Re: [FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

[gepr ⛧]

Yes, absolutely! The arguments about the ambiguity of terms like complex, 
model, layer, and the capitalization of words in programming languages fall 
squarely in the ontologies domain. And that means they fall under graph and 
network theory, though I think "labelled transition systems" might be better.

The trouble with reduction to a unified ontology is also critical, because I 
think the majority of the problem we're struggling with (writ large) is 
reductionism, or more generally, monism/non-duality.  I think Aaronson makes 
the point nicely here:

  Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t)
  http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3294

In microcosm, Nick's _latch_ onto the onion as metaphor for unorderable 
complexes is a symptom of the underlying problem that we use language (or 
conceptual structures) according to our temporally- and proximally-bound 
_purpose_.  Anyone who claims to work only with some sort of universal, 
Platonic truth is delusional or disingenuous.  A unification of that language 
is not only impossible, but if it were possible, it would be a kind of 
order-death (opposite of heat death).  Perfect and universal normalization to a 
single norm would paralyze us all.

But, obviously given my crybaby tantrum about "level" vs. "layer", I believe 
_some_ resolution/alignment of language is necessary for any sort of 
progress/produce.  To me, a collaboratively produced document about complexity 
that comes from a small subset of this community that intuitively agrees 
already, with no friction in the process, would be a useless "yet another 
jargonal paper about complexity".

So far, the useful friction I see is:

  Russ: information is required
  Stephen: nearly any physical system squeezed in the right way
  Nick: gen-phen map
  Eric: cumulative hierarchy

I don't think pressurizing this plurality into a unified "system of thought" 
will produce anything interesting.  But I _do_ think allowing them to 
flower/flesh out from a bare, common skeleton would be interesting _IF_ the 
fleshing out didn't lose the skeleton amongst the flowers or lose the flowers 
by over-emphasizing the skeleton.


On June 9, 2017 1:49:45 PM PDT, Steven A Smith  wrote:
>... how to explicitely *superpose* multiple
>graphs/networks, and in particular ontologies, rather than try to 
>*compose* and then resolve the contradictions among them.   It is 
>ancient enough work that I don't remember exactly what I was thinking, 
>but it was revisited in the Faceted Ontology work in 2010ish...  but 
>that was MUCH more speculative since we didn't actually HAVE a specific
>
>ontology to work with.   "If we had some rope, we could make a log 
>raft if we had some logs!"
>
>I sense that both you (Glen) and Marcus have your own work (or 
>avocational) experience with ontologies and I'm sure there are others 
>here.  For me it is both about knowledge representation/manipulation
>AND 
>collaborative knowledge building which is what I *think* Nick is going 
>on about, and what is implied in our bandying about of "concept/mind 
>mapping".


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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Vladimyr]

Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.

I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from anAdvanced 
Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were 
using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to 
describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was 
composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global 
coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to 
allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of 
the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used 
by people.

Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to  analyze 
why something failed and killed good people.
The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger 
condiment but one must specify which context before
breaking into a brawl.

We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the 
lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.

Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots. Matrix 
Stacking was the key procedure we used.
In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the social 
norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a biological 
analogue.

The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my third 
language so I am not so biased about some words
as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my 
interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot redistribute 
stress.

Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D images 
to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.

But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to try and 
explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
seem to be punching in the right direction. I ran into a problem with some of 
my code that was wholly unexpected and it actually
was the circularity condition. You had to view it from a certain location to 
see the Circularity , anywhere else you would see either columns or helices.

I had not specifically written the code to do any of these, my brain was 
jumping to conclusions.  I had the code on one screen and the graphics running 
beside on the left.

I had to spend hours staring and watching my own brain fight over which reality 
to accept. Evolution has left us many peculiar brain structures that were once 
useful but now
a hindrance.

Complexity may be real, but it may also be an unnatural effort for some brains. 
Words are nearly  useless in this arena. So well maybe are the 2D excel charts. 
Steve may just be accidentally
flattering my interests having recently been reading up on Graph Theory. Indeed 
I wonder about Nodes and unusual valences. To illustrate my own bent mental 
models I used 
my mental models to write code and translate a Stack of Rectangular Matrices (6 
in total) 28 rows and 162 columns  Each represents a Self Avoiding walk neither 
Eulerian or Hamiltonian,
or a little of each since I work in 3D at least. I did the unthinkable... I 
connected Nodes to Nodes of different Matrices, then I purged nodes only 
connected to those of each sheet. What remained
I plotted as surfaces in 3D. Then I converted these vertex positions into 
Object files .obj which now can be printed by 3D printers when scaled properly. 
So there gentleman I can now print my
Mad Mental Models but that is just the beginning I have established a 
methodology to distinguish rigid Body Motion from Growth and present them 
simultaneously. But now it get`s very weird,
To see the growth I had to do much fiddling with code. The growth must be 
synchronized to the  frame rate of the display. Or to my brain throughput 
capacity.
I have seen great Hollywood animations and may have repeated what is already 
well known but generally out of reach for academics. I use Processing to 
display these moving 3D objects with some difficulty
but it does work.

So take a look you may have to download

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkyNFoHD7DbjevjZM

This Flower is the intersection of 5 Self Avoiding Walk Graphs in 3D space, 
each Matrix is tubular they are nested inside each other as like a Russian Doll.
Not an Onion .I applied a growth factor to a single region of the fifth matrix 
while moving the entire structure via rotation. Examination of any single 
Matrix would 
never 

Re: [FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

[Steven A Smith]

Given that we have been splitting hairs on terminology, I wanted to at 
least OPEN the topic that has been grazed over and over, and that is the 
distinction between Model, Metaphor, and Analogy.


I specifically mean

1. Mathematical Model 
2. Conceptual Metaphor 
3. Formal Analogy 

I don't know if this narrows it down enough to discuss but I think these 
three terms have been bandied about loosely and widely enough lately to 
deserve a little more explication?


I could rattle on for pages about my own usage/opinions/distinctions but 
trust that would just pollute a thread before it had a chance to start, 
if start it can.


A brief Google Search gave me THIS reference which looks promising, but 
as usual, I'm not willing to go past a paywall or beg a 
colleague/institution for access (I know LANL's reference library will 
probably get this for me if I go in there!).


http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631221081_chunk_g97806312210818




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

Re: [FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

[Steven A Smith]

OK, we can hold off on beating this horse until a more specific and 
relevant example arrives on the scene, then we can lead him to water and 
hold him under whether he drinks or not.!



On 6/9/17 1:56 PM, gepr ⛧ wrote:

I'm not entirely sure to be honest. But I know they must contain cycles. So DAGs are 
inadequate, hence my revulsion at the word "level".

On June 9, 2017 12:37:39 PM PDT, Steven A Smith  wrote:

Glen -

At the risk of boring the rest of the crowd silly, I'd be interested in

hearing more about the kinds of graphs you would like to talk about.
I
agree that Partially Ordered Sets are a (relatively) special case.

My interest is in the structure/function duality, more in topological
than geometric structure.  I've read D'Arcy Thompson (no relation
Nick?)
but not studied him closely, and I defer for my intuition to
Christopher
Alexander (A Pattern Language) for high-dimensional graph-relations in
a
real-world (human-built environments) context I can relate to.

Perhaps I'm more interested in Networks, though I'd like to ask the
naive question of how folks here distinguish the two... I tend to think

of Networks as Graphs with flows along edges.   I think in terms of
multi-graphs (allowing multiple edges between nodes) or more precisely,

edges with multiple strengths/lengths/flows or more precisely yet I
think,  with vector properties on edges...




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

Re: [FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

[Steven A Smith]

Not quite letting this drowning horse gurgle in peace, I realized that I 
brought up the Ontology/Joslyn paper because of the Ontology issue and 
alignment/resolution of Lexicons (or more apropos Ontologies).


The Gene Ontology was chosen for this project because it was one of the 
more mature back in 2006 or 7, and had been formed by a committee of 
concerned/stakeholder parties.  It was known to be full of compromises 
and half-truths.  I was very interested (in spite of it being outside of 
my purview) in the question of how to explicitely *superpose* multiple 
graphs/networks, and in particular ontologies, rather than try to 
*compose* and then resolve the contradictions among them.   It is 
ancient enough work that I don't remember exactly what I was thinking, 
but it was revisited in the Faceted Ontology work in 2010ish...  but 
that was MUCH more speculative since we didn't actually HAVE a specific 
ontology to work with.   "If we had some rope, we could make a log 
raft if we had some logs!"


I sense that both you (Glen) and Marcus have your own work (or 
avocational) experience with ontologies and I'm sure there are others 
here.  For me it is both about knowledge representation/manipulation AND 
collaborative knowledge building which is what I *think* Nick is going 
on about, and what is implied in our bandying about of "concept/mind 
mapping".




On 6/9/17 2:29 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
OK, we can hold off on beating this horse until a more specific and 
relevant example arrives on the scene, then we can lead him to water 
and hold him under whether he drinks or not.!



On 6/9/17 1:56 PM, gepr ⛧ wrote:
I'm not entirely sure to be honest. But I know they must contain 
cycles. So DAGs are inadequate, hence my revulsion at the word "level".


On June 9, 2017 12:37:39 PM PDT, Steven A Smith  
wrote:

Glen -

At the risk of boring the rest of the crowd silly, I'd be interested in

hearing more about the kinds of graphs you would like to talk about.
I
agree that Partially Ordered Sets are a (relatively) special case.

My interest is in the structure/function duality, more in topological
than geometric structure.  I've read D'Arcy Thompson (no relation
Nick?)
but not studied him closely, and I defer for my intuition to
Christopher
Alexander (A Pattern Language) for high-dimensional graph-relations in
a
real-world (human-built environments) context I can relate to.

Perhaps I'm more interested in Networks, though I'd like to ask the
naive question of how folks here distinguish the two... I tend to think

of Networks as Graphs with flows along edges.   I think in terms of
multi-graphs (allowing multiple edges between nodes) or more precisely,

edges with multiple strengths/lengths/flows or more precisely yet I
think,  with vector properties on edges...




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

[FRIAM] Model, Metaphor, Analogy

[Steven A Smith]

I meant to spawn a fresh proto-thread here, sorry.
Given that we have been splitting hairs on terminology, I wanted to at 
least OPEN the topic that has been grazed over and over, and that is 
the distinction between Model, Metaphor, and Analogy.


I specifically mean

 1. Mathematical Model 
 2. Conceptual Metaphor

 3. Formal Analogy 

I don't know if this narrows it down enough to discuss but I think 
these three terms have been bandied about loosely and widely enough 
lately to deserve a little more explication?


I could rattle on for pages about my own usage/opinions/distinctions 
but trust that would just pollute a thread before it had a chance to 
start, if start it can.


A brief Google Search gave me THIS reference which looks promising, 
but as usual, I'm not willing to go past a paywall or beg a 
colleague/institution for access (I know LANL's reference library will 
probably get this for me if I go in there!).


http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631221081_chunk_g97806312210818






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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[┣glen┫]

Heh, you're so rife with premature registration!  You _leap_ to thinking about 
the strength of the onion analogy without seeming to listen to what I'm saying 
at all.  8^)  That's OK.  I'm used to it.  But to be clear, my point was about 
_direction_, not the extent to which layers are coupled.  I also mentioned 
spray painting and sand blasting.  Those are even better than onions, given 
Russ' target of urban systems.

But on with the onion!  Surely you don't believe your own statement that an 
onion's layers have relatively little to do with one another.  That would be 
akin to rejecting the concept of a population _relaxing_ into a landscape.  
Literally, the very shape of the outer layers is determined by the shapes of 
the inner layers.  And since the onion analog (not metaphor) is about space, 
the shapes matter a great deal to the structural analogy.

More importantly, the thickness of an onions layer has much to do with the 
gradients it's being painted by.  So, this analog is actually a pretty good one 
for making my point that layer is a more generically useful term than level.


On 06/08/2017 09:41 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Late, here, so I will just say a little.  According to the scientific 
> metaphor game I understand, we would now start to cash out the onion 
> metaphor.  Does the relation between the layers in an onion REALLY capture 
> what you are after.  I would guess not, because (I am holding an onion now) 
> the layers in an onion have relatively little to do with one another.  You 
> can slide one with respect to the other.  I am guessing that you are looking 
> for a metaphor in which one layer interacts with another.  (Ugh.  I have to 
> go wash my hands.)  Remember, you can make a metaphor to an abstract onion.  
> A model has to have its own reality beyond it’s use to represent your notion 
> of layer.  


-- 
␦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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[┣glen┫]

Because, as Steve rightly pointed out with that Joslyn paper, the point is the 
extent to which the system submits to ordering.  A strict hierarchy (levels, 
like I think EricS drew) submits to a total order, whereas a brranching 
hierarchy (still levels) submits to a partial order.  Graphs work, but not as 
analogy, per se ... more like exact representations.  The kinds of graphs I'd 
like to talk about don't (necessarily) submit to ordering, even partial 
ordering. (no levels) It would be more complete to say that any "ordering" 
would be more complicated than simple relations like ≥ or ≤.

On 06/08/2017 09:48 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Why does there need to be any spatial property?  Why not a graph?


-- 
␦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] more importantly!

[┣glen┫]

A Hypothesis-Free Sensor Array Discriminates Whiskies for Brand, Age, and Taste
http://www.cell.com/chem/fulltext/S2451-9294%2817%2930174-2?dom=icopyright=syn#

-- 
␦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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Frank Wimberly]

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I
can't think of a biological example"

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis?  They interact.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith"  wrote:

> Vlad -
>
> I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very
> motivated, though I can't articulate why.  I suppose because it has some
> connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is structurally
> similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which connotes
> the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata.  I'm not sure I know
> how to think about ply which seems to be derived from the world of
> engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small number (under 5?) and
> engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?
>
> The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems like
> strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I
> can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were trying
> to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?
>
> I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a
> redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include engineering/mechanical
> stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even semantic stresses in a concept
> graph/network) ?
>
> As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your
> affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits.   Not all concepts ground
> directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex
> metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object (more
> to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space using
> geometric primitives?)
>
> I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as
> animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D spatial
> reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with topological
> reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics might simply be
> a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is primarily topological,
> though in a somewhat degenerate fashion.   I used to wonder why the term
> "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I suspect the most interesting
> code might very well be so arbitrarily complex as to deserve that term.   I
> understand that taking (otherwise) simple linear structures and rendering
> them unrecognizeable with jumps/goto's is pathological.
>
> I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description of
> your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and
> Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?).  I will attempt to parse more of this
> and respond under separate cover.
>
> Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my
> own petard here!
>
> - Steve
>
> On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:
>
>> Nicholas,
>> I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.
>>
>> I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from an
>> Advanced Composite Engineering view point.
>> It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We
>> were using various materials and filament
>> winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a
>> term to describe an entity with specific material properties.
>> When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was
>> composed of any number of lamina
>> having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global
>> coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
>> structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation
>> to allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
>> very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber
>> thought of the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
>> with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact
>> when used by people.
>>
>> Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to
>> analyze why something failed and killed good people.
>> The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger
>> condiment but one must specify which context before
>> breaking into a brawl.
>>
>> We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the
>> lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.
>>
>> Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots.
>> Matrix Stacking was the key procedure we used.
>> In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the
>> social norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
>> never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a
>> biological analogue.
>>
>> The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my
>> third language so I am not so biased about some words
>> as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my
>> interests, graph theory and 

Re: [FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

Thanks for the complementary concept of "labelled transition systems" 
(generalization of "state diagram"?) to juxtapose with Graph and Network.

The trouble with reduction to a unified ontology is also critical, because I 
think the majority of the problem we're struggling with (writ large) is 
reductionism, or more generally, monism/non-duality.  I think Aaronson makes 
the point nicely here:

   Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t)
   http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3294

I'm wading... it is a rich soup.


In microcosm, Nick's _latch_ onto the onion as metaphor for unorderable 
complexes is a symptom of the underlying problem that we use language (or 
conceptual structures) according to our temporally- and proximally-bound 
_purpose_.

A long-winded phrase for "context"?

  Anyone who claims to work only with some sort of universal, Platonic truth is 
delusional or disingenuous.  A unification of that language is not only 
impossible, but if it were possible, it would be a kind of order-death 
(opposite of heat death).  Perfect and universal normalization to a single norm 
would paralyze us all.
I intuitively resonate with this but can't quite render it all down to 
something fully rational.


But, obviously given my crybaby tantrum about "level" vs. "layer", I believe _some_ 
resolution/alignment of language is necessary for any sort of progress/produce.  To me, a collaboratively 
produced document about complexity that comes from a small subset of this community that intuitively agrees 
already, with no friction in the process, would be a useless "yet another jargonal paper about 
complexity".

So far, the useful friction I see is:

   Russ: information is required
   Stephen: nearly any physical system squeezed in the right way
   Nick: gen-phen map
   Eric: cumulative hierarchy
Wow!  I wish I could pull that out of the discussion so easily.  I'd 
have a hard enough time validating (or refuting) this synopsis... but it 
is helpful that you offer it.


I don't think pressurizing this plurality into a unified "system of thought" 
will produce anything interesting.  But I _do_ think allowing them to flower/flesh out 
from a bare, common skeleton would be interesting _IF_ the fleshing out didn't lose the 
skeleton amongst the flowers or lose the flowers by over-emphasizing the skeleton.
Metaphors abound... maybe a rough allegorical analogy to Russ's original 
question might be "do all useful/interesting metaphors ultimately ground 
out in biology?"  I think Lakoff and Nunez might suggest so via their 
"Embodiment of Mind" arguments?!


buh!
 - Steve



On June 9, 2017 1:49:45 PM PDT, Steven A Smith  wrote:

... how to explicitely *superpose* multiple
graphs/networks, and in particular ontologies, rather than try to
*compose* and then resolve the contradictions among them.   It is
ancient enough work that I don't remember exactly what I was thinking,
but it was revisited in the Faceted Ontology work in 2010ish...  but
that was MUCH more speculative since we didn't actually HAVE a specific

ontology to work with.   "If we had some rope, we could make a log
raft if we had some logs!"

I sense that both you (Glen) and Marcus have your own work (or
avocational) experience with ontologies and I'm sure there are others
here.  For me it is both about knowledge representation/manipulation
AND
collaborative knowledge building which is what I *think* Nick is going
on about, and what is implied in our bandying about of "concept/mind
mapping".


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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Vladimyr]

Frank and the Congregation,

 

Shame on me for neglecting the obvious biological intermingling but stress 
redistribution

is so mechanical and direction sensitive it never dawned on me.

But  what I did is more like weaving using nodes as intersection points without 
breaking

the filaments. 

 

Giving up at such a time seems horribly sad even pathetic.

 

So now do we agree, in part,  that lamina can penetrate other lamina and 
generate very complex systems.

Is a lamina a real entity then with properties. I can already  make these 
flowers with cold rolled steel for edges.   

The complex system is interacting or intersecting laminae. Every view point 
presents a different structure.

It seems insufficient to treat lamina as inert since they could just as easily 
become transit or vascular systems.

So information can be accommodated… 

I had to pause to think about this but will let it stand. Pumping networks are 
very real.

But this code is now close to my own physical limit.

Time is short for all of us.

vib 

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: June-09-17 11:21 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

 

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I 
can't think of a biological example"

 

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis?  They interact.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

 

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith"  wrote:

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very motivated, 
though I can't articulate why.  I suppose because it has some connotation 
related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is structurally similar to the 
vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" which connotes the "laying down of" 
a series of membranes or strata.  I'm not sure I know how to think about ply 
which seems to be derived from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting 
perhaps a small number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or 
"evolved"?

The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems like 
strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I 
can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what you were trying to 
achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a 
redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include engineering/mechanical 
stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even semantic stresses in a concept 
graph/network) ?

As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your affinity 
for it, but feel it has it's limits.   Not all concepts ground directly out in 
3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex metaphorical basis which 
in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object (more to the point, a complex system 
projected down into a 3D space using geometric primitives?)

I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as 
animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D spatial 
reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with topological reasoning 
(graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics might simply be a (signifcant) 
subset of? I would claim that code is primarily topological, though in a 
somewhat degenerate fashion.   I used to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" 
was used in such derision, I suspect the most interesting code might very well 
be so arbitrarily complex as to deserve that term.   I understand that taking 
(otherwise) simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with 
jumps/goto's is pathological.

I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description of your 
stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and Hamiltonian/Eulerian 
(processes?).  I will attempt to parse more of this and respond under separate 
cover.

Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my own 
petard here!

- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:

Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.

I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from anAdvanced 
Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were 
using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to 
describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was 
composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global 
coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to 
allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single 

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Steven A Smith]

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very 
motivated, though I can't articulate why.  I suppose because it has some 
connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is 
structurally similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" 
which connotes the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata.  
I'm not sure I know how to think about ply which seems to be derived 
from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small 
number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?


The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems 
like strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for 
that, but I can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what 
you were trying to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?


I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a 
redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include 
engineering/mechanical stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even 
semantic stresses in a concept graph/network) ?


As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your 
affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits.   Not all concepts ground 
directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex 
metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object 
(more to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space 
using geometric primitives?)


I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as 
animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D 
spatial reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with 
topological reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics 
might simply be a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is 
primarily topological, though in a somewhat degenerate fashion.   I used 
to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I 
suspect the most interesting code might very well be so arbitrarily 
complex as to deserve that term.   I understand that taking (otherwise) 
simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with 
jumps/goto's is pathological.


I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description 
of your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and 
Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?).  I will attempt to parse more of this 
and respond under separate cover.


Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my 
own petard here!


- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:

Nicholas,
I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.

I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from anAdvanced 
Composite Engineering view point.
It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were 
using various materials and filament
winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to 
describe an entity with specific material properties.
When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was 
composed of any number of lamina
having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global 
coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to 
allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of 
the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used 
by people.

Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to  analyze 
why something failed and killed good people.
The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger 
condiment but one must specify which context before
breaking into a brawl.

We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the 
lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.

Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots. Matrix 
Stacking was the key procedure we used.
In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the social 
norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a biological 
analogue.

The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my third 
language so I am not so biased about some words
as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my 
interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot redistribute 
stress.

Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D images 
to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.

But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to try and 
explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
seem to be 

Re: [FRIAM] tools, trollers, and language

[Owen Densmore]

Re Troll & OP, like Steve said.

Re discussions amongst people who disagree: I just read that analysis of
voice & speech patterns could reveal concussion related brain damage far
before normal methods.

Possibly, like IdeaTree, analysing the structure, grammar, word choice, etc
of a conversation, not simply what is said, could also reveal hidden intent
and feelings.

Re complexity as language: Merle has been using complexity concepts and
language for years .. let's get her to chat about it.

   -- Owen

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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, glen, 

Great!  I am learning stuff.  I am happy to learn more about onions.   In fact, 
now wish I knew more.  It seems like onions develop from the inside out, right? 
 The outside layer is just the first inside layer grown large.  I think if one 
examines the whole onion plant, one finds that each layer of the onion proper 
is connected to its own onion leave.  But mostly my interest is in playing the 
metaphor game rigorously, which you are doing with admirable precision.  

I stipulate that a bump in one layer of an onion will enforce itself on the 
layers around it, so the layers are not entirely independent of one another.  
Do you stipulate that each layer of an onion is essentially an independent 
plant wrapped in the earlier layers grown larger?  

At some point, in the metaphor game, we return to the thing we are trying to 
explain and map the elements of the metaphor (the "analogs") onto the 
explanandum.  But not yet.  This is too much fun. 

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ?glen?
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 11:01 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

Heh, you're so rife with premature registration!  You _leap_ to thinking about 
the strength of the onion analogy without seeming to listen to what I'm saying 
at all.  8^)  That's OK.  I'm used to it.  But to be clear, my point was about 
_direction_, not the extent to which layers are coupled.  I also mentioned 
spray painting and sand blasting.  Those are even better than onions, given 
Russ' target of urban systems.

But on with the onion!  Surely you don't believe your own statement that an 
onion's layers have relatively little to do with one another.  That would be 
akin to rejecting the concept of a population _relaxing_ into a landscape.  
Literally, the very shape of the outer layers is determined by the shapes of 
the inner layers.  And since the onion analog (not metaphor) is about space, 
the shapes matter a great deal to the structural analogy.

More importantly, the thickness of an onions layer has much to do with the 
gradients it's being painted by.  So, this analog is actually a pretty good one 
for making my point that layer is a more generically useful term than level.


On 06/08/2017 09:41 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Late, here, so I will just say a little.  According to the scientific 
> metaphor game I understand, we would now start to cash out the onion 
> metaphor.  Does the relation between the layers in an onion REALLY capture 
> what you are after.  I would guess not, because (I am holding an onion now) 
> the layers in an onion have relatively little to do with one another.  You 
> can slide one with respect to the other.  I am guessing that you are looking 
> for a metaphor in which one layer interacts with another.  (Ugh.  I have to 
> go wash my hands.)  Remember, you can make a metaphor to an abstract onion.  
> A model has to have its own reality beyond it’s use to represent your notion 
> of layer.  


--
␦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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[glen ☣]

On 06/09/2017 09:41 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> It seems like onions develop from the inside out, right?


Heh, I don't know.  Nor do I care because my analogy is not intended to be 
anything more than an analogy. >8^D


>The outside layer is just the first inside layer grown large.  I think if one 
>examines the whole onion plant, one finds that each layer of the onion proper 
>is connected to its own onion leave.  But mostly my interest is in playing the 
>metaphor game rigorously, which you are doing with admirable precision.


There our purposes diverge.  My interest is in demonstrating that the concept 
of levels is inadequate to describe the layers involved in complexity.


> I stipulate that a bump in one layer of an onion will enforce itself on the 
> layers around it, so the layers are not entirely independent of one another.  
> Do you stipulate that each layer of an onion is essentially an independent 
> plant wrapped in the earlier layers grown larger?


Not in the slightest.  I only stipulate that the concept of levels is 
inadequate when examining onions.


> At some point, in the metaphor game, we return to the thing we are trying to 
> explain and map the elements of the metaphor (the "analogs") onto the 
> explanandum.  But not yet.  This is too much fun. 


Unfortunately, perhaps because I simulate things for a living, I don and doff 
analogs more frequently than you don and doff hats or shoes.  So, I'm ready to 
abandon the near-spherical onion and move on to more complicated surfaces and 
the layers that accrete from within or without.

-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

 Glen, 

But wait a minute!  Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a 
minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?  I assume you 
take your models seriously, right?  I don't know what it means, "Just an 
analogy".  Either your layers are onion-like or not, right?  In which case, 
don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in mind?  If your 
notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of complexity, 
then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or whatever) are 
onion-like?  

Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in 
evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural 
selection) seriously enough.  

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:48 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

On 06/09/2017 09:41 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> It seems like onions develop from the inside out, right?


Heh, I don't know.  Nor do I care because my analogy is not intended to be 
anything more than an analogy. >8^D


>The outside layer is just the first inside layer grown large.  I think if one 
>examines the whole onion plant, one finds that each layer of the onion proper 
>is connected to its own onion leave.  But mostly my interest is in playing the 
>metaphor game rigorously, which you are doing with admirable precision.


There our purposes diverge.  My interest is in demonstrating that the concept 
of levels is inadequate to describe the layers involved in complexity.


> I stipulate that a bump in one layer of an onion will enforce itself on the 
> layers around it, so the layers are not entirely independent of one another.  
> Do you stipulate that each layer of an onion is essentially an independent 
> plant wrapped in the earlier layers grown larger?


Not in the slightest.  I only stipulate that the concept of levels is 
inadequate when examining onions.


> At some point, in the metaphor game, we return to the thing we are trying to 
> explain and map the elements of the metaphor (the "analogs") onto the 
> explanandum.  But not yet.  This is too much fun. 


Unfortunately, perhaps because I simulate things for a living, I don and doff 
analogs more frequently than you don and doff hats or shoes.  So, I'm ready to 
abandon the near-spherical onion and move on to more complicated surfaces and 
the layers that accrete from within or without.

--
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[glen ☣]

Ha!  I don't know if this is fun or not.  But you are making me giggle.  So 
that's good. 8^)

On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> But wait a minute!  Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a 
> minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?


I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and 
Robert.  But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of 
context.  Onions are definitely not metaphors.  When you bit into one, your 
body reacts.  To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you 
bite into a metaphor.


>In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in 
>mind?


The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that 
the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation.  We could also use 
Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.


>If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of 
>complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or 
>whatever) are onion-like?


Sheesh.  I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level".  That's all I'm 
doing.  Maybe you're too smart for your own good.  I don't care about ANYTHING 
else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks.  Stop using it.


> Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in 
> evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural 
> selection) seriously enough.  


Yes, I know.  That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer 
is better than level.


-- 
☣ 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] Graph/Network discursion.

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

At the risk of boring the rest of the crowd silly, I'd be interested in 
hearing more about the kinds of graphs you would like to talk about.   I 
agree that Partially Ordered Sets are a (relatively) special case.


My interest is in the structure/function duality, more in topological 
than geometric structure.  I've read D'Arcy Thompson (no relation Nick?) 
but not studied him closely, and I defer for my intuition to Christopher 
Alexander (A Pattern Language) for high-dimensional graph-relations in a 
real-world (human-built environments) context I can relate to.


Perhaps I'm more interested in Networks, though I'd like to ask the 
naive question of how folks here distinguish the two... I tend to think 
of Networks as Graphs with flows along edges.   I think in terms of 
multi-graphs (allowing multiple edges between nodes) or more precisely, 
edges with multiple strengths/lengths/flows or more precisely yet I 
think,  with vector properties on edges...


- Steve



On 6/9/17 9:05 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:

Because, as Steve rightly pointed out with that Joslyn paper, the point is the extent to 
which the system submits to ordering.  A strict hierarchy (levels, like I think EricS 
drew) submits to a total order, whereas a brranching hierarchy (still levels) submits to 
a partial order.  Graphs work, but not as analogy, per se ... more like exact 
representations.  The kinds of graphs I'd like to talk about don't (necessarily) submit 
to ordering, even partial ordering. (no levels) It would be more complete to say that any 
"ordering" would be more complicated than simple relations like ≥ or ≤.

On 06/08/2017 09:48 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Why does there need to be any spatial property?  Why not a graph?






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

Re: [FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

[gepr ⛧]

I'm not entirely sure to be honest. But I know they must contain cycles. So 
DAGs are inadequate, hence my revulsion at the word "level".

On June 9, 2017 12:37:39 PM PDT, Steven A Smith  wrote:
>Glen -
>
>At the risk of boring the rest of the crowd silly, I'd be interested in
>
>hearing more about the kinds of graphs you would like to talk about.  
>I 
>agree that Partially Ordered Sets are a (relatively) special case.
>
>My interest is in the structure/function duality, more in topological 
>than geometric structure.  I've read D'Arcy Thompson (no relation
>Nick?) 
>but not studied him closely, and I defer for my intuition to
>Christopher 
>Alexander (A Pattern Language) for high-dimensional graph-relations in
>a 
>real-world (human-built environments) context I can relate to.
>
>Perhaps I'm more interested in Networks, though I'd like to ask the 
>naive question of how folks here distinguish the two... I tend to think
>
>of Networks as Graphs with flows along edges.   I think in terms of 
>multi-graphs (allowing multiple edges between nodes) or more precisely,
>
>edges with multiple strengths/lengths/flows or more precisely yet I 
>think,  with vector properties on edges...

-- 
⛧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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

Sorry.  Slip of the "pen".   Layers it is.  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?


Ha!  I don't know if this is fun or not.  But you are making me giggle.  So 
that's good. 8^)

On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> But wait a minute!  Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a 
> minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?


I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and 
Robert.  But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of 
context.  Onions are definitely not metaphors.  When you bit into one, your 
body reacts.  To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you 
bite into a metaphor.


>In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in 
>mind?


The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that 
the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation.  We could also use 
Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.


>If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of 
>complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or 
>whatever) are onion-like?


Sheesh.  I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level".  That's all I'm 
doing.  Maybe you're too smart for your own good.  I don't care about ANYTHING 
else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks.  Stop using it.


> Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in 
> evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural 
> selection) seriously enough.  


Yes, I know.  That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer 
is better than level.


--
☣ 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