On 10/5/07, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hear you, but let me quickly summarize the reason why I introduced GoL > as an example.
Thank you. I appreciate the confirmation of understanding my point. I have observed many cases where the back and forth bickering over email lists have been based in an unwillingness to concede an other's point. I am the first to admit that I have more questions than answers. > I wanted to use GoL as a nice-and-simple example of a system whose > overall behavior (in this case, the existence of certain patterns that > are "stable" or "interesting") seems impossible to predict from a > knowledge of the rules. I only wanted to use GoL to *illustrate* the > general class, not because I was interested in GoL per se. Gotcha - GoL is an example case of a class. You threw it out there to make a point. Let's just say is the only symbol on the table. In order to assimilate the idea you are proposing, the model needs to be examined. So if we discuss this one example it is not to the exclusion of the concept you're trying to illustrate, but a precursor to it. In my own concept formation, this step is like including libraries or compiling a function. I think sometimes you get frustrated that it takes so long for people accomplish this step. Part of the problem is that email is such a low bandwidth medium. (another part is that the smarter we are, the quicker we "get" stuff and we assume others should be as capable) > The important thing is that this idea (that there are some systems that > show interesting, but unexplainable, behavior at the global level) has > much greater depth and impact than people have previously thought. Can you give an example of a ruleset that CAN be used to predict global behavior? "interesting but unexplainable behavior" - would you define this class to include chaos or chaotic systems? I'm trying to reason to the general case, but I don't have enough other properties of the class in mind to usefully visualize. (conceptualize?) I think those researchers who have invested in studying chaos are people who have given this idea a great deal of depth and impact. It's a hard problem because our normal 'scientific' method fails almost by definition. I believe the framework you have discussed is a proposal for a method of investigating this behavior. Am I far off, or am I in the general vicinity? ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50387859-7fcf22
