Glen, Gee, I don't know if it helps with your philosophy, but I think you're making a common mistake with the inverse square relation. It's an indicator of complex system organization, not a design principle. 'A' implies 'B' but 'B' in no way implies 'A'. It's like a thermometer, if a thermometer reads 98.6 it's likely you've found a human but heating something up to 98.6 and trying to talk to it is nutty. The inverse square metric is a time saving empirical tool for helping to locate and investigate complex systems. You have to look into the system to find what makes it organized, though.
The network science people seem to have a better way of using it than the other mainstream science disciplines interested in the subject I think. They're looking at complex systems from the inside out (though maybe not having quite realized that networks are artifacts of the complex systems they are embedded in). Their identification of the elaboration and refinement of network connections during network development as the origin of the inverse square metric and 'scale-free' distribution of internal connectedness of natural networks is very helpful. There should logically be some kind of connection with the thinking of people taking an outside in approach to complexity, but I have not been able to figure out what it is. As far as the limits of control, don't all complex systems have significantly independent design and behavior? It seems to me that the first thing anything with independent design and behavior requires is basic respect, otherwise you make large mistakes with it, right? We so often forget that finding the easy ways for independent things to get along is a great design strategy. Nature seems to like it quite a lot for evolutionary survival too! phil > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > I have an ongoing cognitive conflict w.r.t. the principles I > infer from complexity theory and my ethical > indoctrination/rearing. Perhaps some of you wise ones can > throw some words at the conflict to help me sort it out. > > The primary principle I've inferred from complexity theory (such as it > is) is: the extent versus the objectives of control > structures should show something like an inverse power law to > maintain a balance between diversity and efficacy. (It's not > my intention to start an argument about whether complexity > theory really implies this... So, if you criticize that part > of this e-mail, I'll just remove the reference to complexity > theory and such removal won't damage the point.) > > The primary ethical rule I've been taught to hold is that all > people are equivalent but never equal and that the extent of > the equivalence depends on the chosen equivalence class. > > I'm currently living through a transition in my political > views. I used to be a hardcore libertarian and believed, > fundamentally, that non-local government is incapable of > governing many variables. I'm not saying that there are > particular variables they can or can't regulate. I'm saying > there's a limit to the total _number_ of variables, whatever > they are, that a massive, global structure like the feds can > handle. For example, the federal government here in the > states can govern some number of variables (say 10 million) > but cannot govern as many as can be governed by > decentralized, local government. > > But, the implications of the limitation are that humans in > one part of our country may be horribly abused, oppressed, > ignored because the federal government has chosen to > concentrate its energies on a set of variables unrelated to > that particular local abuse or oppression. And my ethical > upbringing makes me think that our nation-wide government > ought to govern all the variables according to some > universally applicable human standards, regardless of how > many variables that comes to. For example, I tend to believe > that nobody in the US should starve. In the past, I would > have argued against the centralized control over food > distribution. I would have said that it's good for a small > segment of the population to enjoy steak and champagne while > the large segments have to stick to McDonald's and Schlitz > Malt Liquor. But, as I get older, my resolve has started to > crumble. This is made especially acute when I see blatantly > unethical behavior on the part of the rich white guys who run > our government. > > Of course, my libertarian mind makes the statement that all > of us are just exploiting the resources available to us. And > that makes me want to cheer on the Karl Rove's of the world! > Congrats! You win! Guys like that are a healthy example of > the rich diversity of control structures we facilitate in our > society, evidence that the inverse power law remains. > > But then my upbringing tells me that Karl Rove is just a > slimy perverted opportunist who needs regulation by the populace. > > The problem with that upbringing is that the more of these > regulations we make more universal (increase the extent of a > control structure), the less agile we'll be when the > environment changes (e.g. climate change forcing evacuation > of coastal cities or the collapse of the dollar in the wake > of a financial attack by China... or whatever). Hence, the > more we _allow_ diverse individuals (including slimy > perverts) their diversity, the more agile we'll be as a > collective when the sh*t hits the fan. > > For example, look at all the people who are _completely_ > dependent on the federal government for their well-being: > FDA, Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, high-risk mortgage > bail-outs for low-income home owners, FDIC insured banks, > well-maintained highway infrastructure, etc. > > Any thoughts on how to reconcile these two contradictory > principles (high diversity versus universal human properties) > are welcome. Luckily, as Lovecraft once said: "The most > merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the > human mind to correlate all its contents." So, even if they > remain contradictory, I can retain (and be hypocritical > about) both of them. But, given the recent conversation > about networks and cliques, I figured I'd throw this out and > see what came back. [grin] > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > I have an existential map. It has 'You are here' written all > over it. -- Steven Wright -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFG2HTNZeB+vOTnLkoRAjkeAKDHERJCD6OsA3WGQFJ35469axQRBQCfU1U+ > eri5t4s24t0/lL9yNTU3lsU= > =1DIU > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
