kuhn
Locked
 
|
All -- Everybody should "read" The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
which is to say, start it and see how far you get before you are totally bogged down. But, my philosopher friends warn me, that book does not contain Kuhn's mature opinion. I am afraid I have never gotten beyond his immature ones. "My philosopher friends" also tell me that the two volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy is the best philosophy crib notes ever, respectable for citation, even. Nick 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: 7/25/2006 10:31:21 PM > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 46 > > 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: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? > (Carlos Gershenson) > 2. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? > (Robert Holmes) > 3. Is it economics or biology (Tom Johnson) > 4. Re: Definition of Complexity (Robert Holmes) > 5. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? > (Phil Henshaw) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:56:19 +0200 > From: Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at vub.ac.be> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done > for us? > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <B4A51DC3-01F8-462A-A6E6-61CE2E2361AE at vub.ac.be> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > I think this discussion is productive, because it seems it is > bringing some light and agreement on "what is complexity and what it > is not"... > > > I didn't form the question well - what I meant was: what can we do > > now that we couldn't do 15 years before as a direct consequence of > > advances in complexity science? > > In line with what other people have said, complexity has been > invading all sciences. e.g. you cannot do systems biology without > taking a complexity stance, but all these advances will be seen as > biology or medicine... > Same for other disciplines... so maybe the question could be > > what can we do now that we couldn't do 15 years ago as a consequence > of complexity thinking? > > Then the list I gave earlier would be a valid answer... even if the > advances come from physics, biology, engineering, they required ideas > from complex systems... > > Best regards, > > Carlos Gershenson... > Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel > Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium > http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ > > ?Tendencies tend to change...? > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: tml > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:26:53 -0600 > From: "Robert Holmes" <robert at holmesacosta.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done > for us? > To: FRIAM <Friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: > <857770150607251726o3f75176ek56e6df960cc957ce at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I'll be honest, I cheated. I could have gone to the source and read the > man's own words, but sometimes it's just easier to read the Cliff notes > equivalent). In this case: > > http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html > > Robert > > On 7/25/06, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote: > > > > Which if Kuhn's books would be good to read? There are apparently > > several! > > > > -- Owen > > > > Owen Densmore > > http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org > > > > > > On Jul 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: > > > > > You beat me to it Mike. I was re-reading Kuhn this morning because I'm > > > pretty darn sure that complexity science is failing to establish > > > itself as a > > > paradigm, and I wanted support for this contention from someone a > > > whole load > > > cleverer than me. I'll report back on my readings... > > > > > > Just as a starter, Kuhn suggests that a field's history is largely > > > represented in the new textbooks that accompany the paradigm shift. > > > I'm > > > thinking that if we don't have the textbooks (see Owen's thread), > > > it's hard > > > for us to even claim that a new paradigm exists ("there's no there > > > there"). > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > On 7/24/06, Michael Agar <magar at anth.umd.edu> wrote: > > >> > > >> Well, there's the roads, yeah, and then there's the... > > >> > > >> Romans are the right metaphor, since much of what's happened in the > > >> last X years has been diffusion of ideas--ideas, not measures--into > > >> numerous different domains. Like Kuhn said... > > >> > > >> Mike > > >> > > >> > > >> On Jul 24, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi all, > > >> > > > >> > I really enjoyed Joe's post and it set me thinking - exactly what > > >> > has complexity science achieved? IMHO, one measure of a field's > > >> > health is that the field moves forward (radical, huh?). If I look > > >> > at particle physics, they now know stuff that they didn't 15 years > > >> > ago (neutrino mass for example); if I look at high-temperature > > >> > superconductivity, Tc moves ever upwards. If I look at string > > >> > theory they ask (and occassionally answer) ever more abstruse and > > >> > unlikely questions that might not bear any relation to the real > > >> > world but are at least based on what was asked before. > > >> > > > >> > So here's the question: in the field of complexity science, exactly > > >> > what can we do now that we could not do 15 years ago? > > >> > > > >> > Robert > > >> > ============================================================ > > >> > 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: tml > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:40:29 -0600 > From: "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com> > Subject: [FRIAM] Is it economics or biology > To: "Friam at redfish. com" <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: > <e04090490607251740t5c3970b7i2fffeb537c7f0567 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Of interest to the list, I hope. > >From the current issue of The Economist: > The Cambrian age of > > > Evolutionary economics is surviving, but not thriving > > http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617 > > -- tj > > ========================================== > J. T. Johnson > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA > www.analyticjournalism.com > 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) > http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.com > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. > To change something, build a new model that makes the > existing model obsolete." > -- Buckminster Fuller > ========================================== > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: tml > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:46:12 -0600 > From: "Robert Holmes" <robert at holmesacosta.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: > <857770150607251746x23932aaahba0d2956f0d10bad at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > > One can certainly start from the partition function. But the partition > > function is something that is additional to the microscopic > > description, hence emergent. Indeed, the partition function is > > different depending on whether you are using microcanonical, canonical > > or grand canonical ensembles, each of which is a thermodynamic, not > > microscopic concept. > > > I'm surprised that you consider the partition function as being "in > addition" to the microscopic description. Is this the common view in > statistical mechanics? Just to be specific, if I've got a system of > distinguishable particles and the energy levels aren't degenerate, the > single particle partition function Zsp is given by: > > Zsp = sum( exp( -ei/k.T ) ) > where ei is the energy of the energy level i, the sum is over all i (i.e. > over all energy levels), k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the > temperature. > > Now that seems about as microscopic description of a system as you can > Could you explain why it's not please? > > Thanks for your patience! > > Robert > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/95bc13de/attachment-0001.h tml > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:30:59 -0400 > From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done > for us? > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <002601c6b05b$887c5540$2f01a8c0 at SavyII> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > If you actually wanted an opening to complexity theory that would actually > assist government decision making, you'd learn to train computers how to > recognize the mathematical difference between homeostatic fluctuation and > structural divergence. > > > > 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: McNamara, Laura A [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of > McNamara, Laura A > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:15 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for > > > To follow on Mike's comments: what SFI, NECSI, UCLA, and other hotbeds of > complex thinking have in common is some luxury to consider complexity, > modeling, and social evolution, to creatively push the application of > complex systems studies to culture and society. > > And here I go on my soapbox (with apologies to those of you who've heard me > rant about this before): what's disturbing is the number of people in > government (go figure) who are touting agent based models and complexity as > predictive tool and theory, respectively, for making decisions about > wickedly complex quagmires in places like... oh, maybe Iraq...? I'm > spending the summer studying computational modeling and simulation > technologies in the DoD and the level of interest in complexity theory as > the holy grail of social theory is both remarkable and worrisome. This > being Washington, I've seen more than a few contractors grabbing at DoD > money to get that grail up and running, without considering the manifold > issues involved. My Sandia colleague, Tim Trucano, and I are gearing up to > write about this issue and will likely be at FRIAM quite a bit to toss ideas > around with y'all. > > Lurking in the discourse about complexity, computational modeling, and > society is epistemological question, I think, that requires us to consider > how we use modeling and simulation tools to produce knowledge about the > world we live in. In academia, we have a great deal of latitude in the > purpose of knowledge-making activities; we're engaged in discovery over the > long run. Inside the Beltway, it's a different story entirely: they want > decision tools, and they want them yesterday. > > Of course, this begs the question of why common sense is so utterly absent > in our nation's fine capitol... > > Laura > > > _____ > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com on behalf of Michael Agar > Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 6:49 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for > > > > > On Jul 24, 2006, at 6:51 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > > > But more seriously, which university has a department of complex > > systems? Theres the Santa Fe Institute, and possibly NECSI, but where > > else? > > > > SFI and NECSI make room for visiting students at different levels, > but neither are degree-granting. In the social realm, > UCLA has a new Human Complex Systems institute that is going > gangbusters in its first year, but it is undergrad only right now, > though the interest there hints that the younger generation is into > it already. At NECSI the Portland State University computer science > program drew some student attention, since they can cobble together > complexity like courses of study. Couple of student emails on the > NECSI list pointed to other possibillities, like George Mason > University's Center for Social Complexity. Otherwise it seems like > academic pockets in various domains. For instance, at NECSI I met a > student who works with Reuben McDaniels, prof at the University of > Texas biz school, known on the Plexus list for his work applying > complexity org development to health care. He works with their > Prigogine Center, though I'm not sure what they do. I'm sure there > are many other centers and institutes and academic pockets that folks > on the list know of as well, and many others in other countries. > David Lane's group at Reggio-Modena comes to mind. It's an > interesting "shreds and patches" kind of situation that probably > reflects the scattered and multi-perspectival nature of the field at > the moment that motivated Owen's original email. > > I've been disappointed that anthro hasn't been more active, though > there are some good SFI external faculty examples like Steve Lansing > in ecology and Doug White in networks and George Gummerman and Tim > Kohler on the ancient Anasazi (a questionable label now, since it is > a Navajo term and some Pueblo people object). Shortly before > electricity was invented, when I was in grad school, we learned about > our "holistic" perspective and the "emergent" nature of our work and > how our goal was to learn a new perspective "bottom-up," though that > term we didn't use. Sander van der Leeuw, former SFI faculty, took > over the department at Arizona State and looks like he's changing > things in a complex direction, so maybe it's starting to happen. We > never did anything rigorous and general with the concepts in the old > days, instead learned them by reading ethnographic case after > ethnographic case, like lawyers learn legal reasoning. You'd think > the field would notice the parallels. If anyone's interested, Lansing > did an overview of complexity for the Annual Review of Anthropology a > few years back, and I did a piece in Complexity that complexifies > some ethnographic issues (We Have Met the Other and We're All > Nonlinear) that's on my web page. > > And now, for something completely different, this week's Economist > has a feature on evolutionary economics: > http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617 > > Mike > > > > > > > ============================================================ > 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/> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: winmail.dat > Type: application/ms-tnef > Size: 9780 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > Friam at redfish.com > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 46 > ************************************* |
|
|
Kuhn's book (all of it) has had a substantive impact on my overall
intellectual and analytical development (and I'm neither a scientist nor a philosopher). I consider it a truly seminal work, and imho well worth any thinking person's time. And, you get to feel cool because you know where "paradigm shift" came from ;-) David dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc. www.BreeckerAssociates.com Abiquiu: 505-685-4891 Santa Fe: 505-690-2335 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> To: <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] kuhn > All -- Everybody should "read" The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, > which is to say, start it and see how far you get before you are totally > bogged down. But, my philosopher friends warn me, that book does not > contain Kuhn's mature opinion. I am afraid I have never gotten beyond his > immature ones. > > "My philosopher friends" also tell me that the two volume Encyclopedia of > Philosophy is the best philosophy crib notes ever, respectable for > citation, even. > > Nick > 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: 7/25/2006 10:31:21 PM >> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 46 >> >> 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: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? >> (Carlos Gershenson) >> 2. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? >> (Robert Holmes) >> 3. Is it economics or biology (Tom Johnson) >> 4. Re: Definition of Complexity (Robert Holmes) >> 5. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? >> (Phil Henshaw) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:56:19 +0200 >> From: Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at vub.ac.be> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done >> for us? >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <friam at redfish.com> >> Message-ID: <B4A51DC3-01F8-462A-A6E6-61CE2E2361AE at vub.ac.be> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >> >> I think this discussion is productive, because it seems it is >> bringing some light and agreement on "what is complexity and what it >> is not"... >> >> > I didn't form the question well - what I meant was: what can we do >> > now that we couldn't do 15 years before as a direct consequence of >> > advances in complexity science? >> >> In line with what other people have said, complexity has been >> invading all sciences. e.g. you cannot do systems biology without >> taking a complexity stance, but all these advances will be seen as >> biology or medicine... >> Same for other disciplines... so maybe the question could be >> >> what can we do now that we couldn't do 15 years ago as a consequence >> of complexity thinking? >> >> Then the list I gave earlier would be a valid answer... even if the >> advances come from physics, biology, engineering, they required ideas >> from complex systems... >> >> Best regards, >> >> Carlos Gershenson... >> Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel >> Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium >> http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ >> >> ?Tendencies tend to change...? >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/34560ae7/attachment-0001.h > tml >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:26:53 -0600 >> From: "Robert Holmes" <robert at holmesacosta.com> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done >> for us? >> To: FRIAM <Friam at redfish.com> >> Message-ID: >> <857770150607251726o3f75176ek56e6df960cc957ce at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> I'll be honest, I cheated. I could have gone to the source and read the >> man's own words, but sometimes it's just easier to read the Cliff notes > (or >> equivalent). In this case: >> >> http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html >> >> Robert >> >> On 7/25/06, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote: >> > >> > Which if Kuhn's books would be good to read? There are apparently >> > several! >> > >> > -- Owen >> > >> > Owen Densmore >> > http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org >> > >> > >> > On Jul 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: >> > >> > > You beat me to it Mike. I was re-reading Kuhn this morning because >> > > I'm >> > > pretty darn sure that complexity science is failing to establish >> > > itself as a >> > > paradigm, and I wanted support for this contention from someone a >> > > whole load >> > > cleverer than me. I'll report back on my readings... >> > > >> > > Just as a starter, Kuhn suggests that a field's history is largely >> > > represented in the new textbooks that accompany the paradigm shift. >> > > I'm >> > > thinking that if we don't have the textbooks (see Owen's thread), >> > > it's hard >> > > for us to even claim that a new paradigm exists ("there's no there >> > > there"). >> > > >> > > Robert >> > > >> > > On 7/24/06, Michael Agar <magar at anth.umd.edu> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Well, there's the roads, yeah, and then there's the... >> > >> >> > >> Romans are the right metaphor, since much of what's happened in the >> > >> last X years has been diffusion of ideas--ideas, not measures--into >> > >> numerous different domains. Like Kuhn said... >> > >> >> > >> Mike >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Jul 24, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > >> > >> > I really enjoyed Joe's post and it set me thinking - exactly what >> > >> > has complexity science achieved? IMHO, one measure of a field's >> > >> > health is that the field moves forward (radical, huh?). If I look >> > >> > at particle physics, they now know stuff that they didn't 15 years >> > >> > ago (neutrino mass for example); if I look at high-temperature >> > >> > superconductivity, Tc moves ever upwards. If I look at string >> > >> > theory they ask (and occassionally answer) ever more abstruse and >> > >> > unlikely questions that might not bear any relation to the real >> > >> > world but are at least based on what was asked before. >> > >> > >> > >> > So here's the question: in the field of complexity science, >> > >> > exactly >> > >> > what can we do now that we could not do 15 years ago? >> > >> > >> > >> > Robert >> > >> > ============================================================ >> > >> > 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: > /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/8ba86f35/attachment-0001.h > tml >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:40:29 -0600 >> From: "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com> >> Subject: [FRIAM] Is it economics or biology >> To: "Friam at redfish. com" <friam at redfish.com> >> Message-ID: >> <e04090490607251740t5c3970b7i2fffeb537c7f0567 at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Of interest to the list, I hope. >> >From the current issue of The Economist: >> The Cambrian age of >> > economics<http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617 >> >> Evolutionary economics is surviving, but not thriving >> >> http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617 >> >> -- tj >> >> ========================================== >> J. T. Johnson >> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA >> www.analyticjournalism.com >> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) >> http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.com >> >> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. >> To change something, build a new model that makes the >> existing model obsolete." >> -- Buckminster Fuller >> ========================================== >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/1b1906ea/attachment-0001.h > tml >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:46:12 -0600 >> From: "Robert Holmes" <robert at holmesacosta.com> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity >> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >> <friam at redfish.com> >> Message-ID: >> <857770150607251746x23932aaahba0d2956f0d10bad at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> > >> > >> > One can certainly start from the partition function. But the partition >> > function is something that is additional to the microscopic >> > description, hence emergent. Indeed, the partition function is >> > different depending on whether you are using microcanonical, canonical >> > or grand canonical ensembles, each of which is a thermodynamic, not >> > microscopic concept. >> >> >> I'm surprised that you consider the partition function as being "in >> addition" to the microscopic description. Is this the common view in >> statistical mechanics? Just to be specific, if I've got a system of >> distinguishable particles and the energy levels aren't degenerate, the >> single particle partition function Zsp is given by: >> >> Zsp = sum( exp( -ei/k.T ) ) >> where ei is the energy of the energy level i, the sum is over all i (i.e. >> over all energy levels), k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the >> temperature. >> >> Now that seems about as microscopic description of a system as you can > get. >> Could you explain why it's not please? >> >> Thanks for your patience! >> >> Robert >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: > /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/95bc13de/attachment-0001.h > tml >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:30:59 -0400 >> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done >> for us? >> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" >> <friam at redfish.com> >> Message-ID: <002601c6b05b$887c5540$2f01a8c0 at SavyII> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> If you actually wanted an opening to complexity theory that would >> actually >> assist government decision making, you'd learn to train computers how to >> recognize the mathematical difference between homeostatic fluctuation and >> structural divergence. >> >> >> >> 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: McNamara, Laura A [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of >> McNamara, Laura A >> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:15 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for > us? >> >> >> To follow on Mike's comments: what SFI, NECSI, UCLA, and other hotbeds of >> complex thinking have in common is some luxury to consider complexity, >> modeling, and social evolution, to creatively push the application of >> complex systems studies to culture and society. >> >> And here I go on my soapbox (with apologies to those of you who've heard > me >> rant about this before): what's disturbing is the number of people in >> government (go figure) who are touting agent based models and complexity > as >> predictive tool and theory, respectively, for making decisions about >> wickedly complex quagmires in places like... oh, maybe Iraq...? I'm >> spending the summer studying computational modeling and simulation >> technologies in the DoD and the level of interest in complexity theory as >> the holy grail of social theory is both remarkable and worrisome. This >> being Washington, I've seen more than a few contractors grabbing at DoD >> money to get that grail up and running, without considering the manifold >> issues involved. My Sandia colleague, Tim Trucano, and I are gearing up >> to >> write about this issue and will likely be at FRIAM quite a bit to toss > ideas >> around with y'all. >> >> Lurking in the discourse about complexity, computational modeling, and >> society is epistemological question, I think, that requires us to >> consider >> how we use modeling and simulation tools to produce knowledge about the >> world we live in. In academia, we have a great deal of latitude in the >> purpose of knowledge-making activities; we're engaged in discovery over > the >> long run. Inside the Beltway, it's a different story entirely: they want >> decision tools, and they want them yesterday. >> >> Of course, this begs the question of why common sense is so utterly >> absent >> in our nation's fine capitol... >> >> Laura >> >> >> _____ >> >> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com on behalf of Michael Agar >> Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 6:49 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for > us? >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 24, 2006, at 6:51 AM, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > But more seriously, which university has a department of complex >> > systems? Theres the Santa Fe Institute, and possibly NECSI, but where >> > else? >> > >> >> SFI and NECSI make room for visiting students at different levels, >> but neither are degree-granting. In the social realm, >> UCLA has a new Human Complex Systems institute that is going >> gangbusters in its first year, but it is undergrad only right now, >> though the interest there hints that the younger generation is into >> it already. At NECSI the Portland State University computer science >> program drew some student attention, since they can cobble together >> complexity like courses of study. Couple of student emails on the >> NECSI list pointed to other possibillities, like George Mason >> University's Center for Social Complexity. Otherwise it seems like >> academic pockets in various domains. For instance, at NECSI I met a >> student who works with Reuben McDaniels, prof at the University of >> Texas biz school, known on the Plexus list for his work applying >> complexity org development to health care. He works with their >> Prigogine Center, though I'm not sure what they do. I'm sure there >> are many other centers and institutes and academic pockets that folks >> on the list know of as well, and many others in other countries. >> David Lane's group at Reggio-Modena comes to mind. It's an >> interesting "shreds and patches" kind of situation that probably >> reflects the scattered and multi-perspectival nature of the field at >> the moment that motivated Owen's original email. >> >> I've been disappointed that anthro hasn't been more active, though >> there are some good SFI external faculty examples like Steve Lansing >> in ecology and Doug White in networks and George Gummerman and Tim >> Kohler on the ancient Anasazi (a questionable label now, since it is >> a Navajo term and some Pueblo people object). Shortly before >> electricity was invented, when I was in grad school, we learned about >> our "holistic" perspective and the "emergent" nature of our work and >> how our goal was to learn a new perspective "bottom-up," though that >> term we didn't use. Sander van der Leeuw, former SFI faculty, took >> over the department at Arizona State and looks like he's changing >> things in a complex direction, so maybe it's starting to happen. We >> never did anything rigorous and general with the concepts in the old >> days, instead learned them by reading ethnographic case after >> ethnographic case, like lawyers learn legal reasoning. You'd think >> the field would notice the parallels. If anyone's interested, Lansing >> did an overview of complexity for the Annual Review of Anthropology a >> few years back, and I did a piece in Complexity that complexifies >> some ethnographic issues (We Have Met the Other and We're All >> Nonlinear) that's on my web page. >> >> And now, for something completely different, this week's Economist >> has a feature on evolutionary economics: >> http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617 >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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/> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: winmail.dat >> Type: application/ms-tnef >> Size: 9780 bytes >> Desc: not available >> Url : > /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/5fe098b1/attachment.bin >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Friam mailing list >> Friam at redfish.com >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> >> End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 46 >> ************************************* > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > |
|
|
Got to admit I read it a long time ago, though I did see the movie
recently (:. It was part of a new lit in those days, including Winch and Toulmin, not to mention the then scandalous The Double Helix, that noticed that science had a personal, social and political context. Imagine that. Mike On Jul 26, 2006, at 10:39 AM, David Breecker wrote: > Kuhn's book (all of it) has had a substantive impact on my overall > intellectual and analytical development (and I'm neither a > scientist nor a > philosopher). I consider it a truly seminal work, and imho well > worth any > thinking person's time. > > And, you get to feel cool because you know where "paradigm shift" > came from > ;-) > > David > > dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc. > www.BreeckerAssociates.com > Abiquiu: 505-685-4891 > Santa Fe: 505-690-2335 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > To: <friam at redfish.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:14 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] kuhn > > >> All -- Everybody should "read" The Structure of Scientific >> Revolutions, >> which is to say, start it and see how far you get before you are >> totally >> bogged down. But, my philosopher friends warn me, that book does not >> contain Kuhn's mature opinion. I am afraid I have never gotten >> beyond his >> immature ones. >> >> "My philosopher friends" also tell me that the two volume >> Encyclopedia of >> Philosophy is the best philosophy crib notes ever, respectable for >> citation, even. >> >> Nick >> 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: 7/25/2006 10:31:21 PM >>> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 46 >>> >>> 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: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? >>> (Carlos Gershenson) >>> 2. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? >>> (Robert Holmes) >>> 3. Is it economics or biology (Tom Johnson) >>> 4. Re: Definition of Complexity (Robert Holmes) >>> 5. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? >>> (Phil Henshaw) >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:56:19 +0200 >>> From: Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at vub.ac.be> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done >>> for us? >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> <friam at redfish.com> >>> Message-ID: <B4A51DC3-01F8-462A-A6E6-61CE2E2361AE at vub.ac.be> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >>> >>> I think this discussion is productive, because it seems it is >>> bringing some light and agreement on "what is complexity and what it >>> is not"... >>> >>>> I didn't form the question well - what I meant was: what can we do >>>> now that we couldn't do 15 years before as a direct consequence of >>>> advances in complexity science? >>> >>> In line with what other people have said, complexity has been >>> invading all sciences. e.g. you cannot do systems biology without >>> taking a complexity stance, but all these advances will be seen as >>> biology or medicine... >>> Same for other disciplines... so maybe the question could be >>> >>> what can we do now that we couldn't do 15 years ago as a consequence >>> of complexity thinking? >>> >>> Then the list I gave earlier would be a valid answer... even if the >>> advances come from physics, biology, engineering, they required >>> ideas >>> from complex systems... >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Carlos Gershenson... >>> Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel >>> Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium >>> http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ >>> >>> ?Tendencies tend to change...? >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/34560ae7/ >> attachment-0001.h >> tml >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:26:53 -0600 >>> From: "Robert Holmes" <robert at holmesacosta.com> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done >>> for us? >>> To: FRIAM <Friam at redfish.com> >>> Message-ID: >>> <857770150607251726o3f75176ek56e6df960cc957ce at mail.gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> I'll be honest, I cheated. I could have gone to the source and >>> read the >>> man's own words, but sometimes it's just easier to read the Cliff >>> notes >> (or >>> equivalent). In this case: >>> >>> http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> On 7/25/06, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Which if Kuhn's books would be good to read? There are apparently >>>> several! >>>> >>>> -- Owen >>>> >>>> Owen Densmore >>>> http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: >>>> >>>>> You beat me to it Mike. I was re-reading Kuhn this morning because >>>>> I'm >>>>> pretty darn sure that complexity science is failing to establish >>>>> itself as a >>>>> paradigm, and I wanted support for this contention from someone a >>>>> whole load >>>>> cleverer than me. I'll report back on my readings... >>>>> >>>>> Just as a starter, Kuhn suggests that a field's history is largely >>>>> represented in the new textbooks that accompany the paradigm >>>>> shift. >>>>> I'm >>>>> thinking that if we don't have the textbooks (see Owen's thread), >>>>> it's hard >>>>> for us to even claim that a new paradigm exists ("there's no there >>>>> there"). >>>>> >>>>> Robert >>>>> >>>>> On 7/24/06, Michael Agar <magar at anth.umd.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, there's the roads, yeah, and then there's the... >>>>>> >>>>>> Romans are the right metaphor, since much of what's happened >>>>>> in the >>>>>> last X years has been diffusion of ideas--ideas, not measures-- >>>>>> into >>>>>> numerous different domains. Like Kuhn said... >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 24, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I really enjoyed Joe's post and it set me thinking - exactly >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> has complexity science achieved? IMHO, one measure of a field's >>>>>>> health is that the field moves forward (radical, huh?). If I >>>>>>> look >>>>>>> at particle physics, they now know stuff that they didn't 15 >>>>>>> years >>>>>>> ago (neutrino mass for example); if I look at high-temperature >>>>>>> superconductivity, Tc moves ever upwards. If I look at string >>>>>>> theory they ask (and occassionally answer) ever more abstruse >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> unlikely questions that might not bear any relation to the real >>>>>>> world but are at least based on what was asked before. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So here's the question: in the field of complexity science, >>>>>>> exactly >>>>>>> what can we do now that we could not do 15 years ago? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert >>>>>>> ============================================================ >>>>>>> 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: >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/8ba86f35/ >> attachment-0001.h >> tml >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:40:29 -0600 >>> From: "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com> >>> Subject: [FRIAM] Is it economics or biology >>> To: "Friam at redfish. com" <friam at redfish.com> >>> Message-ID: >>> <e04090490607251740t5c3970b7i2fffeb537c7f0567 at mail.gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> Of interest to the list, I hope. >>>> From the current issue of The Economist: >>> The Cambrian age of >>> >> economics<http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm? >> story_id=7189617 >>> >>> Evolutionary economics is surviving, but not thriving >>> >>> http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617 >>> >>> -- tj >>> >>> ========================================== >>> J. T. Johnson >>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA >>> www.analyticjournalism.com >>> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) >>> http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.com >>> >>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. >>> To change something, build a new model that makes the >>> existing model obsolete." >>> -- Buckminster >>> Fuller >>> ========================================== >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/1b1906ea/ >> attachment-0001.h >> tml >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 4 >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:46:12 -0600 >>> From: "Robert Holmes" <robert at holmesacosta.com> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity >>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" >>> <friam at redfish.com> >>> Message-ID: >>> <857770150607251746x23932aaahba0d2956f0d10bad at mail.gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> One can certainly start from the partition function. But the >>>> partition >>>> function is something that is additional to the microscopic >>>> description, hence emergent. Indeed, the partition function is >>>> different depending on whether you are using microcanonical, >>>> canonical >>>> or grand canonical ensembles, each of which is a thermodynamic, not >>>> microscopic concept. >>> >>> >>> I'm surprised that you consider the partition function as being "in >>> addition" to the microscopic description. Is this the common view in >>> statistical mechanics? Just to be specific, if I've got a system of >>> distinguishable particles and the energy levels aren't >>> degenerate, the >>> single particle partition function Zsp is given by: >>> >>> Zsp = sum( exp( -ei/k.T ) ) >>> where ei is the energy of the energy level i, the sum is over all >>> i (i.e. >>> over all energy levels), k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the >>> temperature. >>> >>> Now that seems about as microscopic description of a system as >>> you can >> get. >>> Could you explain why it's not please? >>> >>> Thanks for your patience! >>> >>> Robert >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/95bc13de/ >> attachment-0001.h >> tml >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 5 >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:30:59 -0400 >>> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done >>> for us? >>> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" >>> <friam at redfish.com> >>> Message-ID: <002601c6b05b$887c5540$2f01a8c0 at SavyII> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> If you actually wanted an opening to complexity theory that would >>> actually >>> assist government decision making, you'd learn to train computers >>> how to >>> recognize the mathematical difference between homeostatic >>> fluctuation and >>> structural divergence. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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: McNamara, Laura A [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On >>> Behalf Of >>> McNamara, Laura A >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:15 AM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity >>> done for >> us? >>> >>> >>> To follow on Mike's comments: what SFI, NECSI, UCLA, and other >>> hotbeds of >>> complex thinking have in common is some luxury to consider >>> complexity, >>> modeling, and social evolution, to creatively push the >>> application of >>> complex systems studies to culture and society. >>> >>> And here I go on my soapbox (with apologies to those of you >>> who've heard >> me >>> rant about this before): what's disturbing is the number of >>> people in >>> government (go figure) who are touting agent based models and >>> complexity >> as >>> predictive tool and theory, respectively, for making decisions about >>> wickedly complex quagmires in places like... oh, maybe Iraq...? I'm >>> spending the summer studying computational modeling and simulation >>> technologies in the DoD and the level of interest in complexity >>> theory as >>> the holy grail of social theory is both remarkable and >>> worrisome. This >>> being Washington, I've seen more than a few contractors grabbing >>> at DoD >>> money to get that grail up and running, without considering the >>> manifold >>> issues involved. My Sandia colleague, Tim Trucano, and I are >>> gearing up >>> to >>> write about this issue and will likely be at FRIAM quite a bit to >>> toss >> ideas >>> around with y'all. >>> >>> Lurking in the discourse about complexity, computational >>> modeling, and >>> society is epistemological question, I think, that requires us to >>> consider >>> how we use modeling and simulation tools to produce knowledge >>> about the >>> world we live in. In academia, we have a great deal of latitude >>> in the >>> purpose of knowledge-making activities; we're engaged in >>> discovery over >> the >>> long run. Inside the Beltway, it's a different story entirely: >>> they want >>> decision tools, and they want them yesterday. >>> >>> Of course, this begs the question of why common sense is so utterly >>> absent >>> in our nation's fine capitol... >>> >>> Laura >>> >>> >>> _____ >>> >>> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com on behalf of Michael Agar >>> Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 6:49 AM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity >>> done for >> us? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 24, 2006, at 6:51 AM, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But more seriously, which university has a department of complex >>>> systems? Theres the Santa Fe Institute, and possibly NECSI, but >>>> where >>>> else? >>>> >>> >>> SFI and NECSI make room for visiting students at different levels, >>> but neither are degree-granting. In the social realm, >>> UCLA has a new Human Complex Systems institute that is going >>> gangbusters in its first year, but it is undergrad only right now, >>> though the interest there hints that the younger generation is into >>> it already. At NECSI the Portland State University computer science >>> program drew some student attention, since they can cobble together >>> complexity like courses of study. Couple of student emails on the >>> NECSI list pointed to other possibillities, like George Mason >>> University's Center for Social Complexity. Otherwise it seems like >>> academic pockets in various domains. For instance, at NECSI I met a >>> student who works with Reuben McDaniels, prof at the University of >>> Texas biz school, known on the Plexus list for his work applying >>> complexity org development to health care. He works with their >>> Prigogine Center, though I'm not sure what they do. I'm sure there >>> are many other centers and institutes and academic pockets that >>> folks >>> on the list know of as well, and many others in other countries. >>> David Lane's group at Reggio-Modena comes to mind. It's an >>> interesting "shreds and patches" kind of situation that probably >>> reflects the scattered and multi-perspectival nature of the field at >>> the moment that motivated Owen's original email. >>> >>> I've been disappointed that anthro hasn't been more active, though >>> there are some good SFI external faculty examples like Steve Lansing >>> in ecology and Doug White in networks and George Gummerman and Tim >>> Kohler on the ancient Anasazi (a questionable label now, since it is >>> a Navajo term and some Pueblo people object). Shortly before >>> electricity was invented, when I was in grad school, we learned >>> about >>> our "holistic" perspective and the "emergent" nature of our work and >>> how our goal was to learn a new perspective "bottom-up," though that >>> term we didn't use. Sander van der Leeuw, former SFI faculty, took >>> over the department at Arizona State and looks like he's changing >>> things in a complex direction, so maybe it's starting to happen. We >>> never did anything rigorous and general with the concepts in the old >>> days, instead learned them by reading ethnographic case after >>> ethnographic case, like lawyers learn legal reasoning. You'd think >>> the field would notice the parallels. If anyone's interested, >>> Lansing >>> did an overview of complexity for the Annual Review of >>> Anthropology a >>> few years back, and I did a piece in Complexity that complexifies >>> some ethnographic issues (We Have Met the Other and We're All >>> Nonlinear) that's on my web page. >>> >>> And now, for something completely different, this week's Economist >>> has a feature on evolutionary economics: >>> http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617 >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> 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/> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >>> Name: winmail.dat >>> Type: application/ms-tnef >>> Size: 9780 bytes >>> Desc: not available >>> Url : >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/5fe098b1/ >> attachment.bin >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Friam mailing list >>> Friam at redfish.com >>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> >>> >>> End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 46 >>> ************************************* >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 |
|
|
Kuhn paints such a provocative picture, but leaves out the trick for
seeing the new world views that are hidden in sight all around us. Unfortunately, it seems they have to grow on us. I mentioned yesterday, as something to feed the new government fascination with complexity that Laura reported, a methodology that would actually be very useful to them. It wouldn't be too hard to train computers how to recognize the difference between homeostatic fluctuation (self-maintenance behavior of complex systems) and divergence (system structural change). It would be a great start for them partly because it's a cool approachable mathematical puzzle (i.e. when do dots make curves) and would introduce... a p.a.r.a.d.i.g.m. s.h.i.f.t... in government thinking about the physical world. It would give them good mathematical tools to assist in watching what's emerging, so they can see clearly where things are happening in a way that helps expose how to respond. It would produce *better guesswork* because it would really help responders see what they're responding to. I did a little proof several years ago based on the principle of energy conservation, demonstrating that energy flows that begin and end must progress within upper and lower bounds that have the property of exponentials. The finding is that energy conservation requires that all events emerge with all derivatives of the same sign, explosively. Anything new requires growth, as if a way for nature to cheat the rules. (http://www.synapse9.com/ContPrinciple.pdf ...perhaps I should rewrite parts, but I think the math is good). The result falls out in much the same way as the derivation of the derivative, only sort of backwards. It was my way of constructing a global mathematical analysis applying to emergence in generality without making any assumptions regarding the things emerging, just defining the boundaries within which they're certain to be found. When you look to nature to see how this universal principle is expressed you find that it is indeed followed, consistently and beautifully, through mechanisms of developmental process. It provides a view of emergence, projected from one scale of description, that really helps expose the new explanatory models needed on other scales. Learning how to read the growth processes of individual system events is an extremely revealing and useful guide to what's happening. Nope, it's not a theoretical representation... but might lead to some. Still it is probably the first actually useful product of systems theory, and all completely hidden in plain sight. It's been absolutely great fun! Unfortunately there's been no book mostly because there's been even less than no market. There's absolutely nothing going for it except that it works. Gratefully I seem to finally be running into others pushing the same side of the envelope. Maybe giving government an actually useful systems tool would help! Is it too much to ask people to make more of their own observations? What do you think? 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 Michael Agar > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:12 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] kuhn > > > Got to admit I read it a long time ago, though I did see the movie > recently (:. It was part of a new lit in those days, including Winch > and Toulmin, not to mention the then scandalous The Double Helix, > that noticed that science had a personal, social and political > context. Imagine that. > > Mike > > > On Jul 26, 2006, at 10:39 AM, David Breecker wrote: > > > Kuhn's book (all of it) has had a substantive impact on my overall > > intellectual and analytical development (and I'm neither a > > scientist nor a > > philosopher). I consider it a truly seminal work, and imho well > > worth any > > thinking person's time. > > > > And, you get to feel cool because you know where "paradigm shift" > > came from > > ;-) > > > > David > > > > dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc. www.BreeckerAssociates.com > > Abiquiu: 505-685-4891 > > Santa Fe: 505-690-2335 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > > To: <friam at redfish.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:14 AM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] kuhn > > > > > >> All -- Everybody should "read" The Structure of Scientific > >> Revolutions, > >> which is to say, start it and see how far you get before you are > >> totally > >> bogged down. But, my philosopher friends warn me, that > book does not > >> contain Kuhn's mature opinion. I am afraid I have never gotten > >> beyond his > >> immature ones. > >> > >> "My philosopher friends" also tell me that the two volume > >> Encyclopedia of > >> Philosophy is the best philosophy crib notes ever, respectable for > >> citation, even. > >> > >> Nick > >> 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: 7/25/2006 10:31:21 PM > >>> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 46 > >>> > >>> 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: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? > >>> (Carlos Gershenson) > >>> 2. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? > >>> (Robert Holmes) > >>> 3. Is it economics or biology (Tom Johnson) > >>> 4. Re: Definition of Complexity (Robert Holmes) > >>> 5. Re: What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? > >>> (Phil Henshaw) > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Message: 1 > >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:56:19 +0200 > >>> From: Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at vub.ac.be> > >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - > complexity done > >>> for us? > >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > >>> <friam at redfish.com> > >>> Message-ID: <B4A51DC3-01F8-462A-A6E6-61CE2E2361AE at vub.ac.be> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > >>> > >>> I think this discussion is productive, because it seems it is > >>> bringing some light and agreement on "what is complexity > and what it > >>> is not"... > >>> > >>>> I didn't form the question well - what I meant was: what > can we do > >>>> now that we couldn't do 15 years before as a direct > consequence of > >>>> advances in complexity science? > >>> > >>> In line with what other people have said, complexity has been > >>> invading all sciences. e.g. you cannot do systems biology without > >>> taking a complexity stance, but all these advances will be seen as > >>> biology or medicine... > >>> Same for other disciplines... so maybe the question could be > >>> > >>> what can we do now that we couldn't do 15 years ago as a > consequence > >>> of complexity thinking? > >>> > >>> Then the list I gave earlier would be a valid answer... > even if the > >>> advances come from physics, biology, engineering, they required > >>> ideas > >>> from complex systems... > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Carlos Gershenson... > >>> Centrum Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel > >>> Krijgskundestraat 33. B-1160 Brussels, Belgium > >>> http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~cgershen/ > >>> > >>> ?Tendencies tend to change...? > >>> > >>> > >>> -------------- next part -------------- > >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >>> URL: > >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/34560ae7/ > >> attachment-0001.h > >> tml > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 2 > >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:26:53 -0600 > >>> From: "Robert Holmes" <robert at holmesacosta.com> > >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - > complexity done > >>> for us? > >>> To: FRIAM <Friam at redfish.com> > >>> Message-ID: > >>> <857770150607251726o3f75176ek56e6df960cc957ce at mail.gmail.com> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >>> > >>> I'll be honest, I cheated. I could have gone to the source and > >>> read the > >>> man's own words, but sometimes it's just easier to read > the Cliff > >>> notes > >> (or > >>> equivalent). In this case: > >>> > >>> http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html > >>> > >>> Robert > >>> > >>> On 7/25/06, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Which if Kuhn's books would be good to read? There are > apparently > >>>> several! > >>>> > >>>> -- Owen > >>>> > >>>> Owen Densmore > >>>> http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jul 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> You beat me to it Mike. I was re-reading Kuhn this > morning because > >>>>> I'm > >>>>> pretty darn sure that complexity science is failing to establish > >>>>> itself as a > >>>>> paradigm, and I wanted support for this contention from > someone a > >>>>> whole load > >>>>> cleverer than me. I'll report back on my readings... > >>>>> > >>>>> Just as a starter, Kuhn suggests that a field's history > is largely > >>>>> represented in the new textbooks that accompany the paradigm > >>>>> shift. > >>>>> I'm > >>>>> thinking that if we don't have the textbooks (see > Owen's thread), > >>>>> it's hard > >>>>> for us to even claim that a new paradigm exists > ("there's no there > >>>>> there"). > >>>>> > >>>>> Robert > >>>>> > >>>>> On 7/24/06, Michael Agar <magar at anth.umd.edu> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, there's the roads, yeah, and then there's the... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Romans are the right metaphor, since much of what's happened > >>>>>> in the > >>>>>> last X years has been diffusion of ideas--ideas, not > measures-- > >>>>>> into > >>>>>> numerous different domains. Like Kuhn said... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mike > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jul 24, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I really enjoyed Joe's post and it set me thinking - exactly > >>>>>>> what > >>>>>>> has complexity science achieved? IMHO, one measure of > a field's > >>>>>>> health is that the field moves forward (radical, huh?). If I > >>>>>>> look > >>>>>>> at particle physics, they now know stuff that they didn't 15 > >>>>>>> years > >>>>>>> ago (neutrino mass for example); if I look at high-temperature > >>>>>>> superconductivity, Tc moves ever upwards. If I look at string > >>>>>>> theory they ask (and occassionally answer) ever more > abstruse > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> unlikely questions that might not bear any relation > to the real > >>>>>>> world but are at least based on what was asked before. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So here's the question: in the field of complexity science, > >>>>>>> exactly > >>>>>>> what can we do now that we could not do 15 years ago? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Robert > >>>>>>> ============================================================ > >>>>>>> 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: > >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/8ba86f35/ > >> attachment-0001.h > >> tml > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 3 > >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:40:29 -0600 > >>> From: "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com> > >>> Subject: [FRIAM] Is it economics or biology > >>> To: "Friam at redfish. com" <friam at redfish.com> > >>> Message-ID: > >>> <e04090490607251740t5c3970b7i2fffeb537c7f0567 at mail.gmail.com> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >>> > >>> Of interest to the list, I hope. > >>>> From the current issue of The Economist: > >>> The Cambrian age of > >>> > >> economics<http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm? > >> story_id=7189617 > >>> > >>> Evolutionary economics is surviving, but not thriving > >>> > >>> http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617 > >>> > >>> -- tj > >>> > >>> ========================================== > >>> J. T. Johnson > >>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA > >>> www.analyticjournalism.com > >>> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) > >>> http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.com > >>> > >>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. > >>> To change something, build a new model that makes the > >>> existing model obsolete." > >>> -- > Buckminster > >>> Fuller > >>> ========================================== > >>> -------------- next part -------------- > >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >>> URL: > >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/1b1906ea/ > >> attachment-0001.h > >> tml > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 4 > >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:46:12 -0600 > >>> From: "Robert Holmes" <robert at holmesacosta.com> > >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity > >>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > >>> <friam at redfish.com> > >>> Message-ID: > >>> <857770150607251746x23932aaahba0d2956f0d10bad at mail.gmail.com> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> One can certainly start from the partition function. But the > >>>> partition > >>>> function is something that is additional to the microscopic > >>>> description, hence emergent. Indeed, the partition function is > >>>> different depending on whether you are using microcanonical, > >>>> canonical > >>>> or grand canonical ensembles, each of which is a > thermodynamic, not > >>>> microscopic concept. > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm surprised that you consider the partition function as > being "in > >>> addition" to the microscopic description. Is this the > common view in > >>> statistical mechanics? Just to be specific, if I've got a > system of > >>> distinguishable particles and the energy levels aren't > >>> degenerate, the > >>> single particle partition function Zsp is given by: > >>> > >>> Zsp = sum( exp( -ei/k.T ) ) > >>> where ei is the energy of the energy level i, the sum is > over all > >>> i (i.e. > >>> over all energy levels), k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the > >>> temperature. > >>> > >>> Now that seems about as microscopic description of a system as > >>> you can > >> get. > >>> Could you explain why it's not please? > >>> > >>> Thanks for your patience! > >>> > >>> Robert > >>> -------------- next part -------------- > >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >>> URL: > >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/95bc13de/ > >> attachment-0001.h > >> tml > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 5 > >>> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:30:59 -0400 > >>> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> > >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - > complexity done > >>> for us? > >>> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > >>> <friam at redfish.com> > >>> Message-ID: <002601c6b05b$887c5540$2f01a8c0 at SavyII> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >>> > >>> If you actually wanted an opening to complexity theory that would > >>> actually > >>> assist government decision making, you'd learn to train > computers > >>> how to > >>> recognize the mathematical difference between homeostatic > >>> fluctuation and > >>> structural divergence. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 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: McNamara, Laura A [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > >>> Behalf Of > >>> McNamara, Laura A > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:15 AM > >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > >>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity > >>> done for > >> us? > >>> > >>> > >>> To follow on Mike's comments: what SFI, NECSI, UCLA, and other > >>> hotbeds of > >>> complex thinking have in common is some luxury to consider > >>> complexity, > >>> modeling, and social evolution, to creatively push the > >>> application of > >>> complex systems studies to culture and society. > >>> > >>> And here I go on my soapbox (with apologies to those of you > >>> who've heard > >> me > >>> rant about this before): what's disturbing is the number of > >>> people in > >>> government (go figure) who are touting agent based models and > >>> complexity > >> as > >>> predictive tool and theory, respectively, for making > decisions about > >>> wickedly complex quagmires in places like... oh, maybe > Iraq...? I'm > >>> spending the summer studying computational modeling and simulation > >>> technologies in the DoD and the level of interest in complexity > >>> theory as > >>> the holy grail of social theory is both remarkable and > >>> worrisome. This > >>> being Washington, I've seen more than a few contractors grabbing > >>> at DoD > >>> money to get that grail up and running, without considering the > >>> manifold > >>> issues involved. My Sandia colleague, Tim Trucano, and I are > >>> gearing up > >>> to > >>> write about this issue and will likely be at FRIAM quite > a bit to > >>> toss > >> ideas > >>> around with y'all. > >>> > >>> Lurking in the discourse about complexity, computational > >>> modeling, and > >>> society is epistemological question, I think, that requires us to > >>> consider > >>> how we use modeling and simulation tools to produce knowledge > >>> about the > >>> world we live in. In academia, we have a great deal of > latitude > >>> in the > >>> purpose of knowledge-making activities; we're engaged in > >>> discovery over > >> the > >>> long run. Inside the Beltway, it's a different story entirely: > >>> they want > >>> decision tools, and they want them yesterday. > >>> > >>> Of course, this begs the question of why common sense is > so utterly > >>> absent > >>> in our nation's fine capitol... > >>> > >>> Laura > >>> > >>> > >>> _____ > >>> > >>> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com on behalf of Michael Agar > >>> Sent: Tue 7/25/2006 6:49 AM > >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity > >>> done for > >> us? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jul 24, 2006, at 6:51 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> But more seriously, which university has a department of complex > >>>> systems? Theres the Santa Fe Institute, and possibly NECSI, but > >>>> where > >>>> else? > >>>> > >>> > >>> SFI and NECSI make room for visiting students at different levels, > >>> but neither are degree-granting. In the social realm, > >>> UCLA has a new Human Complex Systems institute that is going > >>> gangbusters in its first year, but it is undergrad only right now, > >>> though the interest there hints that the younger > generation is into > >>> it already. At NECSI the Portland State University > computer science > >>> program drew some student attention, since they can > cobble together > >>> complexity like courses of study. Couple of student emails on the > >>> NECSI list pointed to other possibillities, like George Mason > >>> University's Center for Social Complexity. Otherwise it seems like > >>> academic pockets in various domains. For instance, at > NECSI I met a > >>> student who works with Reuben McDaniels, prof at the University of > >>> Texas biz school, known on the Plexus list for his work applying > >>> complexity org development to health care. He works with their > >>> Prigogine Center, though I'm not sure what they do. I'm sure there > >>> are many other centers and institutes and academic pockets that > >>> folks > >>> on the list know of as well, and many others in other countries. > >>> David Lane's group at Reggio-Modena comes to mind. It's an > >>> interesting "shreds and patches" kind of situation that probably > >>> reflects the scattered and multi-perspectival nature of > the field at > >>> the moment that motivated Owen's original email. > >>> > >>> I've been disappointed that anthro hasn't been more active, though > >>> there are some good SFI external faculty examples like > Steve Lansing > >>> in ecology and Doug White in networks and George Gummerman and Tim > >>> Kohler on the ancient Anasazi (a questionable label now, > since it is > >>> a Navajo term and some Pueblo people object). Shortly before > >>> electricity was invented, when I was in grad school, we learned > >>> about > >>> our "holistic" perspective and the "emergent" nature of > our work and > >>> how our goal was to learn a new perspective "bottom-up," > though that > >>> term we didn't use. Sander van der Leeuw, former SFI faculty, took > >>> over the department at Arizona State and looks like he's changing > >>> things in a complex direction, so maybe it's starting to > happen. We > >>> never did anything rigorous and general with the concepts > in the old > >>> days, instead learned them by reading ethnographic case after > >>> ethnographic case, like lawyers learn legal reasoning. You'd think > >>> the field would notice the parallels. If anyone's interested, > >>> Lansing > >>> did an overview of complexity for the Annual Review of > >>> Anthropology a > >>> few years back, and I did a piece in Complexity that complexifies > >>> some ethnographic issues (We Have Met the Other and We're All > >>> Nonlinear) that's on my web page. > >>> > >>> And now, for something completely different, this week's Economist > >>> has a feature on evolutionary economics: > >>> http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7189617 > >>> > >>> Mike > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ============================================================ > >>> 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/> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -------------- next part -------------- > >>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > >>> Name: winmail.dat > >>> Type: application/ms-tnef > >>> Size: 9780 bytes > >>> Desc: not available > >>> Url : > >> /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060725/5fe098b1/ > >> attachment.bin > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Friam mailing list > >>> Friam at redfish.com > >>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > >>> > >>> > >>> End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 46 > >>> ************************************* > >> > >> > >> > >> ============================================================ > >> 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 > > |
how can you tell if something is new?
|
|
...or whether anything begins or ends, in contrast to events just being a continuous dynamically variable stream of flows? It's sort of the same question as in evolution, whether there are species that resist selective pressures and occasionally change by some other process, or just complex forms continuously varying under shifting selective pressures. How can you tell one from the other? Is change a fact or just a matter of perception? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |