All, Please take good notes> it would be the kind of thing that I would love to work on as perhaps a book or pamplet once I can get myself retired and out there.
Nick Nicholas Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <friam@redfish.com> > Date: 8/2/2006 12:00:25 PM > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 38, Issue 3 > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > friam@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 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: WedTech: Formalisms In Complexity; Wed Aug 2, 1:30p @ > Tesoro (Owen Densmore) > 2. Re: WedTech: Formalisms In Complexity; Wed Aug 2, 1:30p @ > Tesoro (Phil Henshaw) > 3. Re: WedTech: Formalisms In Complexity; Wed Aug 2, 1:30p @ > Tesoro (Jochen Fromm) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:12:22 -0600 > From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WedTech: Formalisms In Complexity; Wed Aug 2, > 1:30p @ Tesoro > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > To kick off our discussions of Formalisms In Complexity, I thought > I'd add this to the mix. > > -- Owen > > Owen Densmore > http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The Six Desert Island Books On Complexity (In no particular order) > > This list began after several conversations on FRIAM about formalism, > and its lack, in Complexity. These prompted me to see just what > *was* available. These books all cover part of our Science with > sufficient formalism. I've not read all of any of them, they are > more like references for me, but they are focused on areas important > to be rigorous about within our Science, if it is to be one. > > 1 - Bar-Yam: Dynamics of Complex Systems > http://tinyurl.com/qumgf > I put this first because it stands in for a Complexity Textbook. > Surprisingly, there are no such texts that I've been able to find. > Bar-Yam does a great job of looking at the areas deemed complex in > the early 1990's when the book was written. > > 2 - Newman, Barabasi, Watts: The Structure and Dynamics of Networks > http://tinyurl.com/jh3u8 > This is "the next best thing" to a textbook, a series of readings, > with a good introduction, in an area within complexity. There are > others books of readings, the SFI redbooks, for example. This is > particularly of interest to us due to the fast rise of graph theory > within modeling. > > 3 - MacKay: Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms > http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/ > http://tinyurl.com/e5len > Robert Holmes led us to this delightful book when he led a couple of > WedTech meetings on the Monte Carlo techniques (Ch 29). This book is > not only exceptional for its breadth, but also for its author putting > the entire book online for free use! He also includes software > examples using open source tools and actively maintains errata on his > website. > > 4 - Gintis: Game Theory Evolving > http://tinyurl.com/ew3yr > Many of us use Agent Based Modeling for investigating problems. The > agents have behavior and evolve in time. This book is a bit wacky in > its approach, disdaining dogmatic and classical approaches, in order > to focus on the import of evolution within game theory. Its kinda > fun too. > > 5 - Strogatz: Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications > to Physics, Biology, Chemistry and Engineering > http://tinyurl.com/e8ldl > Strogatz may be the best teacher of technically difficult material in > the world! He's won important prizes in this area. This is a great > book for physicists who've always wondered why their profs gently led > them around the great gaping holes in their art. > > 6 - Devaney: An Introduction to Chaotic Dynamical Systems > http://tinyurl.com/z3l8r > Our sister science, Chaos, has made exquisite headway in formalizing > a difficult area. Were we so lucky! I have Chaos envy! There are > several books out there, but this is the most cited I think. I'd > also consider Davies, Exploring Chaos, for his short treatment and > inclusion of really excellent Java applets, and Williams, Chaos > Theory Tamed, for its very pragmatic, approachable and broad coverage. > > > > On Jul 31, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: > > > As you have likely noticed, we've had a few conversations on FRIAM > > discussing formalisms in complexity: > > [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity > > [FRIAM] Dynamics of Complex Systems by Yaneer Bar-Yam > > [FRIAM] Lyapunov Exponent > > [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? > > > > You are invited to come chat about all this in person at the WedTech > > meeting this Wed, Aug 2. > > > > Due to schedule madness, we'll meet at 1:30, later than usual. We'll > > not need the conference room, so we'll meet at Tesoro so we can lunch > > while chatting. Best to get there a bit earlier so you can order > > lunch/greet before we start. > > > > Feel free to think of an issue or stance taken in the email exchanges > > and expand upon the theme. Or come with something new! Devil's > > advocates welcome! > > > > Examples taken from the various emails: > > - Hubler's and Gell-Mann's Definitions. > > - Thermal Dynamic or Statistical Mechanic formalisms. > > - Dissipative Structures, Gradients and Work. > > - Few Textbooks covering the field. > > - What headway has been made in the last 10 years? > > - Define Self Organization and/or Emergence. > > - Measures: Reynolds number, Correlation Length, etc. > > - What's the rush -- its emerging itself! > > - It's not a science but an approach. > > - This is silly and you are all chasing your tails! > > > > -- Owen > > > > Owen Densmore > > http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 02:29:03 -0400 > From: "Phil Henshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WedTech: Formalisms In Complexity; Wed Aug 2, > 1:30p @ Tesoro > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Great question and great list! The difficulty of the formal treatments > is one the things that jumps out as something to contend with in > discussing them. Simplifying without confusing this level of work is > very hard to do. > > I recently found Rob Ulanowicz's "Growth and Development" (1986), > suggested by Stephen Guerin, to be the first text anywhere I've found > that attempts to deal with how internal causation develops. Rob does > not approach the subject from a view of autonomous agents following > rules (a different meaning of autonomy), but from generalizing > eco-system dynamics. It's that he's generalizing on observations, > starting very simple, formalizing one careful piece at a time, and > checking to see what's in the remainder, etc. Does anyone know any > other approaches that try to do that (generalizing on the whole rather > than building up from the parts) in a practical way? It doesn't seem > to be the popular path. > > I also think knowledge starts with informal notions and then develops, > so with a field that is breaking new ground you'd expect some > 'informality'. The issues of the early Medieval thinkers that gave > birth to science but can't be found anywhere in it now are one example. > Every system goes through an historically necessary succession of > organizational steps which it abandons, I think. Science has progressed > through informal-to-formal stages with various things. With the subject > of complex systems there's still some question as to whether the > knowledge base is ready to do that, though. Isn't it? > > It generally starts with 'observation', using a methodology of some > kind. One thing curious about observation is that its main purpose is > to grope around outside one's formalisms to see what else there might be > incorporate. Anyway, that's how I see formality in science, something > you do over and over, continually going back to the source for new > material. The question I can't answer about formalism in complexity > theory is what part of the world has been included in the formality, and > what's been left out. > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore > > Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:12 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WedTech: Formalisms In Complexity;Wed > > Aug 2, 1:30p @ Tesoro > > > > > > To kick off our discussions of Formalisms In Complexity, I thought > > I'd add this to the mix. > > > > -- Owen > > > > Owen Densmore > > http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > The Six Desert Island Books On Complexity (In no particular order) > > > > This list began after several conversations on FRIAM about > > formalism, > > and its lack, in Complexity. These prompted me to see just what > > *was* available. These books all cover part of our Science with > > sufficient formalism. I've not read all of any of them, they are > > more like references for me, but they are focused on areas important > > to be rigorous about within our Science, if it is to be one. > > > > 1 - Bar-Yam: Dynamics of Complex Systems > > http://tinyurl.com/qumgf > > I put this first because it stands in for a Complexity Textbook. > > Surprisingly, there are no such texts that I've been able to find. > > Bar-Yam does a great job of looking at the areas deemed complex in > > the early 1990's when the book was written. > > > > 2 - Newman, Barabasi, Watts: The Structure and Dynamics of Networks > > http://tinyurl.com/jh3u8 > > This is "the next best thing" to a textbook, a series of readings, > > with a good introduction, in an area within complexity. There are > > others books of readings, the SFI redbooks, for example. This is > > particularly of interest to us due to the fast rise of graph theory > > within modeling. > > > > 3 - MacKay: Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms > > http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/ > > http://tinyurl.com/e5len > > Robert Holmes led us to this delightful book when he led a couple of > > WedTech meetings on the Monte Carlo techniques (Ch 29). This > > book is > > not only exceptional for its breadth, but also for its author > > putting > > the entire book online for free use! He also includes software > > examples using open source tools and actively maintains > > errata on his > > website. > > > > 4 - Gintis: Game Theory Evolving > > http://tinyurl.com/ew3yr > > Many of us use Agent Based Modeling for investigating problems. The > > agents have behavior and evolve in time. This book is a bit > > wacky in > > its approach, disdaining dogmatic and classical approaches, in order > > to focus on the import of evolution within game theory. Its kinda > > fun too. > > > > 5 - Strogatz: Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications > > to Physics, Biology, Chemistry and Engineering > > http://tinyurl.com/e8ldl > > Strogatz may be the best teacher of technically difficult > > material in > > the world! He's won important prizes in this area. This is a great > > book for physicists who've always wondered why their profs > > gently led > > them around the great gaping holes in their art. > > > > 6 - Devaney: An Introduction to Chaotic Dynamical Systems > > http://tinyurl.com/z3l8r > > Our sister science, Chaos, has made exquisite headway in formalizing > > a difficult area. Were we so lucky! I have Chaos envy! There are > > several books out there, but this is the most cited I think. I'd > > also consider Davies, Exploring Chaos, for his short treatment and > > inclusion of really excellent Java applets, and Williams, Chaos > > Theory Tamed, for its very pragmatic, approachable and broad coverage. > > > > > > > > On Jul 31, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: > > > > > As you have likely noticed, we've had a few conversations on FRIAM > > > discussing formalisms in complexity: > > > [FRIAM] Definition of Complexity > > > [FRIAM] Dynamics of Complex Systems by Yaneer Bar-Yam > > > [FRIAM] Lyapunov Exponent > > > [FRIAM] What have the Romans - sorry - complexity done for us? > > > > > > You are invited to come chat about all this in person at > > the WedTech > > > meeting this Wed, Aug 2. > > > > > > Due to schedule madness, we'll meet at 1:30, later than > > usual. We'll > > > not need the conference room, so we'll meet at Tesoro so we > > can lunch > > > while chatting. Best to get there a bit earlier so you can order > > > lunch/greet before we start. > > > > > > Feel free to think of an issue or stance taken in the email > > exchanges > > > and expand upon the theme. Or come with something new! Devil's > > > advocates welcome! > > > > > > Examples taken from the various emails: > > > - Hubler's and Gell-Mann's Definitions. > > > - Thermal Dynamic or Statistical Mechanic formalisms. > > > - Dissipative Structures, Gradients and Work. > > > - Few Textbooks covering the field. > > > - What headway has been made in the last 10 years? > > > - Define Self Organization and/or Emergence. > > > - Measures: Reynolds number, Correlation Length, etc. > > > - What's the rush -- its emerging itself! > > > - It's not a science but an approach. > > > - This is silly and you are all chasing your tails! > > > > > > -- Owen > > > > > > Owen Densmore > > > http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://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 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:05:59 +0200 > From: "Jochen Fromm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WedTech: Formalisms In Complexity; Wed Aug 2, > 1:30p @ Tesoro > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <friam@redfish.com> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > IMHO formal treatments and formalisms are not helpful for > complex systems, if you want to understand complex systems > in general. They are NOT the right way, because they try to > press the diversity of complex systems into equations with > a few placeholders. This is the old way science has tried > for centuries and which is now more or less obsolete, > since Stephen Wolfram has proposed a "New Kind of Science". > Formal treatments, formalisms and equations are of course > useful for chaos theory. Chaos theory and strange attractors > are fascinating. The problem is that deterministic chaos is > only a very special case of a complex system. > > Simplicity has a unified form, but complexity has many > varieties. As Phil says, simplifying without confusing > is not always easy. Perhaps the best way to understand > complexity is to consider it as 'unity in diversity'. > Formal or even mathematical definitions of complexity, > self-organization or emergence are not helpful. They > are helpful for simple systems with dumb particles and > strong regularities, but they are less useful for complex > systems with intelligent agents where many exceptional, > unexpected and accidental events can happen. Classifications > and taxonomies are much more useful wherever one has to > deal with diversity. > > What one can do is to describe the different forms and > types of complex systems, the different class of emergence > and self-organization. If one has a more or less comprehensive > set of classes, one can examine how they are connected, > how they have evolved, and if it is possible to find a > general principle like evolution, 'edge of chaos' or > growth which connects them. > > -J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Owen Densmore > Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:12 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WedTech: Formalisms In Complexity;Wed Aug 2, 1:30p @ > Tesoro > > To kick off our discussions of Formalisms In Complexity, I thought > I'd add this to the mix. > > -- Owen > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > Friam@redfish.com > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 38, Issue 3 > ************************************ ============================================================ 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
