When is something complex
Locked
 
|
+1: I guess that complexity cannot be expressed adequately even in a term of computability. ? --Mikhail
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity, which are parts of a > sophisticated ***formal*** system; 2) I assume there are types of complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean really many - types) > that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / non-linearity). Something like G?del's theorem. ? --Mikhail > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > To: <friam at redfish.com> > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:45 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > > >> Alfredo, >> >> Good question. In fact, the question of the day, for the Hayes talk. >> >> Mysterious non linear effects in Hayes data leading to the conclusion good >> hearted efforts in one direction lead to the opposite result. >> >> I guess "mysterious non-linearity" is a good clue that the phenomenon is >> complex. >> >> Nick . >> >> >> >> >> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:09 -0500 >>> From: Alfredo CV <agbioinfo at gmx.net> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] **today ** Lecture Wed Sep 12 12:30p: Jim Hayes - >>> Hedging Complex and Chaotic Private Health Insurance Markets and the >>> Uninsured >>> To: stephen.guerin at redfish.com, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity >>> Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> >>> Message-ID: <46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Of course it?s impossible to me to know details of the speeches you >>> usually have. In the distance I suppose that the first purpose of each >>> one of these speeches is to know and evaluate a broad type of cases >>> where complexity is used to understand phenomena. I wonder what makes >>> some phenomena suitable to be studied with a "complex" approach. What >>> must somebody take in consideration to decide that is studying a complex >>> phenomena? >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> Alfredo CV >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 >> > > |
|
|
To decide if a phenomena is complex maybe It's necessary to identify patterns of self organization in the "behavior" of the small units of individual that conform the population of interest. Maybe It's necesary to check the lack of centralized control and the existence of some stable states. I think these three features are the diagnostic features of complexity. I guess.... I don't know what Hayes says but I'll think about these three features for health insurance, medicare, Social Security and Pensions in my country... (in fact is not mine, belongs to the richest and the multinationals.... anyhow). Regards Alfredo CV health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the uninsured Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >+1: I guess that complexity cannot be expressed adequately even in a term of computability. ? --Mikhail > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <gorelkin at hotmail.com> >To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> >Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:24 PM >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > > > > >>Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity, which are parts of a >>sophisticated ***formal*** system; 2) I assume there are types of complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean really many - types) >>that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / non-linearity). Something like G?del's theorem. ? --Mikhail >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> >>To: <friam at redfish.com> >>Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:45 PM >>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex >> >> >> >> >>>Alfredo, >>> >>>Good question. In fact, the question of the day, for the Hayes talk. >>> >>>Mysterious non linear effects in Hayes data leading to the conclusion good >>>hearted efforts in one direction lead to the opposite result. >>> >>>I guess "mysterious non-linearity" is a good clue that the phenomenon is >>>complex. >>> >>>Nick . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Message: 1 >>>>Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:09 -0500 >>>>From: Alfredo CV <agbioinfo at gmx.net> >>>>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] **today ** Lecture Wed Sep 12 12:30p: Jim Hayes - >>>>Hedging Complex and Chaotic Private Health Insurance Markets and the >>>>Uninsured >>>>To: stephen.guerin at redfish.com, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity >>>>Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> >>>>Message-ID: <46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net> >>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>>> >>>> >>>>Hi >>>> >>>>Of course it?s impossible to me to know details of the speeches you >>>>usually have. In the distance I suppose that the first purpose of each >>>>one of these speeches is to know and evaluate a broad type of cases >>>>where complexity is used to understand phenomena. I wonder what makes >>>>some phenomena suitable to be studied with a "complex" approach. What >>>>must somebody take in consideration to decide that is studying a complex >>>>phenomena? >>>> >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>>Alfredo CV >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>============================================================ >>>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/20070918/25342ec6/attachment.html |
|
|
It seems I found a more fundamental definition: "So, if you want to characterize the complexity of an object, think about how much
you would have to write in order to describe it. Would it take a sentence, a paragraph, a few pages, a book, or many books? Count the number of characters in the description. This is complexity." --Yaneer Bar-Yam "Making things works. Solving complex problems in a complex world", p. 54. So, linear systems have simpler and shorter descriptions than non-linear ones. And the same is true for centralized vs. decentralized systems. Any thoughts? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: Alfredo CV To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:42 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex To decide if a phenomena is complex maybe It's necessary to identify patterns of self organization in the "behavior" of the small units of individual that conform the population of interest. Maybe It's necesary to check the lack of centralized control and the existence of some stable states. I think these three features are the diagnostic features of complexity. I guess.... I don't know what Hayes says but I'll think about these three features for health insurance, medicare, Social Security and Pensions in my country... (in fact is not mine, belongs to the richest and the multinationals.... anyhow). Regards Alfredo CV health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the uninsured Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: +1: I guess that complexity cannot be expressed adequately even in a term of computability. ? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity, which are parts of a sophisticated ***formal*** system; 2) I assume there are types of complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean really many - types) that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / non-linearity). Something like G?del's theorem. ? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> To: <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Alfredo, Good question. In fact, the question of the day, for the Hayes talk. Mysterious non linear effects in Hayes data leading to the conclusion good hearted efforts in one direction lead to the opposite result. I guess "mysterious non-linearity" is a good clue that the phenomenon is complex. Nick . Message: 1 Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:09 -0500 From: Alfredo CV <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] **today ** Lecture Wed Sep 12 12:30p: Jim Hayes - Hedging Complex and Chaotic Private Health Insurance Markets and the Uninsured To: stephen.guerin at redfish.com, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Message-ID: <46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Of course it?s impossible to me to know details of the speeches you usually have. In the distance I suppose that the first purpose of each one of these speeches is to know and evaluate a broad type of cases where complexity is used to understand phenomena. I wonder what makes some phenomena suitable to be studied with a "complex" approach. What must somebody take in consideration to decide that is studying a complex phenomena? Regards, Alfredo CV ============================================================ 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/20070918/05d67ba9/attachment.html |
|
|
I'm reminded of the statement that "the earth is the simplest useful
simulation of itself." (Can't remember the source.) Perhaps if the amount of information required to "describe" a system or object starts to approach the amount contained in the system or object itself... ? db On Sep 18, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: > It seems I found a more fundamental definition: ?So, if you want to > characterize the complexity of an object, think about how much you > would have to write in order to describe it. Would it take a > sentence, a paragraph, a few pages, a book, or many books? Count > the number of characters in the description. This is complexity.? -- > Yaneer Bar-Yam ?Making things works. Solving complex problems in a > complex world?, p. 54. So, linear systems have simpler and shorter > descriptions than non-linear ones. And the same is true for > centralized vs. decentralized systems? Any thoughts? --Mikhail > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alfredo CV > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:42 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > > > > To decide if a phenomena is complex maybe It's necessary to > identify patterns of self organization in the "behavior" of the > small units of individual that conform the population of interest. > Maybe It's necesary to check the lack of centralized control and > the existence of some stable states. I think these three features > are the diagnostic features of complexity. I guess.... > > I don't know what Hayes says but I'll think about these three > features for health insurance, medicare, Social Security and > Pensions in my country... (in fact is not mine, belongs to the > richest and the multinationals.... anyhow). > > Regards > > Alfredo CV > > > health insurance, > Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the uninsured > > > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >> +1: I guess that complexity cannot be expressed adequately even in >> a term of computability. ? --Mikhail >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <gorelkin at hotmail.com> >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <friam at redfish.com> >> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:24 PM >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex >> >> >> >>> Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more >>> fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity, which are >>> parts of a >>> sophisticated ***formal*** system; 2) I assume there are types of >>> complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean really many - types) >>> that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / >>> non-linearity). Something like G?del's theorem. ? --Mikhail >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> >>> To: <friam at redfish.com> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:45 PM >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex >>> >>> >>> >>>> Alfredo, >>>> >>>> Good question. In fact, the question of the day, for the Hayes >>>> talk. >>>> >>>> Mysterious non linear effects in Hayes data leading to the >>>> conclusion good >>>> hearted efforts in one direction lead to the opposite result. >>>> >>>> I guess "mysterious non-linearity" is a good clue that the >>>> phenomenon is >>>> complex. >>>> >>>> Nick . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Message: 1 >>>>> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:09 -0500 >>>>> From: Alfredo CV <agbioinfo at gmx.net> >>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] **today ** Lecture Wed Sep 12 12:30p: Jim >>>>> Hayes - >>>>> Hedging Complex and Chaotic Private Health Insurance Markets >>>>> and the >>>>> Uninsured >>>>> To: stephen.guerin at redfish.com, The Friday Morning Applied >>>>> Complexity >>>>> Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> >>>>> Message-ID: <46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Of course it?s impossible to me to know details of the speeches >>>>> you >>>>> usually have. In the distance I suppose that the first purpose >>>>> of each >>>>> one of these speeches is to know and evaluate a broad type of >>>>> cases >>>>> where complexity is used to understand phenomena. I wonder what >>>>> makes >>>>> some phenomena suitable to be studied with a "complex" >>>>> approach. What >>>>> must somebody take in consideration to decide that is studying >>>>> a complex >>>>> phenomena? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo CV >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> 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 > ============================================================ > 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 dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc. Santa Fe: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu: 505-685-4891 www.BreeckerAssociates.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070918/2ccff8b8/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mikhail Gorelkin
The Bar-Yam description is also the best one I have found if you are
specifically asking how "complex" something is as opposed to "emergent," "decentralized," etc. The best discussion of this I have found was in Murray Gell-Mann's "The Quark and the Jaguar." - Carver On 9/18/07, Mikhail Gorelkin <gorelkin at hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > It seems I found a more fundamental definition: "So, if you want to > characterize the complexity of an object, think about how much you would > have to write in order to describe it. Would it take a sentence, a > paragraph, a few pages, a book, or many books? Count the number of > characters in the description. This is complexity." --Yaneer Bar-Yam "Making > things works. Solving complex problems in a complex world", p. 54. So, > linear systems have simpler and shorter descriptions than non-linear ones. > And the same is true for centralized vs. decentralized systems? Any > thoughts? --Mikhail > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alfredo CV > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:42 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > > > > To decide if a phenomena is complex maybe It's necessary to identify > patterns of self organization in the "behavior" of the small units of > individual that conform the population of interest. Maybe It's necesary to > check the lack of centralized control and the existence of some stable > states. I think these three features are the diagnostic features of > complexity. I guess.... > > I don't know what Hayes says but I'll think about these three features for > health insurance, medicare, Social Security and Pensions in my country... > (in fact is not mine, belongs to the richest and the multinationals.... > anyhow). > > Regards > > Alfredo CV > > > health insurance, > Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the uninsured > > > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: > +1: I guess that complexity cannot be expressed adequately even in a term of > computability. ? --Mikhail > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <gorelkin at hotmail.com> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:24 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > > > > > Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental > category than linearity / non-linearity, which are parts of a > sophisticated ***formal*** system; 2) I assume there are types of complexity > (and, therefore, many - I mean really many - types) > that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / > non-linearity). Something like G?del's theorem. ? --Mikhail > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > To: <friam at redfish.com> > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:45 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > > > > > Alfredo, > > Good question. In fact, the question of the day, for the Hayes talk. > > Mysterious non linear effects in Hayes data leading to the conclusion good > hearted efforts in one direction lead to the opposite result. > > I guess "mysterious non-linearity" is a good clue that the phenomenon is > complex. > > Nick . > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:09 -0500 > From: Alfredo CV <agbioinfo at gmx.net> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] **today ** Lecture Wed Sep 12 12:30p: Jim Hayes - > Hedging Complex and Chaotic Private Health Insurance Markets and the > Uninsured > To: stephen.guerin at redfish.com, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Hi > > Of course it?s impossible to me to know details of the speeches you > usually have. In the distance I suppose that the first purpose of each > one of these speeches is to know and evaluate a broad type of cases > where complexity is used to understand phenomena. I wonder what makes > some phenomena suitable to be studied with a "complex" approach. What > must somebody take in consideration to decide that is studying a complex > phenomena? > > > Regards, > > > Alfredo CV > > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > ============================================================ > 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 > -- "There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris." - McGeorge Bundy |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mikhail Gorelkin
...maybe a definition that to go with Yaneer's riddle, and that fits
with all, is that any individual thing is complex beyond measure and any explanations are all comparatively very simple, differing among them only by whether they work or not. 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 Mikhail Gorelkin Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:31 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex It seems I found a more fundamental definition: ?So, if you want to characterize the complexity of an object, think about how much you would have to write in order to describe it. Would it take a sentence, a paragraph, a few pages, a book, or many books? Count the number of characters in the description. This is complexity.? --Yaneer Bar-Yam ?Making things works. Solving complex problems in a complex world?, p. 54. So, linear systems have simpler and shorter descriptions than non-linear ones. And the same is true for centralized vs. decentralized systems Any thoughts? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: Alfredo CV <mailto:[hidden email]> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee <mailto:friam at redfish.com> Group Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:42 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex To decide if a phenomena is complex maybe It's necessary to identify patterns of self organization in the "behavior" of the small units of individual that conform the population of interest. Maybe It's necesary to check the lack of centralized control and the existence of some stable states. I think these three features are the diagnostic features of complexity. I guess.... I don't know what Hayes says but I'll think about these three features for health insurance, medicare, Social Security and Pensions in my country... (in fact is not mine, belongs to the richest and the multinationals.... anyhow). Regards Alfredo CV health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the uninsured Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: +1: I guess that complexity cannot be expressed adequately even in a term of computability. ? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <mailto:[hidden email]> <gorelkin at hotmail.com> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <mailto:friam at redfish.com> <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity, which are parts of a sophisticated ***formal*** system; 2) I assume there are types of complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean really many - types) that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / non-linearity). Something like G?del's theorem. ? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicholas Thompson" <mailto:[hidden email]> <nickthompson at earthlink.net> To: <mailto:friam at redfish.com> <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Alfredo, Good question. In fact, the question of the day, for the Hayes talk. Mysterious non linear effects in Hayes data leading to the conclusion good hearted efforts in one direction lead to the opposite result. I guess "mysterious non-linearity" is a good clue that the phenomenon is complex. Nick . Message: 1 Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:09 -0500 From: Alfredo CV <mailto:[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] **today ** Lecture Wed Sep 12 12:30p: Jim Hayes - Hedging Complex and Chaotic Private Health Insurance Markets and the Uninsured To: stephen.guerin at redfish.com, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <mailto:friam at redfish.com> <friam at redfish.com> Message-ID: <mailto:46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net> <46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Of course it?s impossible to me to know details of the speeches you usually have. In the distance I suppose that the first purpose of each one of these speeches is to know and evaluate a broad type of cases where complexity is used to understand phenomena. I wonder what makes some phenomena suitable to be studied with a "complex" approach. What must somebody take in consideration to decide that is studying a complex phenomena? Regards, Alfredo CV ============================================================ 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/20070918/f085f78b/attachment.html |
|
|
Message...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail
----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex ...maybe a definition that to go with Yaneer's riddle, and that fits with all, is that any individual thing is complex beyond measure and any explanations are all comparatively very simple, differing among them only by whether they work or not. 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 Mikhail Gorelkin Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:31 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex It seems I found a more fundamental definition: "So, if you want to characterize the complexity of an object, think about how much you would have to write in order to describe it. Would it take a sentence, a paragraph, a few pages, a book, or many books? Count the number of characters in the description. This is complexity." --Yaneer Bar-Yam "Making things works. Solving complex problems in a complex world", p. 54. So, linear systems have simpler and shorter descriptions than non-linear ones. And the same is true for centralized vs. decentralized systems. Any thoughts? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: Alfredo CV To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:42 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex To decide if a phenomena is complex maybe It's necessary to identify patterns of self organization in the "behavior" of the small units of individual that conform the population of interest. Maybe It's necesary to check the lack of centralized control and the existence of some stable states. I think these three features are the diagnostic features of complexity. I guess.... I don't know what Hayes says but I'll think about these three features for health insurance, medicare, Social Security and Pensions in my country... (in fact is not mine, belongs to the richest and the multinationals.... anyhow). Regards Alfredo CV health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the uninsured Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: +1: I guess that complexity cannot be expressed adequately even in a term of computability. ? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity, which are parts of a sophisticated ***formal*** system; 2) I assume there are types of complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean really many - types) that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / non-linearity). Something like G?del's theorem. ? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> To: <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Alfredo, Good question. In fact, the question of the day, for the Hayes talk. Mysterious non linear effects in Hayes data leading to the conclusion good hearted efforts in one direction lead to the opposite result. I guess "mysterious non-linearity" is a good clue that the phenomenon is complex. Nick . Message: 1 Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:09 -0500 From: Alfredo CV <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] **today ** Lecture Wed Sep 12 12:30p: Jim Hayes - Hedging Complex and Chaotic Private Health Insurance Markets and the Uninsured To: stephen.guerin at redfish.com, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Message-ID: <46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Of course it?s impossible to me to know details of the speeches you usually have. In the distance I suppose that the first purpose of each one of these speeches is to know and evaluate a broad type of cases where complexity is used to understand phenomena. I wonder what makes some phenomena suitable to be studied with a "complex" approach. What must somebody take in consideration to decide that is studying a complex phenomena? Regards, Alfredo CV ============================================================ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ============================================================ 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/20070919/3eae433c/attachment.html |
When is something complex
|
|
Isn't the problem because 'complexity' is an observational attribute and
not one that is intrinsic to the universe/domain? There will be no agreement until a formalism can show a connection with prior formalisms (IMHO). Yaneer's problem is that it depends on the language one uses. Suppose we meet an entirely superior (alien) race that communicates using much more compact information methods. Remember the encyclopedia (or the library of congress - you choose) on a stick story? One very precise measurement encoded the entire contents of the book(s). I was wondering if the problem might be in the name 'complexity' and that 'aggregation theory' might be a better name. Then I found this paper on "Spatial Aggregation Theory" that might be a missing link to Visualization? http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/yip96spatial.html Mind you, I'd need some help to get a thorough understanding of it. Any takers? Robert C Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: > ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Phil Henshaw <mailto:sy at synapse9.com> > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > <mailto:friam at redfish.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:10 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > > ...maybe a definition that to go with Yaneer's riddle, and that > fits with all, is that any individual thing is complex beyond > measure and any explanations are all comparatively very simple, > differing among them only by whether they work or not. > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com <mailto: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 *Mikhail Gorelkin > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:31 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > > It seems I found a more fundamental definition: "So, if you > want to characterize the complexity of an object, think about > how much you would have to write in order to describe it. > Would it take a sentence, a paragraph, a few pages, a book, or > many books? Count the number of characters in the description. > This is complexity." --Yaneer Bar-Yam "Making things works. > Solving complex problems in a complex world", p. 54. So, > linear systems have simpler and shorter descriptions than > non-linear ones. And the same is true for centralized vs. > decentralized systems... Any thoughts? --Mikhail > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Alfredo CV <mailto:agbioinfo at gmx.net> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <mailto:friam at redfish.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:42 AM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > > > > To decide if a phenomena is complex maybe It's necessary > to identify *patterns of self organization in the > "behavior" *of the small units of individual that conform > the population of interest. Maybe It's necesary to check > the *lack of centralized control* and the* existence of > some stable states*. I think these three features are the > diagnostic features of complexity. I guess.... > > I don't know what Hayes says but I'll think about these > three features for health insurance, medicare, Social > Security and Pensions in my country... (in fact is not > mine, belongs to the richest and the multinationals.... > anyhow). > > Regards > > Alfredo CV > > > health insurance, > Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the uninsured > > > > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >> +1: I guess that complexity cannot be expressed adequately even in a term of computability. ? --Mikhail >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <gorelkin at hotmail.com> >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> >> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:24 PM >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex >> >> >> >>> Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity, which are parts of a >>> sophisticated ***formal*** system; 2) I assume there are types of complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean really many - types) >>> that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / non-linearity). Something like G?del's theorem. ? --Mikhail >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> >>> To: <friam at redfish.com> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:45 PM >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex >>> >>> >>> >>>> Alfredo, >>>> >>>> Good question. In fact, the question of the day, for the Hayes talk. >>>> >>>> Mysterious non linear effects in Hayes data leading to the conclusion good >>>> hearted efforts in one direction lead to the opposite result. >>>> >>>> I guess "mysterious non-linearity" is a good clue that the phenomenon is >>>> complex. >>>> >>>> Nick . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Message: 1 >>>>> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:09 -0500 >>>>> From: Alfredo CV <agbioinfo at gmx.net> >>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] **today ** Lecture Wed Sep 12 12:30p: Jim Hayes - >>>>> Hedging Complex and Chaotic Private Health Insurance Markets and the >>>>> Uninsured >>>>> To: stephen.guerin at redfish.com, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity >>>>> Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> >>>>> Message-ID: <46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Of course it?s impossible to me to know details of the speeches you >>>>> usually have. In the distance I suppose that the first purpose of each >>>>> one of these speeches is to know and evaluate a broad type of cases >>>>> where complexity is used to understand phenomena. I wonder what makes >>>>> some phenomena suitable to be studied with a "complex" approach. What >>>>> must somebody take in consideration to decide that is studying a complex >>>>> phenomena? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo CV >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ============================================================ > 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 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070919/c8749313/attachment.html |
|
|
MessageThe answer is simple: everything is an observational attribute! I found that Yaneer's definition of complexity is... actually
the Kolmogorov complexity (also known as descriptive complexity): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity. I like personally "Uncomputability of Kolmogorov complexity" and "Chaitin's incompleteness theorem" there. For me, it seems that "aggregation theory" is one aspect of this complexity. Robert, may you please send me a good reference to IMHO? Thanks, --Mikhail P.S. Hope, it's more readable :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Cordingley To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Isn't the problem because 'complexity' is an observational attribute and not one that is intrinsic to the universe/domain? There will be no agreement until a formalism can show a connection with prior formalisms (IMHO). Yaneer's problem is that it depends on the language one uses. Suppose we meet an entirely superior (alien) race that communicates using much more compact information methods. Remember the encyclopedia (or the library of congress - you choose) on a stick story? One very precise measurement encoded the entire contents of the book(s). I was wondering if the problem might be in the name 'complexity' and that 'aggregation theory' might be a better name. Then I found this paper on "Spatial Aggregation Theory" that might be a missing link to Visualization? http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/yip96spatial.html Mind you, I'd need some help to get a thorough understanding of it. Any takers? Robert C Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex ...maybe a definition that to go with Yaneer's riddle, and that fits with all, is that any individual thing is complex beyond measure and any explanations are all comparatively very simple, differing among them only by whether they work or not. 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 Mikhail Gorelkin Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:31 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex It seems I found a more fundamental definition: "So, if you want to characterize the complexity of an object, think about how much you would have to write in order to describe it. Would it take a sentence, a paragraph, a few pages, a book, or many books? Count the number of characters in the description. This is complexity." --Yaneer Bar-Yam "Making things works. Solving complex problems in a complex world", p. 54. So, linear systems have simpler and shorter descriptions than non-linear ones. And the same is true for centralized vs. decentralized systems. Any thoughts? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: Alfredo CV To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:42 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex To decide if a phenomena is complex maybe It's necessary to identify patterns of self organization in the "behavior" of the small units of individual that conform the population of interest. Maybe It's necesary to check the lack of centralized control and the existence of some stable states. I think these three features are the diagnostic features of complexity. I guess.... I don't know what Hayes says but I'll think about these three features for health insurance, medicare, Social Security and Pensions in my country... (in fact is not mine, belongs to the richest and the multinationals.... anyhow). Regards Alfredo CV health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the uninsured Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: +1: I guess that complexity cannot be expressed adequately even in a term of computability. ? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Just two thoughts: 1) it seems that complexity is a more fundamental category than linearity / non-linearity, which are parts of a sophisticated ***formal*** system; 2) I assume there are types of complexity (and, therefore, many - I mean really many - types) that cannot be expressed in any formal system (beyond linearity / non-linearity). Something like G?del's theorem. ? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> To: <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Alfredo, Good question. In fact, the question of the day, for the Hayes talk. Mysterious non linear effects in Hayes data leading to the conclusion good hearted efforts in one direction lead to the opposite result. I guess "mysterious non-linearity" is a good clue that the phenomenon is complex. Nick . Message: 1 Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:12:09 -0500 From: Alfredo CV <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] **today ** Lecture Wed Sep 12 12:30p: Jim Hayes - Hedging Complex and Chaotic Private Health Insurance Markets and the Uninsured To: stephen.guerin at redfish.com, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Message-ID: <46EC1269.7080008 at gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Of course it?s impossible to me to know details of the speeches you usually have. In the distance I suppose that the first purpose of each one of these speeches is to know and evaluate a broad type of cases where complexity is used to understand phenomena. I wonder what makes some phenomena suitable to be studied with a "complex" approach. What must somebody take in consideration to decide that is studying a complex phenomena? Regards, Alfredo CV ============================================================ 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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/20070919/f69ebcc7/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mikhail Gorelkin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: > ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a minimal description that works. The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are, the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human cognitive constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and, hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such. However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system. That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g. one constituent that describes other constituents, making that description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a whole system description for it to be complex. If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute rather than an inherent property. =><= - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc= =lEhK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the
> system The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so completely. Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does "complexity" belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for example, to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of our cognition. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail > > The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an > ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as > good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth > (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a > minimal description that works. > > The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies > in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and > effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a > system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are, > the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human cognitive > constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and, > hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such. > > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent > property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system. > That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g. > one constituent that describes other constituents, making that > description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a > whole system description for it to be complex. > > If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions > like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a > _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's > the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute > rather than an inherent property. =><= > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty > enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c > Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc= > =lEhK > -----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 > |
|
|
Could you say why those points are 'problems'? It seems to me that a
situated "explanatory" complexity (as opposed to "descriptive") works fine (I'm not necessarily suggesting it's "better") so long as you have situated the equivalences sufficiently. Ascribed (interesting word) can be just as crisp as inherent, though ascribed tends to be more topological than numeric, I think. For example, a system of equivalences could be organized as sets of Natural Transformations (ie paths of explanations commute), thereby enabling selection choices. Different situating signals would enable differing varieties of such choices, which we could then measure and talk about in terms of 'compressibility' (how many choices and what is their character), concurrency (how and when to navigate choices), and so on. Regardless of how seriously one takes this particular example, the point here is that for some interesting problem formulations, we would be working in some "complexity-based" set of multiple numeric and topological metrics, not just "is it complex or not". Carl Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the >> system >> > > The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so completely. > Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle > properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does "complexity" > belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for example, > to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of our cognition. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >> >>> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail >>> >> The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an >> ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as >> good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth >> (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a >> minimal description that works. >> >> The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies >> in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and >> effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a >> system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are, >> the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human cognitive >> constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and, >> hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such. >> >> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent >> property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system. >> That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g. >> one constituent that describes other constituents, making that >> description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a >> whole system description for it to be complex. >> >> If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions >> like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a >> _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's >> the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute >> rather than an inherent property. =><= >> >> - -- >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com >> I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty >> enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> >> iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c >> Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc= >> =lEhK >> -----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 >> >> > > > > ============================================================ > 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 agree it's hard to deal with a particular situation like your's with a descriptive definition (metrics). So, ***based on an idea
of complexity as an inherent property of a situation***, we design any ***heuristical*** metrics that are part of this situation and work (!) there. (Are all such metrics "isomorphic"? I don't think so.) It's fine. The problem is when we are inside of the situation and have a trouble to handle it. The best thing to do would be to step up on a higher level of observation. And I think the completely detached observation and descriptive metrics like Kolmogorov's (maybe on this level there are many such metrics but I think all of them are isomorphic in some sense) are the top of this ***hierarchy***. From this, if the situation is not "incomplete" / prohibited, we can step down into it again and try to construct new metrics, keeping in mind the descriptive ones. =Again, it seems it is about the hierarchy of views and definitions / metrics that are ***agreeable to the result***. ? --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Tollander" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > Could you say why those points are 'problems'? It seems to me that a > situated "explanatory" complexity (as opposed to "descriptive") works > fine (I'm not necessarily suggesting it's "better") so long as you have > situated the equivalences sufficiently. Ascribed (interesting word) can > be just as crisp as inherent, though ascribed tends to be more > topological than numeric, I think. > > For example, a system of equivalences could be organized as sets of > Natural Transformations (ie paths of explanations commute), thereby > enabling selection choices. Different situating signals would enable > differing varieties of such choices, which we could then measure and > talk about in terms of 'compressibility' (how many choices and what is > their character), concurrency (how and when to navigate choices), and so > on. > > Regardless of how seriously one takes this particular example, the point > here is that for some interesting problem formulations, we would be > working in some "complexity-based" set of multiple numeric and > topological metrics, not just "is it complex or not". > > Carl > > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >>> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the >>> system >>> >> >> The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so >> completely. >> Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle >> properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does >> "complexity" >> belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for >> example, >> to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of our cognition. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex >> >> >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >>> >>>> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail >>>> >>> The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an >>> ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as >>> good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth >>> (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a >>> minimal description that works. >>> >>> The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies >>> in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and >>> effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a >>> system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are, >>> the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human cognitive >>> constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and, >>> hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such. >>> >>> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent >>> property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system. >>> That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g. >>> one constituent that describes other constituents, making that >>> description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a >>> whole system description for it to be complex. >>> >>> If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions >>> like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a >>> _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's >>> the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute >>> rather than an inherent property. =><= >>> >>> - -- >>> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com >>> I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty >>> enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >>> >>> iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c >>> Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc= >>> =lEhK >>> -----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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mikhail Gorelkin
Well, one of the most fascinating things about observation is rolled up
in that question. It turns out to be naturally difficult to tell whether your data reflects behaviors of the environment or of your method of collecting information. The point is that observation is always a matter of dealing with 2 complexities each of which is indescribably complex and neither of which can be used as a general standard reference. Both the process of the observer and the process observed are uncalculable, and most particularly because they are real physical processes, each displaying the behavior of the whole indescribable network of distributed independent complex processes of nature from which they arise, including all the features and scales of order we have not yet found a way to observe in detail and have no clue as to how to begin to describe! One of my favorites in that area is molecular light, all the photons being emitted and absorbed in particle interactions all the time. I understand it's real, but molecular light is just another subject on a long list of 'dark matters', for our understanding. So...complexity means in part that not everything (actually not any physical thing) can be abstractly defined and so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method where definition is impossible. Phil On 9/19/07, Mikhail Gorelkin <gorelkin at hotmail.com> wrote: > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the > system The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so completely. Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does "complexity" belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for example, to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of our cognition. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" < <mailto:[hidden email]> gepr at tempusdictum.com> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail > > The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an > ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as > good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth > (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a > minimal description that works. > > The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies > in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and > effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a > system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are, > the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human cognitive > constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and, > hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such. > > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent > property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system. > That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g. > one constituent that describes other constituents, making that > description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a > whole system description for it to be complex. > > If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions > like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a > _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's > the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute > rather than an inherent property. =><= > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty > enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c > Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc= > =lEhK > -----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 > ============================================================ 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/20070920/a0626a9c/attachment.html |
|
|
Message>...so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method where definition is impossible.
Phil, I like this example: "categories" in those astral worlds that we can enter only ***unconsciously***, and where, therefore, we lose our ability even to ***define*** :-) --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Well, one of the most fascinating things about observation is rolled up in that question. It turns out to be naturally difficult to tell whether your data reflects behaviors of the environment or of your method of collecting information. The point is that observation is always a matter of dealing with 2 complexities each of which is indescribably complex and neither of which can be used as a general standard reference. Both the process of the observer and the process observed are uncalculable, and most particularly because they are real physical processes, each displaying the behavior of the whole indescribable network of distributed independent complex processes of nature from which they arise, including all the features and scales of order we have not yet found a way to observe in detail and have no clue as to how to begin to describe! One of my favorites in that area is molecular light, all the photons being emitted and absorbed in particle interactions all the time. I understand it's real, but molecular light is just another subject on a long list of 'dark matters', for our understanding. So...complexity means in part that not everything (actually not any physical thing) can be abstractly defined and so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method where definition is impossible. Phil On 9/19/07, Mikhail Gorelkin <gorelkin at hotmail.com> wrote: > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the > system The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so completely. Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does "complexity" belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for example, to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of our cognition. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" < gepr at tempusdictum.com> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail > > The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an > ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as > good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth > (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a > minimal description that works. > > The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies > in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and > effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a > system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are, > the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human cognitive > constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and, > hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such. > > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent > property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system. > That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g. > one constituent that describes other constituents, making that > description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a > whole system description for it to be complex. > > If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions > like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a > _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's > the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute > rather than an inherent property. =><= > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty > enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c > Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc= > =lEhK > -----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 > ============================================================ 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/20070922/a10d0c36/attachment.html |
|
|
Mikhail,
Well, I was perhaps including that sort of natural category that is known only by the experiential step of 'entering', like stepping into someone else's shoes and the indefinable change of consciousness that always seems to produce. I was more thinking about distinguishing between the systems we see forming in our minds, and the systems we see forming in the physical world outside our minds. There are many many different ways a mental system can form to or reflect a physical system. The trick is to find a method that two minds can check each other on. That's a tough performance standard to meet. 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: Mikhail Gorelkin [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:56 AM To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex >...so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method where definition is impossible. Phil, I like this example: "categories" in those astral worlds that we can enter only ***unconsciously***, and where, therefore, we lose our ability even to ***define*** :-) --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Henshaw <mailto:[hidden email]> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity <mailto:friam at redfish.com> Coffee Group' Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Well, one of the most fascinating things about observation is rolled up in that question. It turns out to be naturally difficult to tell whether your data reflects behaviors of the environment or of your method of collecting information. The point is that observation is always a matter of dealing with 2 complexities each of which is indescribably complex and neither of which can be used as a general standard reference. Both the process of the observer and the process observed are uncalculable, and most particularly because they are real physical processes, each displaying the behavior of the whole indescribable network of distributed independent complex processes of nature from which they arise, including all the features and scales of order we have not yet found a way to observe in detail and have no clue as to how to begin to describe! One of my favorites in that area is molecular light, all the photons being emitted and absorbed in particle interactions all the time. I understand it's real, but molecular light is just another subject on a long list of 'dark matters', for our understanding. So...complexity means in part that not everything (actually not any physical thing) can be abstractly defined and so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method where definition is impossible. Phil On 9/19/07, Mikhail Gorelkin <gorelkin at hotmail.com> wrote: > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the > system The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so completely. Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does "complexity" belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for example, to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of our cognition. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" < <mailto:[hidden email]> gepr at tempusdictum.com> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail > > The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an > ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as > good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth > (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a > minimal description that works. > > The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies > in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and > effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a > system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are, > the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human cognitive > constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and, > hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such. > > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent > property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system. > That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g. > one constituent that describes other constituents, making that > description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a > whole system description for it to be complex. > > If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions > like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a > _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's > the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute > rather than an inherent property. =><= > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty > enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c > Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc= > =lEhK > -----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 > ============================================================ 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/20070924/2e52ac72/attachment.html |
|
|
MessagePhil, I think it's a method of two Zen Buddhists checking each other by asking koans (that are inaccessible to rational
understanding, yet that may be accessible to intuition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koan) about the subject. ? -Mikhail To understand is to invent. --J. Piaget You cannot change a reality if you remain in the same consciousness that made it. --G. Braden ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Henshaw To: 'Mikhail Gorelkin' ; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:10 PM Subject: RE: [FRIAM] When is something complex Mikhail, Well, I was perhaps including that sort of natural category that is known only by the experiential step of 'entering', like stepping into someone else's shoes and the indefinable change of consciousness that always seems to produce. I was more thinking about distinguishing between the systems we see forming in our minds, and the systems we see forming in the physical world outside our minds. There are many many different ways a mental system can form to or reflect a physical system. The trick is to find a method that two minds can check each other on. That's a tough performance standard to meet. 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: Mikhail Gorelkin [mailto:gorelkin at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:56 AM To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex >...so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method where definition is impossible. Phil, I like this example: "categories" in those astral worlds that we can enter only ***unconsciously***, and where, therefore, we lose our ability even to ***define*** :-) --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Well, one of the most fascinating things about observation is rolled up in that question. It turns out to be naturally difficult to tell whether your data reflects behaviors of the environment or of your method of collecting information. The point is that observation is always a matter of dealing with 2 complexities each of which is indescribably complex and neither of which can be used as a general standard reference. Both the process of the observer and the process observed are uncalculable, and most particularly because they are real physical processes, each displaying the behavior of the whole indescribable network of distributed independent complex processes of nature from which they arise, including all the features and scales of order we have not yet found a way to observe in detail and have no clue as to how to begin to describe! One of my favorites in that area is molecular light, all the photons being emitted and absorbed in particle interactions all the time. I understand it's real, but molecular light is just another subject on a long list of 'dark matters', for our understanding. So...complexity means in part that not everything (actually not any physical thing) can be abstractly defined and so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method where definition is impossible. Phil On 9/19/07, Mikhail Gorelkin <gorelkin at hotmail.com> wrote: > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the > system The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so completely. Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does "complexity" belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for example, to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of our cognition. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" < gepr at tempusdictum.com> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail > > The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an > ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as > good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth > (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a > minimal description that works. > > The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies > in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and > effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a > system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are, > the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human cognitive > constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and, > hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such. > > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent > property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system. > That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g. > one constituent that describes other constituents, making that > description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a > whole system description for it to be complex. > > If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions > like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a > _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's > the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute > rather than an inherent property. =><= > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty > enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c > Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc= > =lEhK > -----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 > ============================================================ 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/20070925/bb1fc0fb/attachment.html |
|
|
Mikhail,
I grant one can look at and dwell on the mysterious relation between well crafted understandings and the realitiies they connect with that are beyond understanding. I also like taking thoughts in that direction sometimes. It's the opposite direction I'm more interested in learning, though, where complex things are just things, and no kind of confusion with our explanations for them is required... Phil Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <[hidden email]> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:49:39 To:<sy at synapse9.com>, "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Phil, I think it's?a method of two Zen Buddhists checking each other by asking koans (that are inaccessible to rational understanding, yet that may be accessible to intuition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koan) about the subject. ? ?Mikhail ? To understand is to invent. --J. Piaget You cannot change a reality if you remain in the same consciousness that made it. --G. Braden ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Henshaw <mailto:[hidden email]> To: 'Mikhail Gorelkin' <mailto:gorelkin at hotmail.com> ; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <mailto:friam at redfish.com> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:10 PM Subject: RE: [FRIAM] When is something complex Mikhail, ? Well, I was perhaps including that sort of natural category that is known only by the experiential step of 'entering', like stepping into someone else's shoes and the indefinable change of consciousness that always seems to produce.?? I was more thinking about distinguishing between the systems we see forming in our minds, and the systems we see forming in the physical world outside our minds.???There are many many different?ways a mental system can form to or?reflect?a physical system.?? The trick is to find a method that two minds can check each other on.? That's a tough performance standard to meet. ? ? Phil Henshaw?????????????????????? ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040?????????????????????? tel: 212-795-4844???????????????? e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com <mailto:pfh at synapse9.com> ????????? explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> ??? -----Original Message----- From: Mikhail Gorelkin [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:56 AM To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex >...so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method?where definition is impossible. ? Phil, I like this?example: "categories" in?those astral worlds?that we?can enter only ***unconsciously***, and where, therefore, we lose our?ability even to?***define*** :-)??--Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Henshaw <mailto:[hidden email]> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <mailto:friam at redfish.com> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Well, one of the most fascinating things about observation is rolled up in that question.??It turns out to be?naturally difficult to tell whether?your data?reflects behaviors?of the environment or?of your method of?collecting information.????The point is that observation is always a matter of? dealing with 2 complexities each of which is indescribably complex and neither of which can be used as a general standard reference.?? ? Both?the process of the observer and the process observed are uncalculable, and?most particularly because?they are real physical processes, each?displaying the behavior of the whole indescribable?network of distributed independent complex processes of nature from which they arise,?including all the features and scales?of order we have not yet?found a way to observe in detail?and have?no clue as to how to begin to describe!?????One of my favorites in that area is molecular light, all the photons being emitted and absorbed in particle interactions all the time.?? I understand it's real, but molecular light is just another subject on a long?list of 'dark matters', for our understanding.??? ? So...complexity means in part that not everything (actually not any?physical?thing) can be abstractly defined and so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method?where definition is impossible. ? Phil ? On 9/19/07, Mikhail Gorelkin <gorelkin at hotmail.com <mailto:gorelkin at hotmail.com> > wrote: > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the > system The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so completely. Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does "complexity" belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for example, to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of our cognition. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" < gepr at tempusdictum.com <mailto:gepr at tempusdictum.com> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail > > The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an > ascribed attribute.??If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as > good a definition as any...??I prefer the concept of logical depth > (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a > minimal description that works. > > The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies > in parsing the word "complexity".??Complexity talks about cause and > effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a > system.??The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are, > the more complex the system.??But, cause and effect are human cognitive > constructs.??Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and, > hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such. > > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent > property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system. > That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g. > one constituent that describes other constituents, making that > description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a > whole system description for it to be complex. > > If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions > like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a >_measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it.??And if that's > the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute > rather than an inherent property.??=><= > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com <http://tempusdictum.com> > I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty > enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org <http://enigmail.mozdev.org> > > iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c > Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc= > =lEhK > -----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 <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 <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 |
|
|
Phil, got it! --Mikhail P.S. maybe complexity and confusion with its explanations are synonyms :-) or the same? :-) (but it seems
that such a view was already expressed.) We're not talking about what is. We're talking about what the description is. --R. Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: sy at synapse9.com To: Mikhail Gorelkin ; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Mikhail, I grant one can look at and dwell on the mysterious relation between well crafted understandings and the realitiies they connect with that are beyond understanding. I also like taking thoughts in that direction sometimes. It's the opposite direction I'm more interested in learning, though, where complex things are just things, and no kind of confusion with our explanations for them is required... Phil Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: "Mikhail Gorelkin" <gorelkin at hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:49:39 To:<sy at synapse9.com>, "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Phil, I think it's a method of two Zen Buddhists checking each other by asking koans (that are inaccessible to rational understanding, yet that may be accessible to intuition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koan) about the subject. ? ?Mikhail To understand is to invent. --J. Piaget You cannot change a reality if you remain in the same consciousness that made it. --G. Braden ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Henshaw <mailto:sy at synapse9.com> To: 'Mikhail Gorelkin' <mailto:gorelkin at hotmail.com> ; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <mailto:friam at redfish.com> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:10 PM Subject: RE: [FRIAM] When is something complex Mikhail, Well, I was perhaps including that sort of natural category that is known only by the experiential step of 'entering', like stepping into someone else's shoes and the indefinable change of consciousness that always seems to produce. I was more thinking about distinguishing between the systems we see forming in our minds, and the systems we see forming in the physical world outside our minds. There are many many different ways a mental system can form to or reflect a physical system. The trick is to find a method that two minds can check each other on. That's a tough performance standard to meet. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com <mailto:pfh at synapse9.com> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: Mikhail Gorelkin [mailto:gorelkin at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:56 AM To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex >...so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method where definition is impossible. Phil, I like this example: "categories" in those astral worlds that we can enter only ***unconsciously***, and where, therefore, we lose our ability even to ***define*** :-) --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Henshaw <mailto:sy at synapse9.com> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <mailto:friam at redfish.com> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex Well, one of the most fascinating things about observation is rolled up in that question. It turns out to be naturally difficult to tell whether your data reflects behaviors of the environment or of your method of collecting information. The point is that observation is always a matter of dealing with 2 complexities each of which is indescribably complex and neither of which can be used as a general standard reference. Both the process of the observer and the process observed are uncalculable, and most particularly because they are real physical processes, each displaying the behavior of the whole indescribable network of distributed independent complex processes of nature from which they arise, including all the features and scales of order we have not yet found a way to observe in detail and have no clue as to how to begin to describe! One of my favorites in that area is molecular light, all the photons being emitted and absorbed in particle interactions all the time. I understand it's real, but molecular light is just another subject on a long list of 'dark matters', for our understanding. So...complexity means in part that not everything (actually not any physical thing) can be abstractly defined and so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method where definition is impossible. Phil On 9/19/07, Mikhail Gorelkin <gorelkin at hotmail.com <mailto:gorelkin at hotmail.com> > wrote: > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the > system The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so completely. Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does "complexity" belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for example, to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of our cognition. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" < gepr at tempusdictum.com <mailto:gepr at tempusdictum.com> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: >> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ? --Mikhail > > The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an > ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is as > good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth > (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a > minimal description that works. > > The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute lies > in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and > effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a > system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are, > the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human cognitive > constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems and, > hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of such. > > However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent > property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system. > That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions (e.g. > one constituent that describes other constituents, making that > description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be a > whole system description for it to be complex. > > If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions > like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just a >_measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's > the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute > rather than an inherent property. =><= > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com <http://tempusdictum.com> > I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty > enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org <http://enigmail.mozdev.org> > > iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c > Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc= > =lEhK > -----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 <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 <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/20070927/a4fc576b/attachment.html |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |