Posted by
Phil Henshaw-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/When-is-something-complex-tp525080p525118.html
Mikhail,
Well, I was perhaps including that sort of natural category that is
known only by the experiential step of 'entering', like stepping into
someone else's shoes and the indefinable change of consciousness that
always seems to produce. I was more thinking about distinguishing
between the systems we see forming in our minds, and the systems we see
forming in the physical world outside our minds. There are many many
different ways a mental system can form to or reflect a physical system.
The trick is to find a method that two minds can check each other on.
That's a tough performance standard to meet.
Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com <
http://www.synapse9.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: Mikhail Gorelkin [mailto:
[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:56 AM
To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex
>...so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient
method where definition is impossible.
Phil, I like this example: "categories" in those astral worlds that we
can enter only ***unconsciously***, and where, therefore, we lose our
ability even to ***define*** :-) --Mikhail
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Henshaw <mailto:
[hidden email]>
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
Coffee Group'
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex
Well, one of the most fascinating things about observation is rolled up
in that question. It turns out to be naturally difficult to tell
whether your data reflects behaviors of the environment or of your
method of collecting information. The point is that observation is
always a matter of dealing with 2 complexities each of which is
indescribably complex and neither of which can be used as a general
standard reference.
Both the process of the observer and the process observed are
uncalculable, and most particularly because they are real physical
processes, each displaying the behavior of the whole indescribable
network of distributed independent complex processes of nature from
which they arise, including all the features and scales of order we have
not yet found a way to observe in detail and have no clue as to how to
begin to describe! One of my favorites in that area is molecular
light, all the photons being emitted and absorbed in particle
interactions all the time. I understand it's real, but molecular light
is just another subject on a long list of 'dark matters', for our
understanding.
So...complexity means in part that not everything (actually not any
physical thing) can be abstractly defined and so we need some way to
capture and relate categories by an efficient method where definition is
impossible.
Phil
On 9/19/07, Mikhail Gorelkin <gorelkin at hotmail.com> wrote:
> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent
property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the
> system
The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the
complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so completely.
Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less
evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to handle
properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most
natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does "complexity"
belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend
it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for example,
to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of
our cognition.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" < <mailto:
[hidden email]>
gepr at tempusdictum.com>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<friam at redfish.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
>> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ?
--Mikhail
>
> The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an
> ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is
as
> good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth
> (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a
> minimal description that works.
>
> The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute
lies
> in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and
> effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a
> system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are,
> the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human
cognitive
> constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems
and,
> hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of
such.
>
> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent
> property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system.
> That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions
(e.g.
> one constituent that describes other constituents, making that
> description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be
a
> whole system description for it to be complex.
>
> If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions
> like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just
a
> _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's
> the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute
> rather than an inherent property. =><=
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty
> enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org>
> iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c
> Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc=
> =lEhK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> 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 _____
============================================================
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-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070924/2e52ac72/attachment.html