Posted by
glen ep ropella on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Seminal-Papers-in-Complexity-tp524047p524140.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> I think I may have been mistakenly half serious in my above
> comment... A consistent reality is always complex enough to have
> multiple points of view that are really inconsistent only in the
> projections, like top view and side view are hoplessly contradictory
> unless your realize you're looking at a physical object and not just
> some interesting projected 2d display. It does confuse that we seem
> to need to look at real systems with simplifying projections that
> look different from each other. The answer as to which 2D
> projection is the correct one is what seems most confusing.
Ahhh. Sorry. I tend to be a bit flippant sometimes. You're making a
very good point, here. I can't tell you how many times I've argued with
biological modelers... well, actually many people from many different
domains ... where they seem hooked on the idea that there can only be 1
true model of some referent.
My most heated was with a guy who claimed that model selectors (e.g.
AIC) that rely on a posited "perfect" or "optimal" model can actually
help one get at the true generator of whatever data set is being
examined. It took a lot of verbage on my part to draw a detailed enough
picture for him to understand that the data were taken by a method that
presumed a model (because all observation requires a model and all
models require observations). And the best a selector can do is find
that occult model by which the data was collected. Compounding the
problem is that multiple data sets can _claim_ to be observations on the
same system; but since the experimental protocol is always subtly
different, it makes it difficult even to triangulate toward _the_ one
true system (or description of the system). Hence, it's wisest just to
toss the idea of "truth" out the window completely (except while praying
or dredging up whatever personal motivation you need to keep spinning
the hamster wheel) and maintain explicit adherence to your concrete
objectives during each particular project/task.
> When I said "wouldn't it be wise", I certainly meant it loosely, and
> your interpretation is entirely appropriate. I'm only concerned
> that the general discussions of otherwise competent thinking people
> in no way appear to contemplate easing off on the exponential (%
> adding) accleration of ever more complex change until we do actually
> do 'hit the wall' and completely loose control of the shock waves of
> multiplying repercussions. It's generally better to turn the wheel
> before hitting the wall. Not all steering would be good steering,
> naturally, but you don't need to have all knowledge to have useful
> clues and uncertainty, and things that are 100% certain are useful
> clues. It's better than no clue at all anyway.
Well, in general, I'm conservative. And I agree that, from a
conservative perspective, if one _must_ change without any specific
knowledge of what to change, the best change is to ratchet back on your
actions. I.e. do less of everything. But, there's no convincing reason
to believe that ratcheting back on our burn rate will have a positive
effect.
An added complication is that most _people_, including those who profess
themselves to be defenders of our current biosphere, are greedy and
self-interested above any other trait. Even the ones that don't realize
that their words and actions are greedy and self-interested are usually
just trying to engineer/coerce the world into being more friendly to
them and their ilk. For example, those who would have us stop burning
fossil fuels in order to keep the environment comfortable for humans.
They _say_ they care about life, the planet, whatever. But what they
really want is to preserve their current way of life at the top of the
food chain. Hence any argument they offer has that bias and must be
reformulated in order to determine the real value of whatever action
they suggest.
> yep, always with a grain of salt. Supreme confidence that there is
> nothing to know wouldn't seem to fit that principle though....
It's not that there's nothing to know. It's just that there's no real
separation between blind action and wise action. Wisdom, intelligence,
etc. are all ascribed _after_ one has taken their actions and proven
successful in some sense. Prior to the success, active people are often
labeled quacks or wackos. The ultimately unsuccessful wackos stay
classified as wackos. The ultimately successful wackos are
re-classified into geniuses.
The point is that we are what we _do_, not what we think. And if my
actions cause people pain, then those people will call me a name
associated with that pain. E.g. If I'm an Enron executive and I get
busted, they call me a criminal. If I'm a self-aggrandizing biological
idealist ... ?
We see this developing now in farmers chopping down trees to farm for
bio-fuel, the corn shortage in the face of using corn to produce
ethanol, the German beer price increases, etc. These are not bad ideas.
But, the ultimate consequences determine the value-classification. An
individual farmer cannot wisely decide (based on his thoughts) whether
chopping down a few trees to farm the land is good or bad.
p.s. In case nobody notices, my ultimate _point_ in this dialog is that
simulation (particularly via concrete modeling methods like ABM) is
_necessary_ to wisdom. These systems are not analytic/separable (and
functional relationships within them are not analytical soluble). They
must be examined using simulation. And to this topic of sustainability,
until we see some concrete, detailed, not-toy, not-abstract models
showing how a particular condition X leads to a particular condition Y,
it's all just mumbo-jumbo.
- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.comNone are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free. -- Goethe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.orgiD8DBQFGgvliZeB+vOTnLkoRApFEAKCxEGDnvrEFJjDWfuA17hvUHvW6mwCcCeCj
xo9sR/qiBWQOQ9zG+65RF7w=
=WDJP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----