Right, it was well understood that people would not buy a car unless it made
680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040? tel: 212-795-4844?????
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:18 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rosen
>
> 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
> > *************************************
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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