Phil, Tell a skier that to an avalanche is just a statistical concept, or Ising or Potts fields to a physicist.
SOC is the way most electronics work, SCR's and thus TRIAC's, Josephson junctions, and lasers. Lasers are my favorite example - SOC of light. I'm not sure the above fall into "Hail Mary" strategies. Plus, I'm not sure what terms like good and bad have to do with a description of a physical phenomena. Finally, equations and static logic only work for equilibrium systems, unless you utilize functors as functions of functions. So try computing with percolation theory. Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Henshaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:32 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'The Friday Morning Applied > Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > You refer to "a period of self-organizing criticality" as if > that were an observable thing, whereas it appears to me to be > a statistical concept for a set of chaotic equations. Part > of what that model leaves out is the conserved processes of > development that complex systems display, and how they begin > and end with processes of conserved change. Complex systems > change by accumulative organizational and path-building > processes, not by > statistics. That is what lets nature use development as the > place where > the designs of things are both built and recorded. > > Your idea seems to be that having everything fall apart might > just be a way for it to all fall together in disguise, so > pushing it to criticality is > possibly a good idea not a bad idea. Isn't that the sense of > it? That's a > kind of "hail Mary plan" saying we're down to acts of > complete desperation. > "We've just got to try something" does seem to be the more or > less universal mantra of the scientific community in > proposing improbable mega schemes with > exceedingly low levels of confidence. > > I think the survival of our way of life deserves something > better than "hail Mary plans". In football if you can't > think of what else to do, just throw the hell out of it. > This is not football, and winners and losers can not all look > forward to a good meal with friends and having the same world > to live in the next morning. > > Phil > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ken Lloyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:05 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee > > Group' > > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] no coincidence... > > > > 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
