One of my pet peeves about most agent-based models is that they ignore
energy. The boids model does too. But what happens if we include energy
considerations?
We could assume that the boids move in a frictionless medium and that they
never touch each other. So the only energy issue is the energy
Could we think of the rules and the effects they produce as some sort of
relaxation process? If so, toward what end?
-- Russ
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote:
One of my pet peeves about most agent-based models is that they ignore
energy. The boids
Is there a standard way to determine whether a relaxation calculation will
converge -- and if so what it will converge to?
This is backward from most relaxation, isn't it? Normally one know where one
wants to go but finds that the easiest way to compute the answer is
relaxation. Here, we are
Isn't it possible that an emergent phenomenon might be mysterious to an
observer who didn't know how it was implemented? For example, how might
lodestones(?) (I mean magnetized rocks) appear to someone who observed them
before the theory of magnetism had been formulated?
Nick
IMHO, I thought 'to see', 'observations', 'arrangements' and 'order'
were also largely 'in the eye of the beholder'! If emergence is ever to
become a (part of) science, repeatable measurements (from verifiable
observations) leading to one or more calculated parameters is the only
way
Yes, Robert's right. What seems to be missing from Russ' (arrogantly
named) solution is that there _are_ no interfaces that get
implemented and there _are_ no entities that emerge. Subjectively,
sure, we observe or measure patterns of interaction (often stable over
cosmological time scales) and
Hi, John,
I thought the argument was about whether mystery was a defining feature of
emergence. I said I thought not. I agree with you emergent phenomena can
appear mysterious, but they don't cease to be so when we figure them out.
Once we have agreed on the objective (forgive me, eric)
The two ideas do seem to be at odds. I think of the persistence of
emergent features as being caused by basins of attraction. The strange
attractors of a system subtly encourage all the agents of that system
towards stability, through (perhaps) the efficient use of energy.
But that would seem to
All,
You can all safely ignore this note, but I need to write it in order to be
right with my own conscience. If you do read it, tho, please read through
to the bottom before you respond to avoid useless disputation.
Eric Charles has been on to me on the private line to say that I have to
Oh, dear, and I thought I was working with programmers who cleverly
write code to allow space for emergence to HAPPEN! And Nick, count me
in--when I'm in town.
Merle Lefkoff
Jochen Fromm wrote:
So the insight you have brought to the world is
that the best way to understand emergence is
Full article link: http://analyticjournalism.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2009/9/7/4313771.html
The Evolution of Darwin's Ideas
FlowingData passes along the link to this fine piece of work by Ben Fry. "Ben Fry Visualizes the Evolution of Darwin’s Ideas" Journos could be using a similar
But we may have to have a useful conversation about emergence in order
to talk about soul, consciousness, or spirit.
Merle
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Try this: a property of an entity is emergent when it depends on the
arrangment or the order of presentation of the parts of the entity.
Funny, glen, I dont feel it as an alienation. When somebody acknowledges a
difference in point of view, when we share a common view on our different
points of view, if you will, I feel embraced, not alienated.
But I take your point.
n
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/07/2009 11:01 AM:
Funny, glen, I dont feel it as an alienation. When somebody acknowledges a
difference in point of view, when we share a common view on our different
points of view, if you will, I feel embraced, not alienated.
OK, well, the vernacular
I was believing you until I got to that last bit.
--
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM, glen e. p. ropella
g...@agent-based-modeling.com wrote:
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/07/2009 11:01 AM:
This is to the programmers on this list.
I'm looking for a word that refers generically to software that is open to
virtually object in its host language. The best way for me to explain it is
with examples.
- In Java, the various collection classes each have this property. A List
can be a
A private message suggested *template *or *pattern*. The problem with *template
*or *pattern *is that they are too generic. Neither implies any kind of
defined processing. Each is just a pattern with holes and without suggesting
that the pattern *does anything* to whatever fits into the holes.
--
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09/07/2009 12:14 PM:
This is to the programmers on this list.
I'm looking for a word that refers generically to software that is open to
virtually object in its host language. The best way for me to explain it is
with examples.
How about undecidable? Or perhaps
*Pattern *suggests *design pattern*. Perhaps closer but still not quite
right since *design pattern *doesn't imply executable code whereas the
examples I gave earlier do. Some design patterns do fit my categorization.
The Visitor pattern is a good example because it can be implemented as code.
One
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09/07/2009 12:46 PM:
I'm missing the connection between *undecidable *and what I'm asking for.I
don't want a property of these things; I want a generic name for them.
The point is that the validity of a statement (e.g. a program, down to
the formal parameters in a
But not *too* generic. Just generic enough. You seem to be difficult to
please.
What you appear to be asking for is exactly that the STL brought to C++.
The Standard Template Library: a completely generic yet well-specified set
of containers for any kind of data object, providing the ability to
Still, *undecidable *is an adjective. I want a noun.
-- Russ
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:58 PM, glen e. p. ropella
g...@agent-based-modeling.com wrote:
Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 09/07/2009 12:46 PM:
I'm missing the connection between *undecidable *and what I'm asking
for.I
don't want a
OK. And Java and C# have the Collection Classes. STL and Collecition Classes
name a group. Is there a generic name for a prototypical member of one of
these groupings? The name should also be applicable to generic code that
implements the Genetic Algorithm.
Perhaps there just isn't such a word.
I'm leaning toward a coined term like processing structure. A processing
structure is a active in that it does something. It's also open in that it's
a structure into which many different things may fit.
Both a list and a genetic algorithm is a processing structure.
What do you think?
Having
Being slightly less terse:
A Data Structure is the term for any collection, container, or
arrangement of primitives or objects. In a language that makes
functions first class objects, the structure can contain anything
(variables, objects, or functions.) The details are sorted out during
Birchard Hayes wrote:
Data Structure
Birch...
you are *so* not ObjectOrientedly Correct... you, you, you...
PROCEDURAL PROGRAMMER! Bring your KR Bible by the house and we will
burn it ceremoniously. It is about time for my first cookstove fire of
the season and tip a few glasses
Nick and all --
I would have to say that many mysterious phenomena are not emergent.
It takes one missing piece of information in an otherwise linear deductive
process to create a mystery. The cat jumps into the window and knocks over a
kachina that strands there, while I am away. At least
I get unduly hung up on unparsable grammar, where probably my brain
just needs to fill in one missing word, so help me here: did you mean
virtually *any* object. Or, did you mean that the software is able
to object (Your honor, I object!), and do so virtually? Assuming the
first, I would
Steve,
I thought Container as well (although Bag leapt to mind too) but Russ
decided against so all that was left was the more abstract
descriptor. Besides, LISP has a data structure or two and underlying
types, loosely defined but they are there - IMHO Data Structure is
neither
*Data structure* would be a possibility. My problem with it is that it
already is in widespread use to refer to static storage organizations. As
such it has no active component. An array is a data structure. But an array
is not one of the sorts of things I want to include in the class of things
Nice explanation. This summer I was in Australia. While there we visited the
Sydney aquarium and the land animal zoo next door. I found myself amazed
at the enormous variety of kinds of life and the niches that they occupy.
Even though I understand evolution and am firmly convinced that it's the
I think I'll have a Martini, while contemplating this opportunity.
--Doug
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Victoria Hughes victo...@toryhughes.comwrote:
I am up for this one, Merle-
Tory
On Sep 7, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
But we may have to have a useful conversation
I'm not a C++ programmer and haven't kept up with its Templating capability,
which I understand is quite sophisticated.
In Java I think that the closest equivalent is type parameterization. And
that's really not what I'm after because a type-parameterized entity does
not operate on its type
Birch -
I thought Container as well (although Bag leapt to mind too) but Russ
decided against so all that was left was the more abstract
descriptor. Besides, LISP has a data structure or two and underlying
types, loosely defined but they are there - IMHO Data Structure is
neither procedural,
That can happen too.
That's the point, there are no necessary boundaries.
Although I am a bourbon woman, personally.
On Sep 7, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Victoria Hughes wrote:
I am up for this one, Merle-
Tory
On Sep 7, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
But we may have to have a useful
I am up for this one, Merle-
Tory
On Sep 7, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
But we may have to have a useful conversation about emergence in
order to talk about soul, consciousness, or spirit.
Merle
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Try this: a property of an entity is emergent when
On Sep 7, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
I think I'll have a Martini, while contemplating this opportunity.
--Doug
Sounds good to me too! Er.. I'll drink to that?
I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the difficulty with emergence.
Wikipedia has an OK shot at it:
Bourbon is also good. Especially when made up into a Manhattan. Small
squeeze of fresh orange, a decent sweet red vermouth, marsichino...
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Victoria Hughes victo...@toryhughes.comwrote:
That can happen too.
That's the point, there are no necessary boundaries.
I'd need to try that in a test with a good single-distillery small-run
bourbon like Elijah Graig. But I can sacrifice myself.
We are meant to be giddy when contemplating the soul. We aren't meant
to be calvinists, I am sure of that. Major course correction was
needed there.
( Great byline
Let me bring this back to where I started with this. You may recall that a
while ago I was talking about what I wanted in an ideal agent-based modeling
system. I have been thinking about as a starting point. One of the things I
like about Drools is that it is a forward chaining system that
Owen,
You're surprised? Given this list's demonstrated history of having N
definitions for any given buzz-term, where N == the subscribership of this
list, X 2, X the day of the week.
Further, given that EMERGENCE is the Holy Grail warm fuzzy of all buzz-terms
to have ever been uttered here.
Thanks Russ -
I'd agree that probability and randomness are a couple of the questions I
called baseline existential ones, as well as being fudges, particularly the
over-used and much-abused term random. Despite having rather specific
meanings to mathematicians and logicians, random is still an
Steve,
C is a wonderful thing and still runs the world, don't give up hope!
If it is any consolation, Prolog warped my fragile mind and ML hurt my
feelings.
Ah Brooklyn, life was simpler then
-Birch
--
I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and
that we
Okay Russ,
There are several options to chose from, depending on just how
adaptive you'd like the functionality to be.
LISP (Scheme, et alia): Allows for partial instantiation or
currying. This mechanism allows your program to build functions out
of little pieces of text and then call
Kim,
I stand corrected on the first and agree on the second.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
- Original Message -
From: Kim Sorvig
To:
Owen,
You wrote:
I think it's simply the appearance within a time varying aggregate
system of a feature not apparently derived from its components'
interactions.
A perfect example of a non-out there definition. Apparently implies
that further understanding, information, knowledge will
Birch,
Written like a true computer scientist. I lived in a LISP world for a happy
period between, say '85 - '90.
But then the real-world encroached, and C++ began to become the only
realistic way to implement large ABMS of complex systems. LISP was nice,
but the virtual machine and garbage
WORKSFORME.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Roger Critchlow r...@elf.org wrote:
Sounds like we should move to 5pm at a bar.
-- rec --
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
On Sep 7, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Owen,
You wrote:
I think it's simply the appearance within a time varying aggregate
system of a feature not apparently derived from its components'
interactions.
A perfect example of a non-out there definition. Apparently
implies
No, I'm not looking for programming language features. I'm look for a term
that describes a certain class of applications. Here's a revised version of
what I wrote a couple of messages ago.
Let me bring this back to where I started with this. You may recall that a
while ago I was talking about
Could we get all these on a t-shirt and then sell it as a fundraiser?
or just distribute them amongst ourselves...?
Although I believe Clarke said 'technology' not 'science'.
On Sep 7, 2009, at 8:24 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
All this talk of emergence and mystery reminds me wonderfully of
Douglas Roberts wrote:
LISP was nice, but the virtual machine and garbage collection made it
a non-player in the modern HPC computing arena.
I'd argue that the Lisp way, is a reasonable fit to HPC.
Certainly virtual machines are not needed to implement Lisp-like
languages (some systems are
Victoria Hughes wrote:
Could we get all these on a t-shirt and then sell it as a fundraiser?
or just distribute them amongst ourselves...?
Although I believe Clarke said 'technology' not 'science'.
I believe you are correct... I think my (mis)quote is a common misquote,
however.
For the
Hi, Owen,
Very interesting. Where does your version of this distinction come from?
Who has formalized it? I need to know.
I think this version is different from the same distinction in Bedau,
which is in the collection we will begin discussing in the Seminar on
Thursday afternoon (4pm,
Alot of times our decisions are repetitious patterns created by our own
limitations and beliefs and not necessarily what leads to happiness. So
history doesn't always portend the desired future results.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Jack Stafurik jstafu...@earthlink.netwrote:
Our own
All --
Apropos some of this, today I found myself going back and forth
between the FRIAM discussion and this review/analysis of what's new in
Mac OSX Snow Leopard . . .
http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8
tom
On Sep 7, 2009, at 7:14 PM, Birchard Hayes
[Oops .. reply did not include friam]
On Sep 7, 2009, at 10:03 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Hi, Owen,
Very interesting. Where does your version of this distinction come
from?
Who has formalized it? I need to know.
Oops, I may have forgotten the wikipedia link:
WRT the original quest, I realize that the trail is probably cold for most
of the list by now and that tangential discussions have now generated more
interest, but I think I have a reasonable answer.
In functional programming map and reduce are often called *meta-functions*.
GA, GP, Ant Colony
Owen --
An excellent point to Roger and the rest of us. Frankly, I struggle with my RSS
feeds: at present, Bloglines has me at 576, which is probably on the high end
of most users. Still, I like them largely because I selected them, which
suggests a certain echo chamber bias. I read probably
59 matches
Mail list logo
