in that cohort, well, tough luck for you ... You have to puncture the monolithic toolchain, the GUI, or the OS to get what you want. (E.g. Marcus' description of analyzing to the bottom.) You need a more expressive tool in order to formulate and satisfy your use case. If you're belligerent and want to retain the monolith, but coerce it into a suboptimal satisficing for your compromised use case, then you have to continually react to the slight changes in the toolchain. Your compromised use case (and its generating machinery) is _fragile_ to changes in context. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: WHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD?
|
|
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 02/08/2013 11:44 AM:
> I have have two quite contradictory definitions floating around in my > head: (1) the number of bits and pieces x the number of kinds of bits > and pieces or (2)the number of organizational levels in the system. > The two definitions work at cross purposes in my head because I think > of heaps of stuff as being unstable and hierarchical systems as > (usually) stable. I tend to shy away from any construct requiring the concept of "levels", because it carries all sorts of hidden assumptions that severely bias the conversation. A more general concept is that of aspects, scopes, facets, foci, perspectives, etc. Instead of the simple ordering relation of > or <, we can use inside, outside, sibling, overlap/closure, and distance in all those relations. > Glen now introduces (with respect to programming languages) a new > dimension, expressivity vs generality. I know j.s. about computer > languages, but the metaphor of expressivity is intriguing to me, > particularly when opposed to generality. Is the genetic code expressive > or general? And how do they related to complexity. And what is YOUR > working definition of complexity. The thing about a gene is that it's a placeholder, a name, for the multifarious mechanisms that constitute the world around us. Then we come along with our dynamic but singular, focused attention and slice out a part of the observable muck around us. The artificial discreteness between any one gene and any other gene is imposed by that aspect, scope, or focus of attention. The extent to which there is a natural discreteness between the ambient muck (observABLE phenomena), a natural discreteness in the machine(s) that generate that ambient muck, is questionable. Moreover, the extent to which the discreteness of the muck maps to the discreteness of the machine(s) is questionable. FWIW, when I talk about complexity, I'm talking about these discretizations, of the generator, then generated, and the maps between the two. Expressivity applies to the generating machine(s). E.g. What's the smallest machine we can imagine that is capable of generating any given slice of ambient muck? Or, given any machine, how large is its generated phenotype? This is where I think complexity is useful. Complexity is the word we use to describe interesting maps between generators and the generated. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
I probably should not pick such a nit, but all of Silicon Valley would haunt me for years.
The term actually used there is "civilian". I don't know exactly why it was became so popular in the 70's but I believe it is when it was first used relating to computing.
Naturally it was used by the military derisively forever.
Back to the show! -- Owen
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In the UN we used the term civil society.
Ah the vocabulary of silos.
Enjoyed attending FRIAM again.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Sent: Fri, Feb 8, 2013 2:59 pm Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD?
I probably should not pick such a nit, but all of Silicon Valley would haunt me for years.
The term actually used there is "civilian". I don't know exactly why it was became so popular in the 70's but I believe it is when it was first used relating to computing.
Naturally it was used by the military derisively forever.
Back to the show!
-- Owen
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |