Posted by
Nick Thompson on
Apr 26, 2008; 6:17pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Rosen-tp526128.html
I havent been able to follow the conversation but the following caught my
eye
>Machines are the produce of a self-consistent model
> in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex learning
> processes that grow out of their own environments like all other natural
> systems..etc.
Please dont forget the whip sockets on the early model A's.
NIck
> [Original Message]
> From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Date: 4/26/2008 10:00:38 AM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 25
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam at redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> friam-request at redfish.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> friam-owner at redfish.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella)
> 2. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella)
> 3. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw)
> 4. Re: recap on Rosen (Russell Standish)
> 5. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw)
> 6. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels)
> 7. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw)
> 8. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:13:08 -0700
> From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <48123B54.90707 at tempusdictum.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> phil henshaw wrote:
> > Self-consistent models represent environments very well, just omitting
their
> > living parts, "mind without matter".
> >
> > Would any of the things you guys suggested fix that?
>
> I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a
> good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to state
> (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
> context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore,
> contributes immensely to the solution.
>
> I.e. if the problem is that our modeling methods only capture isolable
> (separable, "linear", analytic, etc.) systems _well_, then we need other
> modeling methods to capture holistic ("nonlinear", non-analytic)
> systems. As I understand it, this is the basic conception behind the
> "sustainability movement", somehow capturing or understanding
> externalities and engineering organizations so that their waste is more
> useful to other organizations.
>
> What Rosen tried to do (in my _opinion_) is help us specify what parts
> of our modeling methods are inadequate to the task of capturing certain
> broken closures. I.e. I think he tried to explain _why_ so many of our
> models are so fragile, namely, because they cannot capture the closure
> of efficient cause (agency). That concept requires no mathematics (ala
> category theory). But he tried to communicate the concept using
> mathematics and logic via the discussions of Poincare's
> "impredicativity" and rhetorical vs. causal loops.
>
> So, yes, I think these things can help with our understanding of the
> fragility of _simple_ models ("mechanism" in Rosen's peculiar
> terminology). Even if Rosen's MR-systems or his "closure to efficient
> cause" are inadequate to the task (which I think they _are_), at least
> considering those attempts and how/where they may fail facilitates our
> progress toward other, hopefully more successful, solutions.
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. -- Omar N. Bradley
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org>
> iD8DBQFIEjtUpVJZMHoGoM8RAt6gAJkB0y2YDBB3/LsFr8i561UrfEPvsgCggAKu
> I8mcbIbWrFljoixYiONhrCg=
> =CxBC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:25:46 -0700
> From: "glen e. p. ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <48123E4A.2030108 at tempusdictum.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> G?nther Greindl wrote:
> >> OK. So RR makes a prohibitive claim ... something like "living
> >> systems cannot be accurately modeled with a UTM because MR systems
> >> cannot be realized". And you are refuting that claim by a
> >> counter-claim that MR systems _can_ be realized, emphasizing that
> >> the recursion theorem is crucial to such a realization.
> >>
> >> Do I have it right?
> >
> > Yes that's basically my claim - RR also mentions his closed efficient
> > cause, that's where the rec. theorem comes in: you can code whatever
> > behaviour you like and then replicate it indefinitely.
>
> OK. But you must realize that this is not really a _refutation_ or
> disproof. It's just one guy (Rosen) arguing with another guy (G?nther).
> For an actual refutation (proof that Rosen's claim is false), you'd
> have to provide an explicit (effective) construction of a computational
> living system.
>
> And you haven't done that. [grin] Hence, you haven't proven Rosen wrong
> ... yet. ALifers across the planet are working on this constructive
> proof feverishly, of course.
>
> Or, you could show us specifically where Rosen's claim contradicts the
> recursion theorem. But to my knowledge nobody has formalized Rosen's
> work to the degree of specificity we'd need to show such a
> contradiction. I could easily be wrong about that, of course. So, if
> you'll point to such a rigorous formulation of Rosen's claim and
> precisely how it contradicts the recursion theorem, then we could say
> that one or the other (Rosen's or the recursion theorem) is refuted.
>
> > What is _not_ addressed in the (M,R) model is how it comes up in the
> > first place (= origin of life);
>
> Nobody (including the most zealous Rosenite, I think) would disagree
> with that.
>
> > that is where evolution comes in, and a machine model is at no
> > disadvantage here, again.
>
> It would be interesting to augment MR systems with some reasonably
> accurate formulation of evolution.
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> Almost nobody dances sober, unless they happen to be insane. -- H. P.
> Lovecraft
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org>
> iD8DBQFIEj5KpVJZMHoGoM8RAkx0AJ4ivFZFJgaCq9gdvoMWnbON3fnYzwCgqR/A
> tG+AVzNzHle0kEt6dKpDeww=
> =o6uQ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:21:59 -0400
> From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <021a01c8a744$4f143c00$ed3cb400$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> How does that
> >
> > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > Self-consistent models represent environments very well, just
> > omitting their
> > > living parts, "mind without matter".
> > >
> > > Would any of the things you guys suggested fix that?
> >
> > I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a
> > good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to
> > state
> > (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
> > context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore,
> > contributes immensely to the solution.
>
> [ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of
independent
> organisms or communities things you have no information about because they
> never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that?
>
>
> > I.e. if the problem is that our modeling methods only capture isolable
> > (separable, "linear", analytic, etc.) systems _well_, then we need
> > other
> > modeling methods to capture holistic ("nonlinear", non-analytic)
> > systems. As I understand it, this is the basic conception behind the
> > "sustainability movement", somehow capturing or understanding
> > externalities and engineering organizations so that their waste is more
> > useful to other organizations.
> >
> > What Rosen tried to do (in my _opinion_) is help us specify what parts
> > of our modeling methods are inadequate to the task of capturing certain
> > broken closures. I.e. I think he tried to explain _why_ so many of our
> > models are so fragile, namely, because they cannot capture the closure
> > of efficient cause (agency). That concept requires no mathematics (ala
> > category theory). But he tried to communicate the concept using
> > mathematics and logic via the discussions of Poincare's
> > "impredicativity" and rhetorical vs. causal loops.
>
> [ph] I haven't studied Rosen enough the really know if he's pointing to
the
> same conflict between living things and machines that I am, but there
> clearly is a conflict. Machines are the produce of a self-consistent
model
> in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex learning
> processes that grow out of their own environments like all other natural
> systems..etc.
>
> Phil
> >
> > So, yes, I think these things can help with our understanding of the
> > fragility of _simple_ models ("mechanism" in Rosen's peculiar
> > terminology). Even if Rosen's MR-systems or his "closure to efficient
> > cause" are inadequate to the task (which I think they _are_), at least
> > considering those attempts and how/where they may fail facilitates our
> > progress toward other, hopefully more successful, solutions.
> >
> > - --
> > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> > Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. -- Omar N.
> > Bradley
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org> >
> > iD8DBQFIEjtUpVJZMHoGoM8RAt6gAJkB0y2YDBB3/LsFr8i561UrfEPvsgCggAKu
> > I8mcbIbWrFljoixYiONhrCg=
> > =CxBC
> > -----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>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:37:28 +1000
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <20080426023728.GG27289 at bloody-dell.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:21:59PM -0400, phil henshaw wrote:
> >
> > [ph] I haven't studied Rosen enough the really know if he's pointing to
the
> > same conflict between living things and machines that I am, but there
> > clearly is a conflict. Machines are the produce of a self-consistent
model
> > in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex
learning
> > processes that grow out of their own environments like all other natural
> > systems..etc.
> >
> > Phil
>
> Only simple machines. More complex machines (eg the Intel Pentium
> processor) show definite signs of evolutionary accretion, as no one
> person can design such a complex thing from scratch, but rather
> previous designs are used and optimised.
>
> --
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> Australia
http://www.hpcoders.com.au>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:04:45 -0400
> From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <023101c8a752$aa00dfc0$fe029f40$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> >
> > Only simple machines. More complex machines (eg the Intel Pentium
> > processor) show definite signs of evolutionary accretion, as no one
> > person can design such a complex thing from scratch, but rather
> > previous designs are used and optimised.
>
> [ph] Right! Layered design is sort of a universal signature of learning
> processes, in this case the chip designers resourcefully adapting pieces
of
> the old design in making new designs for new problems. Eventually any
> direction of development or learning runs into diminishing returns, either
> inherent in the design, or relative to competition with some other.
>
> I understand there's also a great deal of arguably creative machine design
> in chip design too, still accumulative in nature, but I don't think we
have
> processors that 'design themselves', however, nor would they do very well
> with multiple disconnected parts with different operating systems that
only
> communicated by dumping their waste products on each other... :-) that's
> the trick that organisms do so nicely and that our way of explaining them
> misses when we describe their functions and relationships in a
> self-consistent way. Unlike a logical medium, a physical medium
tolerates
> inconsistently designed and behaving things and allows them to capitalize
on
> each other's unintended side behavior and effects.
>
> Phil
>
> > --
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > Mathematics
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:36:28 -0600
> From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <4812B14C.2000804 at snoutfarm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> phil henshaw wrote:
> > Glen wrote:
> >
> >> I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a
> >> good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to
> >> state
> >> (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
> >> context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore,
> >> contributes immensely to the solution.
> >>
> >
> > [ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of
independent
> > organisms or communities things you have no information about because
they
> > never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that?
> >
> Find a function that well describes a state of a thing or aggregate
> measurement of interest at t - 2 that gives the state at t - 1 that
> gives a state at t. Then prediction is a matter of applying the
> function more times. Add more functions to describe more individual
> things or aggregates and note when there are shared functions in those
> definitions (e.g. food web fundamentally depends photosynthesis).
>
> If you want to define all things to be independent, then there is no
> point in talking about interactions -- you've already defined away the
> possibility of that! Covariance is zero.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:47:44 -0400
> From: "phil henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <025401c8a7a4$1b1cb340$515619c0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Ok, 'find a function' assumes there is one to find, but the problem set is
> running into behavior which has already had major consequences (like
> starvation for 100million people because of an unexpected world food price
> level shift) and the question is what 'function' would you use to not be
> caught flat footed like that. Is there some general function to use in
> cases where you have no function and don't even know what the problem
> definition will be?
>
> I actually have a very good one, but you won't like it because it means
> using the models to understand what they fail to describe rather than the
> usual method of using them to represent other things.
>
> Phil Henshaw???????????????????
> ??? ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040? tel: 212-795-4844?????
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com?????explorations: www.synapse9.com??
> ?in the last 200 years the amount of change that once needed a century?of
> thought now takes just five weeks?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
> > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:36 AM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> >
> > phil henshaw wrote:
> > > Glen wrote:
> > >
> > >> I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a
> > >> good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to
> > >> state
> > >> (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
> > >> context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore,
> > >> contributes immensely to the solution.
> > >>
> > >
> > > [ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of
> > independent
> > > organisms or communities things you have no information about because
> > they
> > > never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that?
> > >
> > Find a function that well describes a state of a thing or aggregate
> > measurement of interest at t - 2 that gives the state at t - 1 that
> > gives a state at t. Then prediction is a matter of applying the
> > function more times. Add more functions to describe more individual
> > things or aggregates and note when there are shared functions in those
> > definitions (e.g. food web fundamentally depends photosynthesis).
> >
> > If you want to define all things to be independent, then there is no
> > point in talking about interactions -- you've already defined away the
> > possibility of that! Covariance is zero.
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> > ============================================================
> > 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:44:46 -0600
> From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <48133FDE.2070309 at snoutfarm.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> phil henshaw wrote:
> > Ok, 'find a function' assumes there is one to find, but the problem set
is
> > running into behavior which has already had major consequences (like
> > starvation for 100million people because of an unexpected world food
price
> > level shift) and the question is what 'function' would you use to not be
> > caught flat footed like that.
> The caloric requirements of a person are autocorrelated, but probably
> for a lot of models a constant will suffice -- a certain amount of body
> weight decrease, and then the probability of death goes up. As for
> price fluctuations, that's a matter of modeling the natural resources
> that go in to food, the costs and benefits to motivate farmers, the
> commodity markets, and so on. Certainly we can try to understand how
> each of these work, and then do what-if scenarios when one or more
> components are perturbed (or destroyed). It's still a matter of
> finding stories (functions) to fit observables. The availability and
> accuracy of those observables may be poor, and sometimes all that is
> possible to imagine worst and best cases, run the numbers, and see how
> the result changes.
> > Is there some general function to use in
> > cases where you have no function and don't even know what the problem
> > definition will be?
> >
> I think you do know what the problem could look like, but most details
> remain unspecified. If you can construct an example that has
> catastrophes of the kind you often talk about, and spell out all of the
> details of your work of fiction (that even may happen to resemble
> reality), such that the what-if scenarios can be reproduced in
> simulations, then others can study the sensitivities. If there is a
> `forcing structure' that will occur in many, many variant forms, then
> you can demonstrate that.
> > I actually have a very good one, but you won't like it because it means
> > using the models to understand what they fail to describe rather than
the
> > usual method of using them to represent other things.
> Right. Model predicts something, it turns out to have some error
> structure and that structure suggests ways to improve the model or make
> a new one. Paper published. Meanwhile another guy makes a different
> model on the same phenomena and publishes a paper. Third person reads
> the two papers and has idea that accounts for problems in both. So she
> makes a new model!
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 25
> *************************************