quick question
Locked
1234
1234
 
|
On a recent friday, as part of my worrying about emergence, I was trying to find out what sort of language wise people use when they explain the greater resistance of triangles to compression. it seemed to me that that example provided all the complexity we needed for a thorough-going discussion of emergence. So if I could learn how wise people talked about it, perhaps I could learn how to talk about emergence in general.
In what field, I wonder, do they discuss the greater strength of some configurations of members vis -a vis others. SOMEBODY offered me the answer to that question, but I have forgotten what the answer was. Some sort of mechanics .... elementary? Can anybody remember or provide the information again? Why are triangles strong?
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
============================================================ 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 |
|
|
What if triangles aren't always strong via compression, or don't need to
be in the same way, in larger structures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensegrity ...though I think you were thinking of Space Frames - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_frame Triangles are 'strong' in the sense they provide a structure for transferring compression AND tension vis-a-vis some more complex and/or regular structure. As Freud might famously have said, sometimes a triangle is just a triangle. Carl Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > On a recent friday, as part of my worrying about emergence, I was > trying to find out what sort of language wise people use when they > explain the greater resistance of triangles to compression. it > seemed to me that that example provided all the complexity we needed > for a thorough-going discussion of emergence. So if I could learn > how wise people talked about it, perhaps I could learn how to talk > about emergence in general. > > In what field, I wonder, do they discuss the greater strength of some > configurations of members vis -a vis others. SOMEBODY offered me the > answer to that question, but I have forgotten what the answer was. > Some sort of mechanics .... elementary? Can anybody remember or > provide the information again? Why are triangles strong? > > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
I would think they would use the language of mathematics, and I'm not sure how it would contribute to an understanding of emergence. Others whose knowledge of geometry is fresher than mine could explain it better, but basically, once the length of the sides of a triangle is fixed, by driving a nail or a bolt through the corners, for instance, then there is only one set of internal angles that are possible for those lengths, so the shape of the triangle can't be changed without breaking the connections at the corners. For a quadrilateral, though, the size of pairs of internal angles can be changed so that as one angle grows larger, the adjacent one grows smaller, preserving the total of 360 degrees; therefore a quadrilateral can be smushed (technical term) as long as the connections at the corners can be made to flex, without having to change the lengths of the sides.
js On Jun 6, 2009, at 11:57 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Its an application of basic geometry.
If the struts of the triangle are made of materials that do not stretch, compress, or flex (outside of acceptable parameters for the construction in question), then the triangle is *stable*--even if the joints are frictionless pivots. This is essentially because the struts hold their opposing joints at fixed angles--something no other 2d arrangement does. So, I guess you could say that the stability of a triangle is an emergent property of the geometry. Then again, I"m not a wise man. ~~James On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Nicholas Thompson<[hidden email]> wrote: > On a recent friday, as part of my worrying about emergence, I was trying to > find out what sort of language wise people use when they explain the greater > resistance of triangles to compression. it seemed to me that that example > provided all the complexity we needed for a thorough-going discussion of > emergence. So if I could learn how wise people talked about it, perhaps I > could learn how to talk about emergence in general. > > In what field, I wonder, do they discuss the greater strength of some > configurations of members vis -a vis others. SOMEBODY offered me the answer > to that question, but I have forgotten what the answer was. Some sort of > mechanics .... elementary? Can anybody remember or provide the information > again? Why are triangles strong? > > > Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
John
Forgive what is going to seem like an odd response. I keep wanting people to give me an account in terms of FORCES. So, it is not for me, who is seeking advice on an explanation, to dictate what SORT of an explanation is satisfactory. However, explanations like the the one you kindly offered seem to my warped mind to be almost circular: a triangle is strong because it has no choice but to be strong.
The reason I am pondering this is because, remember, of its connection to emergence. What is the relationship between teh strength of a triangle and the strength of its parts. Well, on our example, a triangle made out of weak wood and weak bolts is a weak triangle. Thus, the strength of a triangle supervenes upon the strength of its components.
But surely we cannot reduce the strength of a triangle to the strength of its parts because the strength of a triangle depends on the ARRANGEMENT of those parts. And arrangement is not a property of any of the parts.
[sigh]
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
James,
Your explanation is in terms of the arrangement of the parts... arrangement and connection, if you will. Am I correct? Would you characterize that explanation as a reductive one? This is not a trick question. I genuinely want to know. And should one speak of downward causation here? Is triangularity CAUSING immobility of the joints? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: James Steiner <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]> > Date: 6/7/2009 8:40:24 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quick question > > Its an application of basic geometry. > > If the struts of the triangle are made of materials that do not > stretch, compress, or flex (outside of acceptable parameters for the > construction in question), then the triangle is *stable*--even if the > joints are frictionless pivots. This is essentially because the struts > hold their opposing joints at fixed angles--something no other 2d > arrangement does. > > So, I guess you could say that the stability of a triangle is an > emergent property of the geometry. > > Then again, I"m not a wise man. > > ~~James > > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Nicholas > Thompson<[hidden email]> wrote: > > On a recent friday, as part of my worrying about emergence, I was > > find out what sort of language wise people use when they explain the > > resistance of triangles to compression. it seemed to me that that example > > provided all the complexity we needed for a thorough-going discussion of > > emergence. So if I could learn how wise people talked about it, perhaps I > > could learn how to talk about emergence in general. > > > > In what field, I wonder, do they discuss the greater strength of some > > configurations of members vis -a vis others. SOMEBODY offered me the answer > > to that question, but I have forgotten what the answer was. Some sort of > > mechanics .... elementary? Can anybody remember or provide the information > > again? Why are triangles strong? > > > > > > Nick > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
>
> In what field, I wonder, do they discuss the greater strength of > some configurations of members vis -a vis others. SOMEBODY offered > me the answer to that question, but I have forgotten what the answer > was. Some sort of mechanics .... elementary? Can anybody remember > or provide the information again? Why are triangles strong? I wasn't in the conversation that FRIAM, but I suspect someone mentioned the study of Statics and Dynamics in Mechanics. Or where the statics bit is sometimes called solid mechanics. Here's an MIT opencourseware: http://mit.sustech.edu/OcwWeb/Civil-and-Environmental-Engineering/1-050Fall-2004/CourseHome/index.htm Course description: 1.050 is a sophomore-level engineering mechanics course, commonly labelled "Statics and Strength of Materials" or "Solid Mechanics I." This course introduces students to the fundamental principles and methods of structural mechanics. Topics covered include: static equilibrium, force resultants, support conditions, analysis of determinate planar structures (beams, trusses, frames), stresses and strains in structural elements, states of stress (shear, bending, torsion), statically indeterminate systems, displacements and deformations, introduction to matrix methods, elastic stability, and approximate methods. Design exercises are used to encourage creative student initiative and systems thinking. --- -. . ..-. .. ... .... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... .... [hidden email] (m) 505.577.5828 (o) 505.995.0206 redfish.com _ sfcomplex.org _ simtable.com _ lava3d.com On Jun 7, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > John > > Forgive what is going to seem like an odd response. I keep wanting > people to give me an account in terms of FORCES. So, it is not for > me, who is seeking advice on an explanation, to dictate what SORT of > an explanation is satisfactory. However, explanations like the the > one you kindly offered seem to my warped mind to be almost > circular: a triangle is strong because it has no choice but to be > strong. > > The reason I am pondering this is because, remember, of its > connection to emergence. What is the relationship between teh > strength of a triangle and the strength of its parts. Well, on our > example, a triangle made out of weak wood and weak bolts is a weak > triangle. Thus, the strength of a triangle supervenes upon the > strength of its components. > > But surely we cannot reduce the strength of a triangle to the > strength of its parts because the strength of a triangle depends on > the ARRANGEMENT of those parts. And arrangement is not a property > of any of the parts. > > [sigh] > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Sadd > To: [hidden email];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group > Sent: 6/7/2009 5:37:06 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quick question > > I would think they would use the language of mathematics, and I'm > not sure how it would contribute to an understanding of emergence. > Others whose knowledge of geometry is fresher than mine could > explain it better, but basically, once the length of the sides of a > triangle is fixed, by driving a nail or a bolt through the corners, > for instance, then there is only one set of internal angles that are > possible for those lengths, so the shape of the triangle can't be > changed without breaking the connections at the corners. For a > quadrilateral, though, the size of pairs of internal angles can be > changed so that as one angle grows larger, the adjacent one grows > smaller, preserving the total of 360 degrees; therefore a > quadrilateral can be smushed (technical term) as long as the > connections at the corners can be made to flex, without having to > change the lengths of the sides. > > js > > On Jun 6, 2009, at 11:57 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > >> >> On a recent friday, as part of my worrying about emergence, I was >> trying to find out what sort of language wise people use when they >> explain the greater resistance of triangles to compression. it >> seemed to me that that example provided all the complexity we >> needed for a thorough-going discussion of emergence. So if I could >> learn how wise people talked about it, perhaps I could learn how >> to talk about emergence in general. >> >> In what field, I wonder, do they discuss the greater strength of >> some configurations of members vis -a vis others. SOMEBODY offered >> me the answer to that question, but I have forgotten what the >> answer was. Some sort of mechanics .... elementary? Can anybody >> remember or provide the information again? Why are triangles strong? >> >> >> Nick >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >> Clark University ([hidden email]) >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
STATICS!
That was it! Thank you steve. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 6/7/2009 10:14:22 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quick question > > > > > In what field, I wonder, do they discuss the greater strength of > > some configurations of members vis -a vis others. SOMEBODY offered > > me the answer to that question, but I have forgotten what the answer > > was. Some sort of mechanics .... elementary? Can anybody remember > > or provide the information again? Why are triangles strong? > > I wasn't in the conversation that FRIAM, but I suspect someone > mentioned the study of Statics and Dynamics in Mechanics. Or where the > statics bit is sometimes called solid mechanics. Here's an MIT > opencourseware: > 2004/CourseHome/index.htm > Course description: 1.050 is a sophomore-level engineering > mechanics course, commonly labelled "Statics and Strength of > Materials" or "Solid Mechanics I." This course introduces students to > the fundamental principles and methods of structural mechanics. Topics > covered include: static equilibrium, force resultants, support > conditions, analysis of determinate planar structures (beams, trusses, > frames), stresses and strains in structural elements, states of stress > (shear, bending, torsion), statically indeterminate systems, > displacements and deformations, introduction to matrix methods, > elastic stability, and approximate methods. Design exercises are used > to encourage creative student initiative and systems thinking. > > --- -. . ..-. .. ... .... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... .... > [hidden email] > (m) 505.577.5828 (o) 505.995.0206 > redfish.com _ sfcomplex.org _ simtable.com _ lava3d.com > > > > > > > > > On Jun 7, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > John > > > > Forgive what is going to seem like an odd response. I keep wanting > > people to give me an account in terms of FORCES. So, it is not for > > me, who is seeking advice on an explanation, to dictate what SORT of > > an explanation is satisfactory. However, explanations like the the > > one you kindly offered seem to my warped mind to be almost > > circular: a triangle is strong because it has no choice but to be > > strong. > > > > The reason I am pondering this is because, remember, of its > > connection to emergence. What is the relationship between teh > > strength of a triangle and the strength of its parts. Well, on our > > example, a triangle made out of weak wood and weak bolts is a weak > > triangle. Thus, the strength of a triangle supervenes upon the > > strength of its components. > > > > But surely we cannot reduce the strength of a triangle to the > > strength of its parts because the strength of a triangle depends on > > the ARRANGEMENT of those parts. And arrangement is not a property > > of any of the parts. > > > > [sigh] > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > Clark University ([hidden email]) > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: John Sadd > > To: [hidden email];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > > Coffee Group > > Sent: 6/7/2009 5:37:06 AM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quick question > > > > I would think they would use the language of mathematics, and I'm > > not sure how it would contribute to an understanding of emergence. > > Others whose knowledge of geometry is fresher than mine could > > explain it better, but basically, once the length of the sides of a > > triangle is fixed, by driving a nail or a bolt through the corners, > > for instance, then there is only one set of internal angles that are > > possible for those lengths, so the shape of the triangle can't be > > changed without breaking the connections at the corners. For a > > quadrilateral, though, the size of pairs of internal angles can be > > changed so that as one angle grows larger, the adjacent one grows > > smaller, preserving the total of 360 degrees; therefore a > > quadrilateral can be smushed (technical term) as long as the > > connections at the corners can be made to flex, without having to > > change the lengths of the sides. > > > > js > > > > On Jun 6, 2009, at 11:57 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > >> > >> On a recent friday, as part of my worrying about emergence, I was > >> trying to find out what sort of language wise people use when they > >> explain the greater resistance of triangles to compression. it > >> seemed to me that that example provided all the complexity we > >> needed for a thorough-going discussion of emergence. So if I could > >> learn how wise people talked about it, perhaps I could learn how > >> to talk about emergence in general. > >> > >> In what field, I wonder, do they discuss the greater strength of > >> some configurations of members vis -a vis others. SOMEBODY offered > >> me the answer to that question, but I have forgotten what the > >> answer was. Some sort of mechanics .... elementary? Can anybody > >> remember or provide the information again? Why are triangles strong? > >> > >> > >> Nick > >> > >> Nicholas S. Thompson > >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > >> Clark University ([hidden email]) > >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ============================================================ > >> 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 |
Tolerancing was: Quick Question (about Triangles)
|
|
In reply to this post by James Steiner
James Steiner wrote:
> Its an application of basic geometry. > > If the struts of the triangle are made of materials that do not > stretch, compress, or flex (outside of acceptable parameters for the > construction in question), then the triangle is *stable*--even if the > joints are frictionless pivots. This is essentially because the struts > hold their opposing joints at fixed angles--something no other 2d > arrangement does. > > So, I guess you could say that the stability of a triangle is an > emergent property of the geometry. > > Then again, I"m not a wise man. > > Nicely succinct. I sent a much more elaborate version of this to Nick privately. But there is a point I want to make publicly: Aggregate or Composite properties is not equivalent to Emergence. Sadly, defining Emergence (or Complexity or ...) is a bit like defining Art. I have a wonderful collection of "ingenious mechanisms for inventors" from the Industrial Age with wonderful collections of levers and wheels and gears and cams and rivet patterns. Within those mechanism are hidden a number of triangles and quadrilaterals whose properties of rigidity and limited degrees of freedom are exploited to practical ends. All of these have wonderful collective properties, but none of which I would call "Emergent". The key (upon reflection) to what I insist on to call something "Emergent" is nonlinearity. These rigid-body structures all have linear properties. If you draw a phase-space diagram, there will be nothing but a series of well-defined lines (or areas) describing the paths of the components through space-time. I suspect (but can't muster the intellectual will to prove or even illustrate it) that if we add the art and science of tolerances to the discussion, that some emergent properties might come in to play. That a well-toleranced mechanism, under repeated use, friction, and wear, will settle into an attractor... that this is what tolerancing is about. I postulate that a mechanism designed without tolerancing is poised on a ridge between basins of attraction and that such mechanisms "wear out" by falling off that ridge and undergoing accelerated wear and eventually catastrophic failure. In a properly toleranced mechanism, we are already, by design starting out in the middle of a (specifically and well-designed) basin of attraction and the natural wear of the mechanism will simply cause it to wander around within that basin. Perhaps, in the words of Nick, there are "wise men" here who can speak to this more eloquently? Does anyone know of such a study on tolerancing and nonlinear dynamics? - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephen Guerin
Nick,
Since you are looking for emergence, you don't expect to get a complete explanation of the strength of a triangle in terms of the strength of its parts. Part of the strength of the triangle has to do with how the parts are structured with respect to each other. I suspect that no matter how an explanation of that structure produces strength, what you really care about is that the structure is part of the explanation. (This is similar to how a flock "emerges" from its boid elements as a result of how the individual boids relate to each other.) With respect to supervenience, that holds only because the collection of elements is static. If it were dyanmic and could change with time, there wouldn't be supervenience. At any moment various properties of FRIAM supervene over its members. But the set of members changes even though FRIAM as an entity persists. Supervience doesn't hold over time. -- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles o Check out my blog at http://bluecatblog.wordpress.com/ On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick -
> But surely we cannot reduce the strength of a triangle to the strength > of its parts because the strength of a triangle depends on the > ARRANGEMENT of those parts. And arrangement is not a property of any > of the parts. after my missive on Tolerancing and my claim that "Emergence" requires "nonlinearity", I have to take a pause and accept that you may be correct that the example of a triangle and it's strength might be described as emergent. I hope that a "wise person" will weigh in here. I have to admit to being left wavering and curious on this one. Good question Nick. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Steve,
I think "wavering and curious" is the only sane way to be! N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Steve Smith <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 6/7/2009 10:25:43 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quick question > > Nick - > > But surely we cannot reduce the strength of a triangle to the strength > > of its parts because the strength of a triangle depends on the > > ARRANGEMENT of those parts. And arrangement is not a property of any > > of the parts. > after my missive on Tolerancing and my claim that "Emergence" requires > "nonlinearity", I have to take a pause and accept that you may be > correct that the example of a triangle and it's strength might be > described as emergent. > > I hope that a "wise person" will weigh in here. I have to admit to > being left wavering and curious on this one. > > Good question Nick. > > - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
I have to admit, I've just reached the limit of my competence. I don't
know what it means for an explanation to be reductive. I'll have to go read something about that--my lack of formal education is exposed. A triangle (made of parts) is the name for a particular arrangement of parts. If you arrange the parts differently, it isn't a triangle anymore. That arrangement of parts has the property of being self-supporting. So, yes, in my experience, triangularity causes rigidity that, say, square-ity does not. Also, note that the whole discussion of triangles being sturdy only applies to hollow triangles, e.g. struts and joints. If the non-triangle is solid, then discussions about stiffness or rigidity as compared to solid triangles becomes irrelevant--physically/mechanically speaking, the play of forces is different. Distortion of the angles is less a problem, buckling becomes an issue. ~~James On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Nicholas Thompson<[hidden email]> wrote: > James, > > Your explanation is in terms of the arrangement of the parts... arrangement > and connection, if you will. Am I correct? > > Would you characterize that explanation as a reductive one? This is not a > trick question. I genuinely want to know. > > And should one speak of downward causation here? Is triangularity CAUSING > immobility of the joints? > > Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Re ongoing conversations about emergent phenomena:
for the purposes of discussions here+the discuss list: Is 'non-linearity' an acceptable descriptor? And out of curiousity how would you plot a linear progression of attributes that includes 'triangleness'? What elements would you be graphing? Tory On Jun 7, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > Nick - >> But surely we cannot reduce the strength of a triangle to the >> strength of its parts because the strength of a triangle depends on >> the ARRANGEMENT of those parts. And arrangement is not a property >> of any of the parts. > after my missive on Tolerancing and my claim that "Emergence" > requires "nonlinearity", I have to take a pause and accept that you > may be correct that the example of a triangle and it's strength > might be described as emergent. > > I hope that a "wise person" will weigh in here. I have to admit to > being left wavering and curious on this one. > > Good question Nick. > > - Steve > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
I suppose that if, one were to show resistance to compression by number of sides of an open polygon one would show a non linear function. I have never been thrilled by the linearity criterion because transformation can usually get rid of it. So something that is emergent on a ordinary plot becomes non-emergent on a log plot.
Sorry again to be so short; no disrespect, just hatred for the keyboard I am working on. N -----Original Message----- >From: Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]> >Sent: Jun 8, 2009 12:26 PM >To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quick question > >Re ongoing conversations about emergent phenomena: >for the purposes of discussions here+the discuss list: > Is 'non-linearity' an acceptable descriptor? > >And out of curiousity how would you plot a linear progression of >attributes that includes 'triangleness'? What elements would you be >graphing? > >Tory > >On Jun 7, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > >> Nick - >>> But surely we cannot reduce the strength of a triangle to the >>> strength of its parts because the strength of a triangle depends on >>> the ARRANGEMENT of those parts. And arrangement is not a property >>> of any of the parts. >> after my missive on Tolerancing and my claim that "Emergence" >> requires "nonlinearity", I have to take a pause and accept that you >> may be correct that the example of a triangle and it's strength >> might be described as emergent. >> >> I hope that a "wise person" will weigh in here. I have to admit to >> being left wavering and curious on this one. >> >> Good question Nick. >> >> - Steve >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 PS --Please if using the address [hidden email] to reply, cc your message to [hidden email]. Thanks. ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Bad keyboard. Go to yer room.
So what criteria or descriptors would you use to identify 'true' emergence? Tory On Jun 9, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I suppose that if, one were to show resistance to compression by > number of sides of an open polygon one would show a non linear > function. I have never been thrilled by the linearity criterion > because transformation can usually get rid of it. So something that > is emergent on a ordinary plot becomes non-emergent on a log plot. > > Sorry again to be so short; no disrespect, just hatred for the > keyboard I am working on. > > N > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]> >> Sent: Jun 8, 2009 12:26 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email] >> > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quick question >> >> Re ongoing conversations about emergent phenomena: >> for the purposes of discussions here+the discuss list: >> Is 'non-linearity' an acceptable descriptor? >> >> And out of curiousity how would you plot a linear progression of >> attributes that includes 'triangleness'? What elements would you be >> graphing? >> >> Tory >> >> On Jun 7, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> >>> Nick - >>>> But surely we cannot reduce the strength of a triangle to the >>>> strength of its parts because the strength of a triangle depends on >>>> the ARRANGEMENT of those parts. And arrangement is not a property >>>> of any of the parts. >>> after my missive on Tolerancing and my claim that "Emergence" >>> requires "nonlinearity", I have to take a pause and accept that you >>> may be correct that the example of a triangle and it's strength >>> might be described as emergent. >>> >>> I hope that a "wise person" will weigh in here. I have to admit to >>> being left wavering and curious on this one. >>> >>> Good question Nick. >>> >>> - Steve >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> 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 > > > PS --Please if using the address [hidden email] to > reply, cc your message to [hidden email]. Thanks. > > ============================================================ > 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 |
Re: Tolerancing was: Quick Question (about Triangles)
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Actually, I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't express it that well. Thanks, Steve ... I like the connection to the strange attractors. That captures the idea, I think, better than what I was going to attempt. And it's more satisfying than saying, "Well, it doesn't feel like an emergent property."
-Ted
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: James Steiner wrote: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Victoria Hughes
I think the difficulty of the "triangle as emergence" problem is trying to imagine an situation where the "agents" (individual edges of a triangle) combine and re-combine in different configurations. But if they do, and if the environment selects structures based on strength, then I can see that the triangle (or pyramid, in 3 dimensions) is a "basin of attraction" that would emerge from this environment.
In my mind, homogeneity is important ... although I prefer the phrase "self-similar," as the agents don't have to be completely the same ... they just have to be close to each other in their attributes that relate to the emergent property.
It's a good thought experiment, though. Thanks. -Ted
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote: Bad keyboard. Go to yer room. ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Ted Carmichael wrote:
> I think the difficulty of the "triangle as emergence" problem is > trying to imagine an situation where the "agents" (individual edges of > a triangle) combine and re-combine in different configurations. But > if they do, and if the environment selects structures based on > strength, then I can see that the triangle (or pyramid, in 3 > dimensions) is a "basin of attraction" that would emerge from this > environment. > > In my mind, homogeneity is important ... although I prefer the phrase > "self-similar," as the agents don't have to be completely the same ... > they just have to be close to each other in their attributes that > relate to the emergent property. > > It's a good thought experiment, though. Thanks. the lore... but my guess is that somehow the carbon atoms they are formed from are somehow under such wicked stresses that the only "structures" that form are those whose integral strength exceeds that of the forces they are under. This seems to be on the "lower" edge of emergence. Like the scale of gravel in a streambed matching a size profile based on the conditions? I think that tensegrity structures have collective rather than emergent properties, but again, this might qualify for being at the "lower" boundary of emergence. Frankly I admit that it is hard for me to think of "emergence" without activity. To the extent that a tensegrity structure is (conventionally) designed and built, and its collective properties do not "show up" until it is complete (or subunits are complete) seems to be an indication that what we are seeing is *not* emergence. Somehow I think incrementality is as important as serendipity. Going back to the Bucky Balls, I'm not sure, but I don't think that there are any "incomplete" forms that have any of the interesting properties of the complete form. Bucky Tubes, perhaps... which leads me full-circle back to crystal growth. I believe Crystal Growth shows more emergence.... incremental change which by itself does not show qualitatively new properties but once above some threshold, DOES. I believe *all* of the discussion (Triangles, Fullerenes, Crystals) are examples of *weak emergence*. I'd never really thought about whether there were "degrees of emergence" within the loose categories of "weak" vs "strong". Triangles vs Geodesic Domes are (perhaps) a good example. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
James,
When you say you are losing your sense of what a reductive explanation you make me feel like I am being included in a club. Misery loves company. My first approximation of what a reductive explanation is that its any explanation which involves the use of the word "just". "It's just a case of." There is up reduction and down reduction. You ask, "why is my teenager behaving in such a dumb way?" and the lad's mother answers "It's just peer pressure, " I (and perhaps nobody else in the world) think of that as an up=reductive explanation. But the explanations that most people think of as reductive are "down-reductive." "consciousness is just brain activity" is a classic down-reductive explanation. One of the tricky questions is, what exactly do we mean by up and down here. If by down, we mean explanation in terms of smaller entities, then we immediately encounter a problem. I dont think anybody is dumb enough to assert that neural activity ... in the sense of facts about what individual neurons are doing ... is ever going to help us understand consciousness. Clearly, it is the ORGANIZATION of what neurons do that is crucial to consciousness. The the organization of brain activity at any one instant is not in any use SMALLER than the mind. In a sense it seems to be on the same level as the mind, hense neither an up nor a down reduction. I amjust back at my house with my caveman phone connection to the web, so wont say more now. Thanks for your thoughts, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: James Steiner <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 6/7/2009 9:36:59 PM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quick question > > I have to admit, I've just reached the limit of my competence. I don't > know what it means for an explanation to be reductive. I'll have to go > read something about that--my lack of formal education is exposed. > > A triangle (made of parts) is the name for a particular arrangement of > parts. If you arrange the parts differently, it isn't a triangle > anymore. > > That arrangement of parts has the property of being self-supporting. > So, yes, in my experience, triangularity causes rigidity that, say, > square-ity does not. > > Also, note that the whole discussion of triangles being sturdy only > applies to hollow triangles, e.g. struts and joints. If the > non-triangle is solid, then discussions about stiffness or rigidity as > compared to solid triangles becomes > irrelevant--physically/mechanically speaking, the play of forces is > different. Distortion of the angles is less a problem, buckling > becomes an issue. > > ~~James > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Nicholas > Thompson<[hidden email]> wrote: > > James, > > > > Your explanation is in terms of the arrangement of the parts... > > and connection, if you will. Am I correct? > > > > Would you characterize that explanation as a reductive one? This is > > trick question. I genuinely want to know. > > > > And should one speak of downward causation here? Is triangularity CAUSING > > immobility of the joints? > > > > Nick ============================================================ 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |