I havent been able to follow the conversation but the following caught my eye
>Machines are the produce of a self-consistent model > in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex learning > processes that grow out of their own environments like all other natural > systems..etc. Please dont forget the whip sockets on the early model A's. NIck > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 4/26/2008 10:00:38 AM > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 25 > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > 2. Re: recap on Rosen (glen e. p. ropella) > 3. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw) > 4. Re: recap on Rosen (Russell Standish) > 5. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw) > 6. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > 7. Re: recap on Rosen (phil henshaw) > 8. Re: recap on Rosen (Marcus G. Daniels) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:13:08 -0700 > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > phil henshaw wrote: > > Self-consistent models represent environments very well, just omitting their > > living parts, "mind without matter". > > > > Would any of the things you guys suggested fix that? > > I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a > good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to state > (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which > context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore, > contributes immensely to the solution. > > I.e. if the problem is that our modeling methods only capture isolable > (separable, "linear", analytic, etc.) systems _well_, then we need other > modeling methods to capture holistic ("nonlinear", non-analytic) > systems. As I understand it, this is the basic conception behind the > "sustainability movement", somehow capturing or understanding > externalities and engineering organizations so that their waste is more > useful to other organizations. > > What Rosen tried to do (in my _opinion_) is help us specify what parts > of our modeling methods are inadequate to the task of capturing certain > broken closures. I.e. I think he tried to explain _why_ so many of our > models are so fragile, namely, because they cannot capture the closure > of efficient cause (agency). That concept requires no mathematics (ala > category theory). But he tried to communicate the concept using > mathematics and logic via the discussions of Poincare's > "impredicativity" and rhetorical vs. causal loops. > > So, yes, I think these things can help with our understanding of the > fragility of _simple_ models ("mechanism" in Rosen's peculiar > terminology). Even if Rosen's MR-systems or his "closure to efficient > cause" are inadequate to the task (which I think they _are_), at least > considering those attempts and how/where they may fail facilitates our > progress toward other, hopefully more successful, solutions. > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. -- Omar N. Bradley > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFIEjtUpVJZMHoGoM8RAt6gAJkB0y2YDBB3/LsFr8i561UrfEPvsgCggAKu > I8mcbIbWrFljoixYiONhrCg= > =CxBC > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:25:46 -0700 > From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > G?nther Greindl wrote: > >> OK. So RR makes a prohibitive claim ... something like "living > >> systems cannot be accurately modeled with a UTM because MR systems > >> cannot be realized". And you are refuting that claim by a > >> counter-claim that MR systems _can_ be realized, emphasizing that > >> the recursion theorem is crucial to such a realization. > >> > >> Do I have it right? > > > > Yes that's basically my claim - RR also mentions his closed efficient > > cause, that's where the rec. theorem comes in: you can code whatever > > behaviour you like and then replicate it indefinitely. > > OK. But you must realize that this is not really a _refutation_ or > disproof. It's just one guy (Rosen) arguing with another guy (G?nther). > For an actual refutation (proof that Rosen's claim is false), you'd > have to provide an explicit (effective) construction of a computational > living system. > > And you haven't done that. [grin] Hence, you haven't proven Rosen wrong > ... yet. ALifers across the planet are working on this constructive > proof feverishly, of course. > > Or, you could show us specifically where Rosen's claim contradicts the > recursion theorem. But to my knowledge nobody has formalized Rosen's > work to the degree of specificity we'd need to show such a > contradiction. I could easily be wrong about that, of course. So, if > you'll point to such a rigorous formulation of Rosen's claim and > precisely how it contradicts the recursion theorem, then we could say > that one or the other (Rosen's or the recursion theorem) is refuted. > > > What is _not_ addressed in the (M,R) model is how it comes up in the > > first place (= origin of life); > > Nobody (including the most zealous Rosenite, I think) would disagree > with that. > > > that is where evolution comes in, and a machine model is at no > > disadvantage here, again. > > It would be interesting to augment MR systems with some reasonably > accurate formulation of evolution. > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > Almost nobody dances sober, unless they happen to be insane. -- H. P. > Lovecraft > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFIEj5KpVJZMHoGoM8RAkx0AJ4ivFZFJgaCq9gdvoMWnbON3fnYzwCgqR/A > tG+AVzNzHle0kEt6dKpDeww= > =o6uQ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:21:59 -0400 > From: "phil henshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > How does that > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > Self-consistent models represent environments very well, just > > omitting their > > > living parts, "mind without matter". > > > > > > Would any of the things you guys suggested fix that? > > > > I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a > > good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to > > state > > (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which > > context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore, > > contributes immensely to the solution. > > [ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of independent > organisms or communities things you have no information about because they > never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that? > > > > I.e. if the problem is that our modeling methods only capture isolable > > (separable, "linear", analytic, etc.) systems _well_, then we need > > other > > modeling methods to capture holistic ("nonlinear", non-analytic) > > systems. As I understand it, this is the basic conception behind the > > "sustainability movement", somehow capturing or understanding > > externalities and engineering organizations so that their waste is more > > useful to other organizations. > > > > What Rosen tried to do (in my _opinion_) is help us specify what parts > > of our modeling methods are inadequate to the task of capturing certain > > broken closures. I.e. I think he tried to explain _why_ so many of our > > models are so fragile, namely, because they cannot capture the closure > > of efficient cause (agency). That concept requires no mathematics (ala > > category theory). But he tried to communicate the concept using > > mathematics and logic via the discussions of Poincare's > > "impredicativity" and rhetorical vs. causal loops. > > [ph] I haven't studied Rosen enough the really know if he's pointing to the > same conflict between living things and machines that I am, but there > clearly is a conflict. Machines are the produce of a self-consistent model > in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex learning > processes that grow out of their own environments like all other natural > systems..etc. > > Phil > > > > So, yes, I think these things can help with our understanding of the > > fragility of _simple_ models ("mechanism" in Rosen's peculiar > > terminology). Even if Rosen's MR-systems or his "closure to efficient > > cause" are inadequate to the task (which I think they _are_), at least > > considering those attempts and how/where they may fail facilitates our > > progress toward other, hopefully more successful, solutions. > > > > - -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. -- Omar N. > > Bradley > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFIEjtUpVJZMHoGoM8RAt6gAJkB0y2YDBB3/LsFr8i561UrfEPvsgCggAKu > > I8mcbIbWrFljoixYiONhrCg= > > =CxBC > > -----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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:37:28 +1000 > From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:21:59PM -0400, phil henshaw wrote: > > > > [ph] I haven't studied Rosen enough the really know if he's pointing to the > > same conflict between living things and machines that I am, but there > > clearly is a conflict. Machines are the produce of a self-consistent model > > in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex learning > > processes that grow out of their own environments like all other natural > > systems..etc. > > > > Phil > > Only simple machines. More complex machines (eg the Intel Pentium > processor) show definite signs of evolutionary accretion, as no one > person can design such a complex thing from scratch, but rather > previous designs are used and optimised. > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:04:45 -0400 > From: "phil henshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > Only simple machines. More complex machines (eg the Intel Pentium > > processor) show definite signs of evolutionary accretion, as no one > > person can design such a complex thing from scratch, but rather > > previous designs are used and optimised. > > [ph] Right! Layered design is sort of a universal signature of learning > processes, in this case the chip designers resourcefully adapting pieces of > the old design in making new designs for new problems. Eventually any > direction of development or learning runs into diminishing returns, either > inherent in the design, or relative to competition with some other. > > I understand there's also a great deal of arguably creative machine design > in chip design too, still accumulative in nature, but I don't think we have > processors that 'design themselves', however, nor would they do very well > with multiple disconnected parts with different operating systems that only > communicated by dumping their waste products on each other... :-) that's > the trick that organisms do so nicely and that our way of explaining them > misses when we describe their functions and relationships in a > self-consistent way. Unlike a logical medium, a physical medium tolerates > inconsistently designed and behaving things and allows them to capitalize on > each other's unintended side behavior and effects. > > Phil > > > -- > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----- > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > Mathematics > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----- > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:36:28 -0600 > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > phil henshaw wrote: > > Glen wrote: > > > >> I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a > >> good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to > >> state > >> (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which > >> context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore, > >> contributes immensely to the solution. > >> > > > > [ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of independent > > organisms or communities things you have no information about because they > > never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that? > > > Find a function that well describes a state of a thing or aggregate > measurement of interest at t - 2 that gives the state at t - 1 that > gives a state at t. Then prediction is a matter of applying the > function more times. Add more functions to describe more individual > things or aggregates and note when there are shared functions in those > definitions (e.g. food web fundamentally depends photosynthesis). > > If you want to define all things to be independent, then there is no > point in talking about interactions -- you've already defined away the > possibility of that! Covariance is zero. > > Marcus > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:47:44 -0400 > From: "phil henshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Ok, 'find a function' assumes there is one to find, but the problem set is > running into behavior which has already had major consequences (like > starvation for 100million people because of an unexpected world food price > level shift) and the question is what 'function' would you use to not be > caught flat footed like that. Is there some general function to use in > cases where you have no function and don't even know what the problem > definition will be? > > I actually have a very good one, but you won't like it because it means > using the models to understand what they fail to describe rather than the > usual method of using them to represent other things. > > Phil Henshaw??????????????????? > ??? ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040? tel: 212-795-4844????? > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: www.synapse9.com?? > ?in the last 200 years the amount of change that once needed a century?of > thought now takes just five weeks? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:36 AM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > Glen wrote: > > > > > >> I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a > > >> good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to > > >> state > > >> (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which > > >> context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore, > > >> contributes immensely to the solution. > > >> > > > > > > [ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of > > independent > > > organisms or communities things you have no information about because > > they > > > never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that? > > > > > Find a function that well describes a state of a thing or aggregate > > measurement of interest at t - 2 that gives the state at t - 1 that > > gives a state at t. Then prediction is a matter of applying the > > function more times. Add more functions to describe more individual > > things or aggregates and note when there are shared functions in those > > definitions (e.g. food web fundamentally depends photosynthesis). > > > > If you want to define all things to be independent, then there is no > > point in talking about interactions -- you've already defined away the > > possibility of that! Covariance is zero. > > > > Marcus > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:44:46 -0600 > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > phil henshaw wrote: > > Ok, 'find a function' assumes there is one to find, but the problem set is > > running into behavior which has already had major consequences (like > > starvation for 100million people because of an unexpected world food price > > level shift) and the question is what 'function' would you use to not be > > caught flat footed like that. > The caloric requirements of a person are autocorrelated, but probably > for a lot of models a constant will suffice -- a certain amount of body > weight decrease, and then the probability of death goes up. As for > price fluctuations, that's a matter of modeling the natural resources > that go in to food, the costs and benefits to motivate farmers, the > commodity markets, and so on. Certainly we can try to understand how > each of these work, and then do what-if scenarios when one or more > components are perturbed (or destroyed). It's still a matter of > finding stories (functions) to fit observables. The availability and > accuracy of those observables may be poor, and sometimes all that is > possible to imagine worst and best cases, run the numbers, and see how > the result changes. > > Is there some general function to use in > > cases where you have no function and don't even know what the problem > > definition will be? > > > I think you do know what the problem could look like, but most details > remain unspecified. If you can construct an example that has > catastrophes of the kind you often talk about, and spell out all of the > details of your work of fiction (that even may happen to resemble > reality), such that the what-if scenarios can be reproduced in > simulations, then others can study the sensitivities. If there is a > `forcing structure' that will occur in many, many variant forms, then > you can demonstrate that. > > I actually have a very good one, but you won't like it because it means > > using the models to understand what they fail to describe rather than the > > usual method of using them to represent other things. > Right. Model predicts something, it turns out to have some error > structure and that structure suggests ways to improve the model or make > a new one. Paper published. Meanwhile another guy makes a different > model on the same phenomena and publishes a paper. Third person reads > the two papers and has idea that accounts for problems in both. So she > makes a new model! > > Marcus > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > [email protected] > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 58, Issue 25 > ************************************* ============================================================ 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
