Posted by
jon zingale on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/falsifying-the-lost-opportunity-updating-mechanism-for-free-will-tp7597285p7597359.html
I suppose I see changes in memory as being mediated by changes in the
properties of the sediment/stigmergy, and composition scope being a kind of
algebraic process over the model. Sub-branches can be selected and compared.
For instance, given a single binary tree with a Markov property specifying
downward transitions, the left branch at a node can be seen as an
alternative possibility to the right branch. Perhaps, there could exist some
kind of limiting *river delta* that all others can be mapped into. In any
case, I am unclear how the composition scope might need to be extraneous.
For the record, I am not married to the river delta model, but I see it as
being one of many that might meet your theory and so I will continue to
clarify where I can. I am attempting a model-theoretic perspective where:
1) There is some phenomena to explore, say symmetry.
2) We posit a theory, say the axioms of a group.
3) We create models of the theory: finite groups, Lie groups, topological
groups, etc...
4) We explore what the different models elucidate about our phenomena.
ps. I misrepresented my thoughts on abstract loops. Perhaps it would be
better to say that the loops need not be reified as explicit loops in the model.
We both seem to be in agreement about this, but figured I would clarify.
--
Sent from:
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comarchives:
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/