To all the wandering lost colleagues in the congregation,
thank you all, So after Tom and Dean’s contributions someone has to assemble a team to put this together in text and images/ I only realized today that my stupid Flowers were connected to all this struggle. I did suspect something long ago and kept at it. My flowers now use 5 simple networks and each is a 28 x 162 Rectangular Matrix each containing a circular Self Avoiding Walks. By connecting all five walks without crossing any path The Flower Emerges. By warping any single SAW at specific locations with GrowthFactors, It appears to grow. If I apply a displacement function to all SAW’s at once then it appears to move. in truth the flower only utilizes a very small portion of each simple network. https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkyTZd31rUbkkh_ap Thank you all, but now I am very tired… Those infuriating layers may well be each some kind of container projections/boundaries out side of x,y, and z. Perhaps this is all a child’s plaything… vladimyr Tom-- Fine, informative article. One cohesive view of the evolution of mathematical thought might be: 1. Geometry/ number theory. 2. Early algebra (symbolic thought) 3. Analysis (analytic geometry and calculus) 4. Topology. 5. Abstract algebra (previous century) 6. Algebraic topology( integrates concepts from many disciplines) Highly applicable to modern science, e.g. your reverenced article? Thanks for the link. Dean Gerber On Saturday, June 24, 2017 12:01 PM, Tom Johnson <t...@jtjohnson.com> wrote: https://goo.gl/S5yRGF ============================================ Tom Johnson Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org/> Check out It's The People's Data <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671> http://www.jtjohnson.com <http://www.jtjohnson.com/> t...@jtjohnson.com ============================================ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> by Dr. Strangelove From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson Sent: June-23-17 4:31 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought Thank you, Frank. A really important point. So bachelor implies unmarried, but unmarried does not imply bachelor. Your message also contained some additional correspondence which, for some reason, I have never seen. I have no quick answer to any of it. I still think that there is an important peril in explanations of the form “A is the explanation for A” but I am way less confident of my ability to identify pernicious extensions of that form. And it still seems significant to me that you complexitists have not identified and agreed upon a target for your explanatory efforts. (Please remind me, I if I am wrong about that). So, unless I have gone dozy, we have two outstanding questions: 1. When complexitists speak of complexity, to what phenomenon are they referring? 2. What are the conditions that predict the occurrence of such phenomena. 3. Does anybody on this list believe that it is fair to include parts of your answer to question #1 in your answer to question #2 One more thing. Back in the email midden several days ago, I said something to Glen that was inadvertently tactless and overtly stupid. Glen responded with kindness, generosity, and indefatigable focus on the main issues. This is to announce my gratitude to Glen for being … well … Glen. I am honored that you-guys let me sit on the edge of your pool and dangle my feet in it. That’s a metaphor. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 9:52 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the role of metaphor in scientific thought Has anybody mentioned that there are lot of unmarried men that you usually wouldn't call bachelors? There are widowers, priests, and nineteen year-olds, for example. I learned the word because my father's brother was a thirty-five year old Major in the Air Force with no wife. He eventually got married and had children. Late bloomer? Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jun 22, 2017 11:34 PM, "gepr ⛧" <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: But the difference isn't merely rhetorical. If we take the setup seriously, that the unmarried patient really doesn't know the other names by which his condition is known, then there are all sorts of different side effects that might obtain. E.g. if the doctor tells him he's a bachelor, he might google that and discover bachelor parties. But if the doctor tells him he is "single", he might discover single's night at the local pub. My point was not only the evocation of various ideas, but also the side effects of various (computational) paths. On June 22, 2017 7:00:55 PM PDT, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote: >Glen said: "So, the loop of unmarried <=> bachelor has information in >it, >even if the only information is (as in your example), the guy learns >that >because the condition has another name, perhaps there are other ways of >thinking about it ... other _circles_ to use." > >This reminds me that, in another context, Nick complained to me quite a >bit >about Peirce's asserting that that any concept was simply a collection >of >conceived "practical" consequences. He felt that the term "practical" >was >unnecessary, and lead to confusions. I think this is a good example of >why >Peirce used that term, and felt it necessary. > >Perice would point out that the practical consequences of being >"unmarried" >are identical to the practical consequences of being "a bachelor." >Thus, >though the spellings be different, there is only one idea at play there >(in >Peirce-land... if we are thinking clearly). This is the tautology that >Nick >is pointing at, and he isn't wrong. > >And yet, Glen is still clearly correct that using one term or the other >may >more readily invoke certain ideas in a listener. Those aren't practical >differences in Peirce's sense- they are not differences in practice >that >would achieve if one tested the unique implications of one label or the >other (as there are no contrasting unique implications). The value of >having the multiple terms is rhetorical, not logical. > >What to do with such differences.............. -- ⛧glen⛧ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
