Jochen Well, if I understand the intent, I think that to make a school of modeling a real 'umbrella' one needed 'code' is to look beyond one's own understanding of the 'rules' for how they 'fit' with the whole environment of different (sometimes changing) views under the umbrella. It's not really possible to build a self-consistent model of something with independently designed and behaving parts, as 'umbrella' seems to require.
This is one of the standard non-deterministic systems problems, also exemplified in the fact that natural systems emerge directly from their own local environments, and so are not 'built' to a 'design' nor have mutual 'awareness', and so have unspecifiable independent design and behavior. Their individual organizations come from their individual processes of development, and then also usually continue to change over time. You suggest > So one way is to invent a code that connects the agents > in the system without bringing them together physically On way to do that is to connect people's physically separate and independently conceived experiments in relation to a common issue raised in complex physical processes. All individual natural systems exhibit developmental processes like growth, for example. Studying those, or any other aspect of natural complexity could be used to discover its useful secrets by sharing different perspectives. Keeping one's eye on a shifting subject is part of that, like stopping work to ask if you're working on the right model, and looking around outside your problem definitions for new information in the environment that might relate to it before going back to work. That approach of exploring things inside and out would suggest both incremental and conceptual adjustments, and keep people connected to the same subjects as they themselves may change. It might also be seen as emulating how natural systems themselves continually evolve their own designs in constant interaction with their environments. How to learn computer code from physical systems is a question, of course, since they don't have 'code' of that sort. Any particular natural system, say a certain stage of market competition, perhaps, may have periods of stability during which it has reliable dependencies you can model. A common problem is those dependencies may unexpectedly start showing new behaviors that require redesigning one's model. A useful indicator, then, is how often that happens, to help indicate whether you're just noticing new things, or needing to reconceive the problem. What I think is the key discovery to be made about that is that when you have 'problem creep', or as some call it 'scope creep' for problems given to you by someone else, it's important to notice. If the problem changes configuration exponentially it has the same affect for a natural system as it does for anyone modeling it. Successively more rapid redesign is an unstable progression at some point and switches to either settling down or being interrupted. How to get ABM's to do those things, to emerge on their own and form their own environments 'in silico' with independent communities of things having different designs and behaviors, that both grow and stabilize, I don't quite know. I just think watching closely how natural complex systems do it will be helpful. Since natural systems don't have 'code' to copy, you have to use the behavioral discrepancies they display to suggest 'code'. Some things may never be able to be modeled, of course, with one of the tough ones being how natural systems so effectively exploit their resources but also stay out of each other's way. It's as if they're able to both explore their environs and recognize threats of conflict without ever having encountered them before. My speculation is that part of their behavior is to avoid what's unfamiliar to them, something like negative pheromone trail mapping, and that way stay out of trouble. People might learn something from that perhaps... ;-) Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com -- "it's not finding what people say interesting, but finding what's interesting in what they say" -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 6:51 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] questions > > > Really interesting questions. > > How does an umbrella culture come into existence? > An umbrella culture is perhaps a bit like Franchising > in business: someone defines a code, a set of rules and > a certain strategy (including business strategy, > marketing strategy and operations strategy), and > the rest is implementing it while remaining largely independent. > > So one way is to invent a code that connects the agents > in the system without bringing them together physically > (for example a Franchising system, a language like English > combined with traditional media as television or radio, > or a modern Web 2.0 community with certain customs and > standard rules, etc.), so that you have unity in diversity. > The physical barrier is important to maintain the > diversity, the shared code is necessary for unity. > The complexity of a culture in this case is a > result of imposing unity (the shared culture) on > diversity (the diverse population). > > Basic models about diversity in culture are Axelrod's > model for dissemination of culture (based on local > convergence and global polarization).. > http://ifisc.uib.es/research_topics/socio/cult> ure.html > ..and > Schelling's segregation model. Both are very > good. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/Segregation > > Diversity is important for any group, especially > if the famous "wisdom of crowds" is needed. However, > the "wisdom of crowds" depends of the type of > the crowd: is it a crowd of teenagers, or a crowd > of colleagues? If you want more women or youth in > your community, it is of course useful to make the > community more attractive for them. > > Sensibilities of single members should be ignored > as long as they don't impair the code of the > umbrella culture. What can be changed and what > not is usually well known in most groups, it is > the classic distinction between the sacred/holy > on the one side and the secular/profance on > the other. Sacred or holy things affect the > group integrity and may not be changed by ordinary > members of the group. > > Ways to mediate inevitable conflicts are subject > of politics. That's what politicians do all the > time, trying to balance interests and needs of > the population. Common sense says that one possibility > is to keep agents with different sensibilities apart > from each other. If they don't know what the others > are doing, they won't care. > > -J. > > > > > > ============================================================ > 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
