We have a kind of tunnelling in social systems for startups: they borrow money which they don't have from venture capital companies and banks, and this allows them to "tunnel" through unprofitable times.About the dynamics of social genes: I think how the "secret" social genes control their organism is in fact quite difficult to describe. When the priest reads a certain part of the social DNA the audience immediately hears it, but if and when the rules have a concrete effect can not be predicted. It can be the next day or the next week or never at all. We know that emotions control bodies of biological organisms by increasing the readiness for actions. Nico Frijda describes it in his book "The emotions". Social genes work similar, they increase the readiness for actions, i.e. the likelihood that the members of the group behave in a certain way. It is is possible that some kind of probability theory can be used to describe it mathematically.-Jochen -------- Original message --------From: Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> Date: 4/16/19 20:38 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Everything she knows...
With quantum annealer, one can make the distinction between logical qubits and physical qubits. Logical qubits can be formed from physical qubits by connecting physical qubits by strong pairwise ferromagnetic couplings. The low energy state of a system thus (in principle) has physical qubits that are members of the logical qubit in the same state. That’s all fine an good for ensuring a strong energy contrast between two logical values – and to be resistant to noise. However, the cost of that is that for that logical qubit to participate in tunneling means that the whole set of physical qubits need to tunnel. Think of a sci-fi story with a gateway to another world. You are holding hands with your family, and your father steps through the Stargate. He’s holding on to your mom’s hand but the chain be broken temporarily (and energy can fluctuate) as he is now in a different land. Then she must be pulled and then your siblings. These social genes make me think of dynamics like this. The rate that progress can occur toward the global optimal is diminished given an the insistence of maintaining group coherence. From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Jochen Fromm <j...@cas-group.net> Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 12:13 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Everything she knows... I would say any human individual serves multiple genes at once. First the normal, biological genes. The selfish genes as Dawkins called them. Then the other, hidden genes. I have written a book about it named "The secret genes" which I'm publishing now, this month. It is about the secret genes in the holy books of the big religions. We know them all as commandments, but normally we don't recognize them as what they are - cultural genes which create social lifeforms. Religious organizations are social lifeforms created by genes which are expressed in church services. Thus the temples from ancient civilizations are fossil remains of ancient lifeforms. Fascinating, isn't it? I try to explain it in more detail in the book. Since the content of the book is so explosive, I have decided to publish it in German first, to avoid some form of apocalypse like the collapse of civilization or Notre Dame burning down. But since nobody will read it anyway and Notre Dame has already burnt down there is no reason why it shouldn't be published in English. It doesn't really matter. If anyone will cause an apocalypse it is probably president Trump (nuclear, climate, or otherwise). Cheers, Jochen -------- Original message -------- From: glen∈ℂ <geprope...@gmail.com> Date: 4/16/19 16:47 (GMT+01:00) To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Everything she knows... Well, there are at least 2 ways I disagree: 1) Any ecological individual serves multiple bodies at once, and 2) Any one can serve different bodies at different moments. That we serve multiples presents a difference in degree so that there's a threshold for the number of bodies one serves. Those that serve many many purposes (religions, saints, jobs, whatever) may *seem* as if they serve nobody. Similarly, those of us who switch our affiliations on a minute-by-minute basis, may *seem* not to serve any one body. So, if your gist is that those who *seem* to not serve somebody are really serving many bodies or rapidly switching affiliations, then I agree. But if you insist on an artificial unification, then I disagree.
============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
