Posted by
glen e. p. ropella-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-comm-was-Re-FW-Re-Emergence-Seminar-BritishEmergence-tp3654051p3696245.html
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09-09-22 03:12 PM:
> *Circular causality:* Why do you say that retrocausality is a source of
> complexity? It's certainly a weird notion if it exists, but what does it
> have to do with complexity? How about flocking, a nice simple example of
> what is called a complex system. I see no retrocausality here. Would you
> suggest a concrete example of a complex system whose complexity (not just
> quantum weirdness) has to do with retrocausality.
You asked for examples of "circular causality". Retrocausality is an
example of "circular causality".
In my opinion flocking behavior is not (ontologically) complex.
Another example of circular causality is co-evolution, where species
adapt to compensate for each others' adaptations.
> *Lexical mismatch:* Why is that a cause of complexity? Just becasue the
> langauge of say, group theory and calculus are lexically mismatched, what
> does that have to do with the complexity of anything? If on the other hand
> you are saying that, for example, the language of economics and the language
> of particle physics are lexically mismatched, I would agree. That, in fact,
> is part of my paper on reductionism, namely that terms for phenomena
> involving "higher level" entities don't exist at "lower levels." The
> examples of evolution in biology and Gresham's law in economics are
> lexically mismatched with the language of particle physics. So it sounds
> like you are agreeing with me. But in your original note you specifically
> said you were disagreeing with me.
Right. I disagree with your reliance on _level_. The mismatched
languages (and complexity) don't require the concept of _level_. I've
explained this to you both here and privately. I'm running out of ways
to say the same thing.
I also disagree with your assumption that everything is reducible. And
I also speculate that circular causality is necessary, which you do not.
So, I disagree with you in those 3 ways.
What does lexical mismatch have to do with complexity? Well, I've
explained that, too. But I'll try again. a) lexical mismatch is
necessary but not sufficient for the generation of ontological
complexity. Circular causality is also required. b) lexical mismatch
results in ontological complexity when one part of the system applies an
operator, formulated in a language that is different from that in which
the mechanism is formulated.
The part of the system that is applying the operator uses the
inaccurate/abstracted results of the operator as part of its mechanism
(as when a bunny rabbit misinterprets the behavior of a wolf). Hence,
both languages participate in the construction of the system as a whole.
Complexity means "plaited", consisting of interwoven parts. The two
languages (constructing the system) are the interwoven parts. If you
only use a _single_ language and all elements in the system can be
reduced to that single language, then it is a simple (not complex) system.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095,
http://agent-based-modeling.com============================================================
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