Maybe it would then be clearer to say "diverging from apparent past behavior, on the assumed belief that the future would continue to be a replication of the past" rather than "diverging from assumptions". With natural phenomena the 'generator' is actually the phenomenon in its environment itself, so the physical thing is the one and only place where the design of the process is recorded. So, no, for physical system emergence I see no reasonable way to make sense of examining "a complex map between generator and phenomenon" as you would when interpreting a set of coded instructions and the various runs of the instruction set on a computer.
So still, the question is what are the physical system signals that would tell you that you're observing entirely new phenomena or emerging forms of behavior (and need a new model)? Sometimes I've also interpreted that to mean evidence of 'permanent' or 'irreversible' system change as a way to narrow down what 'emergence' means. I'll be away from keyboard for a bit...fyi Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: glen e. p. ropella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 9:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] or more simply, is there order? > > Thus spake Phil Henshaw circa 10/02/2008 08:41 PM: > > [ph] Yes models would likely show signatures of how they are built, > > These are not necessarily signatures solely indicating how a model was > _built_. In fact, since the same model can be built in many different > ways, measuring the model decidedly does not measure the way it was > built. The measurements of the models do show signals that > characterize > divergence over time. > > > but I'm > > asking about the physical phenomenon displaying signatures of > diverging from > > the assumptions that had once been valid and according to which a > model had > > been built. How would you tell if there is emergence is what I'm > after. I > > use divergence appearing to have all derivatives of the same sign. > > You can't get "signatures of diverging from assumptions". Assumptions > aren't actual things with actual effects. You can only see divergence > from an actual object. Hence, for _models_, you have to build a > working > model in order to measure divergence. > > If by "emergence", you mean "a complex map between generator and > phenomenon", then the way you measure emergence is by parallax with a > population of models instantiating different mappings from generator to > phenomenon. The divergence of the various phenomena exhibited by the > models from that exhibited by the referent is, then, the way to measure > emergence in the referent. > > But if you mean something else by "emergence", then I don't understand > what you mean. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, http://ropella.name/~gepr ============================================================ 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
