Posted by
Nick Thompson on
Sep 17, 2009; 3:59am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Emergence-Seminar-British-Emergence-tp3645669p3660861.html
Hey, folks. I am trying to keep this thread for discussions of
MacLaughlin's chapter.
You want to talk about realism/idealism, get your own damn thread.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (
[hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> [Original Message]
> From: russell standish <
[hidden email]>
> To: <
[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group <
[hidden email]>
> Date: 9/17/2009 1:37:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar--British Emergence
>
> Meaning is definitely there. From the meaning that humans give the the
> biological world: ever noticed how there are many words for some
> species (eg dogs or horses), but hardly any covering other major groups of
> species (eg ants or beetles). Where there are explicit distinctions
> made, there tends to be meaning, whether beneficial or pest.
>
> Of course there is biological meaning to most species, albeit not so
> sophisticated. Most species will classify others into friend, foe or
> neutral, for instance.
>
> One of the biggest meanings is self-meaning. I am because I can
> be. This leads to heritable qualities, which is the raw stuff of
> evolution. Without meaning, there is no evolution - just random drift,
> or noise. Without meaning, there is no complexity or emergence either.
>
> Sorry I don't have to time to say more, and I'm sure there are others
> who can put it more eloquently. It is one of the strands of my book
> "Theory of Nothing", but not a major focus of it.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:02:04PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
> > Dear Russ S,
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow the meaning point. Biological organisms are
structured
> > in important (emergent) ways, but how do you attach meaning to that?
> >
> > -- Russ A
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:55 PM, russell standish
<
[hidden email]>wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, dear, it seems I've been relegated to the Russ II position now
> > > :). Serves me right, I guess.
> > >
> > > I still think meaning is essential. The reason why something is
> > > structured rather than unstructured is that the structure means
> > > something to somebody.
> > >
> > > And for measuring this, I don't think we can go past informational
> > > complexity, which is really the difference in entropy of a system
> > > and its maximal possible entropy (the entropy of just the parts of the
> > > system arranged completely at random).
> > >
> > > While its a bugger to use, being horribly NP-complete in general to
> > > calculate, it can be done for some systems, and with ingenuity
> > > extended to others.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:30:52PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > > > Russ,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with
> > > >
> > > > I would nominate that concept--i.e., the ability to create a
structured
> > > entity from unstructured components--as the commonality among
"emergent"
> > > phenomena. (That's why I like the notion of level of abstraction as
> > > representative of emergence.)
> > > >
> > > > This is also, as we will see, the position of William Wimsatt, I
think.
> > > >
> > > > Nick
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> > > > Clark University (
[hidden email])
> > > >
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Russ Abbott
> > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > > Sent: 9/14/2009 10:19:10 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Emergence Seminar--British Emergence
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Owen,
> > > >
> > > > Here's how I would start.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not scientist enough to know what 'configuration physics' or
> > > 'configuration chemistry' means. My guess is that it means something
like a
> > > structured collection of matter where the structure itself is
important. One
> > > of my friends likes to talk about that sort of thing as global
constraints.
> > > I think that's a fine way of expressing it, when one understands
global as
> > > referring to the entity being structured and not the world at large.
> > > >
> > > > I would nominate that concept--i.e., the ability to create a
structured
> > > entity from unstructured components--as the commonality among
"emergent"
> > > phenomena. (That's why I like the notion of level of abstraction as
> > > representative of emergence.)
> > > >
> > > > That raises a few questions.
> > > >
> > > > What are the possible "binding forces" that can be used to create
> > > structure? (My answer is that there are two categories of binding
forces:
> > > static and dynamic. The static ones are the forces of physics. They
produce
> > > emergent phenomena like chemistry as Roger said. The dynamic ones are
much
> > > more open and depend on the entities being organized. They produce
emergent
> > > phenomena like biological and social entities.)
> > > > How do those binding forces work? (My answer is that the static
ones work
> > > according to the laws of physics. For the dynamic ones it is much more
> > > difficult to find a useful generalization since again it depends on
the
> > > entities being structured.)
> > > > Where does the energy come from that powers those forces. (My
answer is
> > > that for static forces, the energy is standard physics. Static
entities
> > > exist at equilibrium in energy wells. For dynamic entities the energy
is
> > > continually imported from outside. That's why they are "far from
> > > equilibrium." They must import energy to keep themselves together.)
> > > > Finally, what holds levels of abstraction together within software?
(My
> > > answer is that software is subsidized. It runs without having to
worry about
> > > the energy it uses. Consequently software confuses us because it
hides the
> > > energy issue. One can build anything one can think of in software
using the
> > > mechanisms for construction built into (and on top of) the programming
> > > language one is using.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- Russ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Owen Densmore <
[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [This is an email I sent to the reading group. It's title was:
> > > > Emergence, Chaos Envy, and Formalization of Complexity
> > > > I think that, rather than worrying about the existing concepts of
> > > emergence, we would be far better off looking at the history of Chaos
and
> > > how they achieved amazing results in a short time, and how we could
> > > similarly attempt formalization of complexity. One idea is to simply
look
> > > at the "edge of chaos" idea in more detail, thus placing complexity
as a
> > > field within chaos.]
> > > >
> > > > Nick has started a seminar on Emergence based on the book of that
name by
> > > Bedau and Humphreys. This got me to thinking about the core problem
of
> > > Complexity: its lack of a core definition, along with lack of any
success in
> > > formalizing it.
> > > >
> > > > Chaos found itself in a similar position: the Lorenz equations for
very
> > > simple weather modeling had quirks which were difficult to grasp.
Years
> > > passed with many arguing that Lorenz was a dummy: he didn't
understand error
> > > calculations, nor did he understand the limitations of computation.
> > > >
> > > > Many folks sided with Lorenz, siting similar phenomena such as
turbulent
> > > flow, the logistics map, and the three body problem. All had one
thing in
> > > common: divergence. I.e. two points near each other would find
themselves at
> > > a near random distance from each other after short periods of time.
> > > > See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory> > > >
> > > > Complexity similarly arose from observations such as sand-pile
formation,
> > > flocking, ant foraging, and so on. Their commonality, however, was
not
> > > divergence but convergence, not chaos but order. Typically this is
coined
> > > "emergence".
> > > >
> > > > I would like to propose an attempt to do what Poincare, Feigenbaum,
> > > Layapunov and others have done for Chaos, but for Complexity.
> > > >
> > > > Nick has hit the nail on the head, I think, in choosing Emergence
as the
> > > core similarity across the spectrum of phenomena we call "complex".
> > > >
> > > > The success of Chaos was to find a few, very constrained areas of
> > > divergence and formalize them into a mathematical framework. Initial
> > > success brought the Rosetta stone: the Lyapunov exponent: a scalar
metric
> > > for identifying chaotic systems.
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that a goal of understanding emergence is to
formalize it,
> > > hoping for the same result Chaos had. I'd be fine limiting our scope
to
> > > ABM, simply because it has a hope of being bounded .. thus simple
enough for
> > > success.
> > > >
> > > > You see why I included Chaos Envy?
> > > >
> > > > -- Owen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > 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> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > > Mathematics
> > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052
[hidden email]
> > > Australia
http://www.hpcoders.com.au> > >
> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > 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>
> --
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052
[hidden email]
> Australia
http://www.hpcoders.com.au>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> 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