Phil, I certainly agree that complex systems as an observable phenomenon is important, and I even go so far as to assert that such phenomenon can be modeled (not with deterministic methods).
However, the collapse you speak of might be a period of self-organizing criticality. The causal relationship between financial advantage of resource depletion, if it exists, may not survive the avalanche - then again, it may. The difficulty you speak of is entropy building in the system - missing information between real value and monetary gain. Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:47 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > Not to raise the subject necessarily... but just to note that > I've been consistently accurate with my foresight and > descriptions of how our complex system collapse has been > developing. It would really pay you guys to consider the > possibility that interpreting systems as observable physical > processes as I do might be useful. > > Our own whole complex throughput system is still operating in > a global environment of increasing difficulty in using > diminishing resources and still have a financial system > multiplying investments in depleting them. > That's going to just run into ever bigger disappointments > till we stop, one way or another. > > Phil > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:17 PM > > To: FRIAM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music - missed opportunity > > > > Carl, > > > > Well, It depends on whether you're the kind of person who, when > > finding that nature has a habit of changing the title of the course > > and the text shortly before her exams, continues to study the wrong > > text because that's the course they signed up for... > > [ph] > > > > > > > > > > > > Holding ourselves apart from nature, We are surprised when nature > > > pays our work no mind. > > > Were our methods unsound? > > > > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > > > I think what may be holding back the math is our > failure to go to > > the > > > next > > > > level and consider change as a physical process. When > you do that > > > you find > > > > what nature actually does much more interesting and > inspiring than > > > anything > > > > we can invent. > > > > > > > > Using a physical systems model the process now bringing > about our > > > whole > > > > system collapse was seen coming a long way off and it could have > > > inspired > > > > the math to demonstrate the turn onto another path instead too. > > > Live and > > > > learn I guess. > > > > > > > > The 2006 paper by Bettencourt is easily generalized to > reach this > > > > implication, acknowledging that for the physical growth > system he > > > considered > > > > "achieving major innovation cycles must be generated at > > > > continually accelerating rates"( > > > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7301.abstract). > > > > That's remarkably close to the basis of proof for the general > > > principle I > > > > offered in my "Infinite Society" paper in 1979 > > > > (http://www.synapse9.com/UnhidPatt-theInfiniteSoc.pdf). The > > general > > > > principle being the theorem that I've been using ever since with > > > excellent > > > > forecasting results. In physical systems "growth runs into > > > complications" > > > > and nature does a lot of creative stuff with it. You just look > > for > > > the > > > > complications coming and then 'voila', cool new science at every > > > turn! > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On > > > >> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > > > >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:10 PM > > > >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music > > > >> > > > >> Prof David West wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>> We have also talked about the lack of rigorous mathematical > > > >>>> representation of complexity and that being a barrier to > > progress > > > >>>> in the science. > > > >>>> > > > >>> the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above sentence > > > >>> raises > > > >>> > > > >> mine. > > > >> > > > >>> implicit in the sentence is some variation of > "mathematics is a > > > >>> > > > >> better / > > > >> > > > >>> superior / privileged / real language compared to all other > > > languages > > > >>> used by humans to think and therefore we cannot really think > > > properly > > > >>> > > > >> or > > > >> > > > >>> rigorously unless we are thinking mathematically." > > > >>> > > > >> I don't think that inference is implied by that sentence. I so > > > believe > > > >> math is a better language with which to describe reality than, > > say, > > > >> English. But, that's not what the sentence above says. The > > > sentence > > > >> above states that a _lack_ of math rigor is a barrier to one > > > particular > > > >> domain: plectics. > > > >> > > > >> Your inference goes quite a bit further than the > David's sentence. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> this annoying attitude is expressed / believed by a > majority of > > > >>> intellectuals and academicians - not just mathematicians. We > > > cannot > > > >>> > > > >> be > > > >> > > > >>> "scientists" unless we 'mathematize' our field of enquiry. > > > >>> > > > >> And although I believe that math is the best known > language for > > > >> describing reality, I don't believe that one must mathematize > > every > > > >> scientific field or that one cannot be a scientist without > > > >> mathematizing their field. > > > >> > > > >> Science is the search for truth. And truth can be sought using > > any > > > >> language... any language at all. Some domains, > particularly the > > > ones > > > >> resistant to rigor are best studied with languages that have a > > high > > > >> tolerance for ambiguity... e.g. English. > > > >> > > > >> Some domains that are not so resistant to rigor are > best studied > > > with > > > >> math. Often, it takes a great deal of work using ambiguity > > tolerant > > > >> languages like English before an ambiguity intolerant language > > like > > > >> math > > > >> can be effectively used. > > > >> > > > >> If and when less ambiguous languages can be used, _then_ those > > > >> languages become more effective than the more ambiguous > > > >> languages. > > > >> > > > >> From 50,000 metaphorical feet, this can be seen as a > simple case > > of > > > >> specialization. A generalist uses coarse tools and a > specialist > > > uses > > > >> fine tools. Math is a fine tool that can only be used > after the > > > >> generalists have done their upstream work in the > domain. Neither > > is > > > >> really "better", of course, when taking a synoptic view of the > > whole > > > >> evolution of the domain. But math is definitely more > refined... > > > more > > > >> special. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Interestingly enough, all advances in science stem > from the uses > > of > > > >>> metaphor - not mathematics. (see Quine) The > premature rush to > > > >>> > > > >> abandon > > > >> > > > >>> the language of metaphor and publish using arcane squiggles is > > the > > > >>> > > > >> real > > > >> > > > >>> - in my not very humble opinion - barrier to progress. > > > >>> > > > >> I agree. Likewise, the tendency to stick with a > coarse language > > > when a > > > >> more refined language is called for is also a real barrier to > > > >> progress... "progress" defined as: the evolution of a > domain from > > > >> general to special, coarse to fine. > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ============================================================ > > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 ============================================================ 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
