Posted by
Russ Abbott on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-comm-was-Re-FW-Re-Emergence-Seminar-BritishEmergence-tp3654051p3696748.html
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:51 PM, glen e. p. ropella
<[hidden email]> wrote:
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09-09-22 03:12 PM:
You asked for examples of "circular causality". Retrocausality is an
example of "circular causality".
Are you saying that retrocausality (if it even exists) is necessary for complexity or that retrocausality (if it even exists) is sufficient for complexity?
In my opinion flocking behavior is not (ontologically) complex.
Then your notion of complexity differs from how the word is generally used in the field of complex systems. Flocking is one of the prototypical examples of a complex system. It is a (macro) phenomenon produced by the interaction of (micro) individuals. If you are going to dismiss that then what's the point of this discussion?
Another example of circular causality is co-evolution, where species
adapt to compensate for each others' adaptations.
Then virtually everything qualifies as circular causality. Is there anything in the world that is not to one extent or another affected by what it does? To take one of the oldest examples of this sort of thing, by your definition a thermostat and the heating/cooling device it controls would be a complex system. I don't think that comports with the usual notion of complex system. What is not complex under this definition?
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.
Then please stop saying the same thing. I'm running out of ways to say that when I use the term "level" I'm not referring to a stratified structure. (I used the terms "micro" and "macro" above. Is that any better?) As you may know, one of my favorite examples is a gecko, which uses
quantum phenomena to adhere to vertical surfaces. I've used the term
"higher level" for geckos even though their phenomenology is directly
dependent on "lowest level" phenomena. So instead of level perhaps the term "composed entity" would work better. Substitute "composed entity" for "higher level entity" and "component out of which a composed entity is composed" for "lower level entity" and lets stop getting distracted by this non-issue.
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.
Can you give me an example of something that is non-reducible? Let's exclude quantum weirdness since no one really understand that. Besides, if there are physical primitives, then they are not reducible. Give me your example of a macro non-reducible phenomenon.
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.
I've pointed out that you are apparently agreeing with me about what you call lexical mismatch. As I've said a number of times, the laws of economics and evolution cannot be expressed using the language of fundamental physics. Do you mean something different than that? If not you are agreeing with me. If you do mean something different from that, what is it? (And please give a concrete example instead of talking about generic "operators." Give an example of the operators you are thinking of.)
============================================================
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