Ken, Right. I'm quite comfortable discussing it from the observed physical phenomena. If you watch individual physical events develop what I think you quickly discover are developmental processes that statistical models can't duplicate. Nature does not actually work by 'cause and effect' until some complex developmental process sets up the environment for some 'cause' to have an 'effect'. When you watch individual events closely you notice each one develops individually. The statistical models can't model it because,.. development always follows an individual path of exploration in an individual environment. You can guess the outcome, but that's not how nature brings it about.
In the general scope of natural processes, the statistical models work well mainly for the physical systems that science has been most successful with. That's sort of 'tautological', since what traditional science relies on is statistical models for everything, and where we've found them to work well has been the developmental path of science. I'm using science to explore other paths for other domains of natural process. My approach is quite sophisticated, asking somewhat simpler questions, but about the developmental processes which are local and unique. I use the emergence of conserved change and developmental continuity as the handle to grab onto them with. It's making an artificial model with equations. It's considering complex system processes as being their own 'model' and learning how to explore them. If I had someone with your knowledge of statistical physics 'get it' and help prove some very general statistical theorems, I think there is good work to be done that way too. Some would have to do with a theory of whole system measure, and things like limits of development defined by diminishing environmental returns on development, with the certainty of any exploration switching from unbounded to bounded accumulation. It offers a completely general envelope of explanations for why any avalanche or ionization wave, etc. begins and ends. My reference to football refers to all the grand schemes I keep hearing about at the conferences, and the curious popularity of the expression "extremely challenging" when the proposers are asked how sure they are that they'll work. If you go into the detail one by one I think you find the 'positive' spin they're presented with does not come from the science or engineering. The true "hail Mary" part is that they all conveniently ignore the continual acceleration of change and exploding complexity and resource conflicts they all imply. The simple problem they all incorporate is proposing unlimited growth from resources we choose to not to consider the limits of. It's totally 'cookie' how we got into such a profoundly non-self-critical frame of mind for the most important decisions of our own survival. I'm not sure if Joe Tainter or Jared Diamond talked about any example of collapse being caused by ever narrowing mental fixation on ever less reliable options, but that's clearly what's happening to us. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Lloyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:30 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > Phil, > > Tell a skier that to an avalanche is just a statistical concept, or > Ising or > Potts fields to a physicist. > > SOC is the way most electronics work, SCR's and thus TRIAC's, Josephson > junctions, and lasers. Lasers are my favorite example - SOC of light. > > I'm not sure the above fall into "Hail Mary" strategies. Plus, I'm not > sure > what terms like good and bad have to do with a description of a > physical > phenomena. > > Finally, equations and static logic only work for equilibrium systems, > unless you utilize functors as functions of functions. So try > computing > with percolation theory. > > Ken > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Phil Henshaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:32 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'The Friday Morning Applied > > Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > > > You refer to "a period of self-organizing criticality" as if > > that were an observable thing, whereas it appears to me to be > > a statistical concept for a set of chaotic equations. Part > > of what that model leaves out is the conserved processes of > > development that complex systems display, and how they begin > > and end with processes of conserved change. Complex systems > > change by accumulative organizational and path-building > > processes, not by > > statistics. That is what lets nature use development as the > > place where > > the designs of things are both built and recorded. > > > > Your idea seems to be that having everything fall apart might > > just be a way for it to all fall together in disguise, so > > pushing it to criticality is > > possibly a good idea not a bad idea. Isn't that the sense of > > it? That's a > > kind of "hail Mary plan" saying we're down to acts of > > complete desperation. > > "We've just got to try something" does seem to be the more or > > less universal mantra of the scientific community in > > proposing improbable mega schemes with > > exceedingly low levels of confidence. > > > > I think the survival of our way of life deserves something > > better than "hail Mary plans". In football if you can't > > think of what else to do, just throw the hell out of it. > > This is not football, and winners and losers can not all look > > forward to a good meal with friends and having the same world > > to live in the next morning. > > > > Phil > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ken Lloyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:05 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee > > > Group' > > > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > > > > > Phil, > > > > > > I certainly agree that complex systems as an observable > > phenomenon is > > > important, and I even go so far as to assert that such > > phenomenon can > > > be modeled (not with deterministic methods). > > > > > > However, the collapse you speak of might be a period of > > > self-organizing criticality. The causal relationship > > between financial > > > advantage of resource depletion, if it exists, may not survive the > > > avalanche - then again, it may. > > > The difficulty you speak of is entropy building in the system - > > > missing information between real value and monetary gain. > > > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:47 AM > > > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > > > Subject: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > > > > > > > Not to raise the subject necessarily... but just to note > > that I've > > > > been consistently accurate with my foresight and > > descriptions of how > > > > our complex system collapse has been developing. It would really > > > > pay you guys to consider the possibility that > > interpreting systems > > > > as observable physical processes as I do might be useful. > > > > > > > > Our own whole complex throughput system is still operating in a > > > > global environment of increasing difficulty in using diminishing > > > > resources and still have a financial system multiplying > > investments > > > > in depleting them. > > > > That's going to just run into ever bigger disappointments till we > > > > stop, one way or another. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > > > Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:17 PM > > > > > To: FRIAM > > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity > > > > > > > > > > Carl, > > > > > > > > > > Well, It depends on whether you're the kind of person who, when > > > > > finding that nature has a habit of changing the title of the > > > > > course and the text shortly before her exams, continues > > to study > > > > > the wrong text because that's the course they signed up for... > > > > > [ph] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Holding ourselves apart from nature, We are surprised when > > > > > > nature pays our work no mind. > > > > > > Were our methods unsound? > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > > > > > > I think what may be holding back the math is our > > > > failure to go to > > > > > the > > > > > > next > > > > > > > level and consider change as a physical process. When > > > > you do that > > > > > > you find > > > > > > > what nature actually does much more interesting and > > > > inspiring than > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > we can invent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Using a physical systems model the process now bringing > > > > about our > > > > > > whole > > > > > > > system collapse was seen coming a long way off and it could > > > have > > > > > > inspired > > > > > > > the math to demonstrate the turn onto another path > > instead too. > > > > > > Live and > > > > > > > learn I guess. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 2006 paper by Bettencourt is easily generalized to > > > > reach this > > > > > > > implication, acknowledging that for the physical growth > > > > system he > > > > > > considered > > > > > > > "achieving major innovation cycles must be generated at > > > > > > > continually accelerating rates"( > > > > > > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7301.abstract). > > > > > > > That's remarkably close to the basis of proof for > > the general > > > > > > principle I > > > > > > > offered in my "Infinite Society" paper in 1979 > > > > > > > (http://www.synapse9.com/UnhidPatt-theInfiniteSoc.pdf). > The > > > > > general > > > > > > > principle being the theorem that I've been using ever since > > > with > > > > > > excellent > > > > > > > forecasting results. In physical systems "growth runs into > > > > > > complications" > > > > > > > and nature does a lot of creative stuff with it. You just > > > look > > > > > for > > > > > > the > > > > > > > complications coming and then 'voila', cool new science at > > > every > > > > > > turn! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > On > > > > > > >> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:10 PM > > > > > > >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Prof David West wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>>> We have also talked about the lack of rigorous > > mathematical > > > > > > >>>> representation of complexity and that being a barrier to > > > > > progress > > > > > > >>>> in the science. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above > > sentence > > > > > > >>> raises > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> mine. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> implicit in the sentence is some variation of > > > > "mathematics is a > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> better / > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> superior / privileged / real language compared to > > all other > > > > > > languages > > > > > > >>> used by humans to think and therefore we cannot > > really think > > > > > > properly > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> or > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> rigorously unless we are thinking mathematically." > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> I don't think that inference is implied by that > > sentence. I > > > so > > > > > > believe > > > > > > >> math is a better language with which to describe reality > > > > > > >> than, > > > > > say, > > > > > > >> English. But, that's not what the sentence above > > says. The > > > > > > sentence > > > > > > >> above states that a _lack_ of math rigor is a > > barrier to one > > > > > > particular > > > > > > >> domain: plectics. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Your inference goes quite a bit further than the > > > > David's sentence. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> this annoying attitude is expressed / believed by a > > > > majority of > > > > > > >>> intellectuals and academicians - not just > > mathematicians. > > > > > > >>> We > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> "scientists" unless we 'mathematize' our field of > enquiry. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> And although I believe that math is the best known > > > > language for > > > > > > >> describing reality, I don't believe that one must > > mathematize > > > > > every > > > > > > >> scientific field or that one cannot be a scientist without > > > > > > >> mathematizing their field. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Science is the search for truth. And truth can be sought > > > using > > > > > any > > > > > > >> language... any language at all. Some domains, > > > > particularly the > > > > > > ones > > > > > > >> resistant to rigor are best studied with languages > > that have > > > > > > >> a > > > > > high > > > > > > >> tolerance for ambiguity... e.g. English. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Some domains that are not so resistant to rigor are > > > > best studied > > > > > > with > > > > > > >> math. Often, it takes a great deal of work using > ambiguity > > > > > tolerant > > > > > > >> languages like English before an ambiguity intolerant > > > > > > >> language > > > > > like > > > > > > >> math > > > > > > >> can be effectively used. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> If and when less ambiguous languages can be used, _then_ > > > > > > >> those languages become more effective than the > > more ambiguous > > > > > > >> languages. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> From 50,000 metaphorical feet, this can be seen as a > > > > simple case > > > > > of > > > > > > >> specialization. A generalist uses coarse tools and a > > > > specialist > > > > > > uses > > > > > > >> fine tools. Math is a fine tool that can only be used > > > > after the > > > > > > >> generalists have done their upstream work in the > > > > domain. Neither > > > > > is > > > > > > >> really "better", of course, when taking a synoptic view of > > > > > > >> the > > > > > whole > > > > > > >> evolution of the domain. But math is definitely more > > > > refined... > > > > > > more > > > > > > >> special. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Interestingly enough, all advances in science stem > > > > from the uses > > > > > of > > > > > > >>> metaphor - not mathematics. (see Quine) The > > > > premature rush to > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> abandon > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> the language of metaphor and publish using arcane > > squiggles > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> real > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> - in my not very humble opinion - barrier to progress. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> I agree. Likewise, the tendency to stick with a > > > > coarse language > > > > > > when a > > > > > > >> more refined language is called for is also a real > > barrier to > > > > > > >> progress... "progress" defined as: the evolution of a > > > > domain from > > > > > > >> general to special, coarse to fine. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > ============================================================ > > > > > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > > 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 > > > > > > ============================================================ 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
