the basic physics of natural systems

[phil henshaw]

You'll see it as physics when you realize the method of referring to
things natural (refining boundaries) is a mirror of the form of
representing things symbolic (validating error).   The images are of a
very different kind, but highly useful.    The main class of complex
systems it works best for at the moment is the systems that grow as
network cells.  It's watching how the cells of relationships develop and
refine that is what makes it possible to identify them as individuals,
and recognize their properties from simple to complex
.
---
In simple outline, the physics of natural systems begins with a rigorous
approach to building broad, reliable and useful generalities, by a
method that produces something form-fitting to nature's own complex
system structures.   I draw as large a generality as I can (like casting
a net intended to be maximally inclusive) and then explore it's holes
and edges to see where I can or need to fill it out or trim it back.
That's the process that fits my mental model to the physical structures
of nature I can't actually see except by that fitting process.    As a
method it produces naturally well designed images of complexity,
form-fit to the subject.
---
So, example.     Start from the public and decision maker blindness to
complex systems of nearly any kind, particularly the nearly complete
inability to distinguish between the difference between military systems
and processes and cultural systems and processes.    To nearly all the
press it's all just 'words & images', talking points to be arranged like
scraps of  colored paper, instead of references to real physical systems
with real complex collective behavior.   This AM there was a report on
the news that the US intelligence estimates that had been more or less
consistently reporting a decline in Al Qaeda strength, now report a
major resurgence.    Nothing I heard seemed to have any evidentiary
value of anything whatever, and the evidentiary values of the
information was clearly not discussed by a single sole.
 
Al Qaeda, as a term is a mixture of loose talk and speculation, mostly
uninformed references to specific wide-spread community organization
with several kinds of loose leadership, and a widespread complex social
system giving the organization and it's ethos a secure global base of
support.   Ask yourself, did the news of it's sudden change display an
understanding of how confusing it is to refer to a real complex system
with cartoon images?    Or did it display a nearly complete ignorance
that political punching bags like al Qaeda is having these distinctly
different faces?   I studied the reports a little today, and found no
one addressing the ambiguities of what is being referred to, and no one
identifying any particular process, cause or effect.   The basic
scientific method for understanding complex things you can't describe
with a simple rule is to watch the flows of events so you can see what's
happening.   In the physical world organization doesn't change without a
process of changing, and nobody I can see seems to recognize that
watching things happen, connecting before and after, is essential
knowing what connects before and after when it would not be possible to
predict.    Everyone is using make-believe.
 
NPR asked their security analysis why the estimate had change.   She
offered the utterly specious notion that it was probably the threat of
the foiled bombings by doctors in England last month.    Offering one
anecdote that may or may not be associated with any known organization,
certainly does not identify a process of organizational change.   In
this case the one picked speaks very clearly about the 'perception' of
Al Qaeda, though, i.e. about the public's behavior, not so much al
Qaeda's, and the 'analyst' didn't discuss this obvious distortion of the
appearance that her report would give her audience.   She was clearly
misleading her audience and clearly unaware of it.
 
Then they interviewed a British military security analyst, Graham Lamb,
who was asked the question "Is there any way to measure" the reported
change in Al Qaeda strength?   He seemed very authoritative, but only
listed several disconnected anecdotes that to him seemed to paint of a
mixture of looming threat and signs of relief, things like a story of
children walking to school without fear, and unsupported talk of
strengthened organization of the al Qaeda leadership.    That was the
question, left unanswered except by the phrase "I judge".    He offered
no clue of any kind I could see where the pattern of development he
asserted was evident, just anecdotes that punch up a collage of images
of threats.
 
---
So, what's a better way to answer these kinds of questions?   With a
physics of natural systems approach you can watch what's actually
happening.   You can try asking a broad question, more about the complex
layers of events going on in Iraq, since we now know quite a long
history and a lot of detail about them from diverse sources, and don't
need to be distracted by anecdotes so much.

"What's the difference between the response you get when military
methods are used against a military target and when they're used against
a cultural target?"

I think a good initial generality, that draws directly from the
organizational differences in the complex natural systems involved, is
that:

"With military methods used on military targets the target gets weaker
as you attack and against cultural targets the response gets stronger as
you attack".  

Military targets don't have deep roots of support spread throughout
their environments, and cultures do.   As far as it is valid, this
becomes a very simple way to tell what you're doing, guiding you to see
the details of what's happening by watching the process of it's
development, so you can see what's coming, and make better choices.    
 

So, for exercise.  List 5 issues of uncertainty for the principle and a
sentence on each, and a refined statement of the principle that is
inclusive.

I think it's unequivocally clear that the principle is valid at least
for what we've been seeing in Iraq for the last 4 years, expressing
itself most clearly in the emergence of the insurgency during our
campaign against the 'dead-enders' (radical defenders of a desert
culture with deeply rooted beliefs we had no interest in recognizing),
at the time we thought we'd just have a little extra fun bashing people
while cleaning up after the fall of Saddam Hussein.   We didn't notice
the emergence because we don't use natural system physics (or common
sense either) for observing what was happening as we went around
flushing out local people to kill.   It's not that that was an intent,
or the only thing we were doing, but it was a consistent thing we were
doing completely unaware, pursued with seeming political fervor as a
major element of our proposed method of success.   No one seemed
concerned that our 'solution' to the violence consistently multiplied
the violence.  
 
I think our persistent use of military attacks against cultural targets
in Iraq, using the wrong tool, is a primary direct cause for the growth
of organized terror networks generally.   The whole long developmental
history of the Iraq 'insurgency' clearly fed by the military conflict
with us stimulated and supports many well funded independent operating
terror groups that now would logically be continuing to build
connections all over, as we terrorize them all over.   It multiplies
them because their motivations are cultural not military.   What we've
created is a large resource of new parts for events as you do often see
in nature in which another larger level of organization may emerge.   To
balance that image, though, I do also see cross currents that that
suggest the next emergence from it may be somewhat different.   The
recent botched work by the physicians cell read to me as actions by
people who are perhaps a bit less 'sincere' in their rage, quite
different from the old style purist terrorists.  I also remember some
odd news reports about how the Jordanian suiciders have holidays from
their death threats to not disturb very normal cultural events.   To me
it suggests terror may be getting better organized in some ways, but
maybe also loosing it's edge... whatever that means.    
 
With a "culture war", the first thing to recognize is that cultures are
inherently out of your control (why your controls have opposite the
intended effect) and that at least that requires you relate to them with
respect.   To get anywhere you need to discover who these people who
offend you really are.   The exact opposite is the requirement for
military methods, to dehumanized your enemy so you can kill them without
regret.  
 
Yes, a new way to use physics, applying it sort of backwards to help
people more clearly identify and understand things they actually care
about, may take a little getting used to, but it's fun and real useful!
 

Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070717/c9edd7da/attachment.html