Friam

formalization of "complexity"

Classic

List

Threaded

1 message

Nick Thompson

formalization of "complexity"

Steve,

Isnt your formalization...

""complexity emerges when a gradient acting on a system exceeds the
capacity of the internal degrees of freedom of the system to dissipate the
gradient".

an EXPLANATION of complexity, rather than a description?

Like defining ADAPATATION as "whatever natural selection produces." to
paraphrase GC Williams.

In which case, your answer begs the question of what exactly IS this thing
that "forcing" is producing.

Nick

PS, and also, dont' you mean "that is dissipating the gradient" above. Or
are you an "crypto-entropo-teleologist".

n

Nicholas Thompson
nickthompson at earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson

> [Original Message]
> From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Date: 7/22/2006 12:36:34 AM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 35
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam at redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> friam-request at redfish.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> friam-owner at redfish.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: real tinking (Bruce Abell)
> 2. Re: formalization of Complexity (was Dynamics of Complex
> Systems by Yaneer Bar-Yam) (Stephen Guerin)
> 3. Re: Dynamics of Complex Systems by Yaneer Bar-Yam (Phil Henshaw)
> 4. Re: real tinking (Phil Henshaw)
> 5. Re: formalization of Complexity (was Dynamics of Complex
> Systems by Yaneer Bar-Yam) (Carl Tollander)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:46:03 -0600
> From: "Bruce Abell" <bruce at santafeassociates.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] real tinking
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <069a01c6ad17$722b6f20$6500a8c0 at BRUCE>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Pamela--
>
> That's a nice clarification of discussions that were getting waaaay out

there.

>
> --Bruce
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pamela McCorduck
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 1:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] real tinking
>
>
> It's hard for me to imagine what's meant by the phrase "a real thinking

machine." Human level and human versatility? We can get those the old
fashioned way.
>
>
> What we already have are programs that think better (deeper, faster,
more imaginatively--whatever that means) in certain narrow domains. One of
those is the far from negligible domain of molecular biology. Such
programs cannot get themselves to the airport, or enjoy strawberries, but
they really don't need to, do they? Contemporary molecular biology would
be unthinkable (ahem) without such programs.
>
>
> Likewise, chess is now something machines do better than humans, and
Kasparov, at least, says he is learning a great deal from how programs play
chess.
>
>
> Some confusion has arisen because historically, the field of artificial
intelligence both tried to model human thought, and tried to solve certain
problems by hook or by crook (without reference to how humans do it). They
were two distinct efforts. Cognitive psychologists were grateful to have
in the computer a laboratory instrument that would allow them to move
beyond rats running mazes (yes, folks, this is where cognitive psychology
was in the 1950s). People interested in solving problems that humans are
inept at solving were glad to have a machine that could process symbols.
>
>
> I'm just now reading Eric Kandel's graceful memoir, "In Search of
Memory." Kandel, a Nobel laureate and biologist, has devoted his life to
understanding human memory, which he believes is one of the great puzzles
whose solution would lead directly to understanding human thought. He
hasn't the least doubt that these seemingly intractable problems will
someday be cracked. I don't either. And we won't go crazy doing it.

>
>
> Pamela McCorduck
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2006, at 11:23 AM, James Steiner wrote:
>
>
> I suspect that we won't ever get a real thinking machine by
> deliberately trying to model thought. I suspect that the approach that
> will ultimately work is one of two: One: a "sufficiently complex"
> evolutionary simulation system, or rather set of competing systems,
> will create a concious-seeming intelligence all by itself (though that
> intelligence will be non-human, and not modeled after human thought,
> and we might not understand each other well--how do you instill an AI
> with human concepts of morality?) or two, someone will create a
> super-complex physics simulation that can take hyper-detailed 3D brain
> CAT/PET/etc scan data as input then simply simulate the goings on at
> the atomic level, the "mind" being an emergent property of the
> "matter." Of course, the mind will probably instantly go insane, even
> if provided with sufficient quantity and types of virtual senses and
> body.
>
>
> And we *still* won't know how the mind happens.
>
>
> ;)
> ~~James
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ??"The amount of money one needs is terrifying ..." ?
> -Ludwig van Beethoven ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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:
/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060721/e5bf54ef/attachment-0001.h
tml

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:07:02 -0600
> From: "Stephen Guerin" <stephen.guerin at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] formalization of Complexity (was Dynamics of
> Complex Systems by Yaneer Bar-Yam)
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <110801c6ad1a$6223b4e0$97c5f044 at hongyu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> > Yet when I ask for a formal treatment, I get no answer.
>
> I very much like Hubler's deceptively simple definition of complexity:
> "A complex systems is a system with large throughput of Energy,
> Information, Force, .... through a well designed boundary."
>
> His notes from the SFI CSSS school with this definition are here:
> http://www.how-why.com/ucs2002/tutorial/
>
>
> As a restatement of the same ideas that formalizes what "large" means, I

would

> offer:
> "complexity emerges when a gradient acting on a system exceeds the
> capacity of the internal degrees of freedom of the system to dissipate the
> gradient".
>
>
> Is that formal enough? or, does the statement need to be mathematized?
>
> -Steve
>
> ________________________________________
> Stephen.Guerin at Redfish.com
> www.Redfish.com
> 624 Agua Fria Street, Santa Fe, NM 87501
> mobile: (505)577-5828
> office: Santa Fe, NM (505)995-0206 / London, UK +44 (0) 20 7993 4769
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:05:11 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Dynamics of Complex Systems by Yaneer Bar-Yam
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Message-ID: <200607220305.k6M35B124554 at synapse9.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> It's curious, what you describe sounds like one of my perennial key
> complaints, 'no appropriate reply', but I didn't notice your questions
> as they went bye. My recent comments have been more in the vein of
> mapping out errors in our structural assumptions about nature, and the
> important things computers imitate well (following rules...) and
> imitate poorly (asking questions...), to probe where the productive
> directions for inquiry are. I've been surprised by the absence of
> theoretical discussion of AI principles, though, too. Is it just
> that the creative edge of the field is just to esoteric to discuss??
>
> It's all got to fit in with conversation, though, and it does seem
> quite mysterious why some things get picked up and some don't.
>
>
>
> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040
> tel: 212-795-4844
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> explorations: www.synapse9.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
> > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:16 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Dynamics of Complex Systems by Yaneer Bar-Yam
> >
> >
> > Frankly, I'm disappointed.
> >
> > The FRIAM list has been through several very philosophical
> > conversations over 3-4 weeks, all purporting to be "complex". Yet
> > when I ask for a formal treatment, I get no answer.
> >
> > Does this mean, for complexity, there's no There There?
> >
> > Surely there is some interesting formalism we can use for
> > complexity. Robert Holmes suggested a great book to us a while
> back
> > which I had forgotten in my initial email:
> > David MacKay: Information Theory, Inference, and Learning
> > Algorithms
> > http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/
> >
> > Do we all talk about complexity yet have no basis for it?
> >
> > -- Owen
> >
> > Owen Densmore
> > http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org
> >
> >
> > On Jul 19, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> >
> > > I've been looking at/for complexity books that are textbooks or
> > > similarly technical/mathematical. The recent Newman,
> > Barabasi & Watts
> > > collection The Structure and Dynamics of Networks is pretty
> > good but I
> > > would like something broader, covering the "Complex Systems" world.
> > >
> > > Bar Yam's original book:
> > > http://tinyurl.com/mmxwp
> > > or
> > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813341213/sr=1-1/qid=1153334623/
> > > ref=sr_1_1/104-7070581-5619133?ie=UTF8
> > > is the best I know of. Anyone know of another?
> > >
> > > -- Owen
> > >
> > > Owen Densmore
> > > http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:08:29 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] real tinking
> To: "[FRIAM]" <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <200607220308.k6M38TS27443 at synapse9.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> The suspicious appearance that information "transfer" between human
> minds doesn't ever actually occur, only cross fertilization between
> private mental ecologies of original design, is partly offered just to
> be 'far out' of course. It's also entirely consistent with Pam's
> sense that we'll use computers for what they do best and be very glad
> for it. The real point was to suggest what the correct structure
> of nature to model is. Perhaps it has a long way to go, but I
> wouldn't entirely rule out the productive use of virtual or artificial
> ecologies, IF, we are clear enough in our own thoughts to observe how
> nature actually does work, and to be guided by it.
>
>
>
> 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 Bruce Abell
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 6:46 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] real tinking
>
>
> Pamela--
>
> That's a nice clarification of discussions that were getting waaaay
> out there.
>
> --Bruce
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pamela McCorduck
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 1:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] real tinking
>
>
> It's hard for me to imagine what's meant by the phrase "a real
> thinking machine." Human level and human versatility? We can get
> those the old fashioned way.
>
>
> What we already have are programs that think better (deeper, faster,
> more imaginatively--whatever that means) in certain narrow domains.
> One of those is the far from negligible domain of molecular biology.
> Such programs cannot get themselves to the airport, or enjoy
> strawberries, but they really don't need to, do they? Contemporary
> molecular biology would be unthinkable (ahem) without such programs.
>
>
> Likewise, chess is now something machines do better than humans, and
> Kasparov, at least, says he is learning a great deal from how programs
> play chess.
>
>
> Some confusion has arisen because historically, the field of
> artificial intelligence both tried to model human thought, and tried
> to solve certain problems by hook or by crook (without reference to
> how humans do it). They were two distinct efforts. Cognitive
> psychologists were grateful to have in the computer a laboratory
> instrument that would allow them to move beyond rats running mazes
> (yes, folks, this is where cognitive psychology was in the 1950s).
> People interested in solving problems that humans are inept at solving
> were glad to have a machine that could process symbols.
>
>
> I'm just now reading Eric Kandel's graceful memoir, "In Search of
> Memory." Kandel, a Nobel laureate and biologist, has devoted his life
> to understanding human memory, which he believes is one of the great
> puzzles whose solution would lead directly to understanding human
> thought. He hasn't the least doubt that these seemingly intractable
> problems will someday be cracked. I don't either. And we won't go
> crazy doing it.
>
>
> Pamela McCorduck
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2006, at 11:23 AM, James Steiner wrote:
>
>
> I suspect that we won't ever get a real thinking machine by
> deliberately trying to model thought. I suspect that the approach that
> will ultimately work is one of two: One: a "sufficiently complex"
> evolutionary simulation system, or rather set of competing systems,
> will create a concious-seeming intelligence all by itself (though that
> intelligence will be non-human, and not modeled after human thought,
> and we might not understand each other well--how do you instill an AI
> with human concepts of morality?) or two, someone will create a
> super-complex physics simulation that can take hyper-detailed 3D brain
> CAT/PET/etc scan data as input then simply simulate the goings on at
> the atomic level, the "mind" being an emergent property of the
> "matter." Of course, the mind will probably instantly go insane, even
> if provided with sufficient quantity and types of virtual senses and
> body.
>
>
> And we *still* won't know how the mind happens.
>
>
> ;)
> ~~James
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
>
>
>   "The amount of money one needs is terrifying .."  
> -Ludwig van Beethoven  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:36:20 -0600
> From: Carl Tollander <carl at plektyx.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] formalization of Complexity (was Dynamics of
> Complex Systems by Yaneer Bar-Yam)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <44C1AB44.7040205 at plektyx.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Stephen,
>
> Could you say more about how gradients *act* on a system?
>
> I tend to think of gradients as new (non-adjoint) structure produced by
> the application
> of constraints between elements in a system. That is, the constraints
> form the context
> (the DOF) for the gradient.
>
> I think I may be able to reconcile this with Hubler's definition (some
> problems with
> that "well designed" part), but the the latter is more challenging. Are
> you saying
> that gradients embody agency? How do we describe the dissipative
> capacity of a
> degree of freedom so that we can characterize what happens when it
> breaks down?
>
> Hmmm, ok, I now think I see how to answer that, but lets see what the
> comments are...
>
> Carl
>
> Stephen Guerin wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Yet when I ask for a formal treatment, I get no answer.
> >>
> >
> > I very much like Hubler's deceptively simple definition of complexity:
> > "A complex systems is a system with large throughput of Energy,
> > Information, Force, .... through a well designed boundary."
> >
> > His notes from the SFI CSSS school with this definition are here:
> > http://www.how-why.com/ucs2002/tutorial/
> >
> >
> > As a restatement of the same ideas that formalizes what "large" means,

I would
> > offer:
> > "complexity emerges when a gradient acting on a system exceeds the
> > capacity of the internal degrees of freedom of the system to dissipate
the

> > gradient".
> >
> >
> > Is that formal enough? or, does the statement need to be mathematized?
> >
> > -Steve
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Stephen.Guerin at Redfish.com
> > www.Redfish.com
> > 624 Agua Fria Street, Santa Fe, NM 87501
> > mobile: (505)577-5828
> > office: Santa Fe, NM (505)995-0206 / London, UK +44 (0) 20 7993 4769
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > 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 mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 35
> *************************************