emergence".
Nicholas S. Thompson
> [Original Message]
> From: Steve Smith <
[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
[hidden email]>
> Date: 6/11/2009 9:38:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] quick question
>
> 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.
> I suspect this is where Buckminster Fullerenes come from. I don't know
> 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.orgMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College