Ted Carmichael wrote:
I think the difficulty of the "triangle as emergence" problem is
trying to imagine an situation where the "agents" (individual edges of
a triangle) combine and re-combine in different configurations. But
if they do, and if the environment selects structures based on
strength, then I can see that the triangle (or pyramid, in 3
dimensions) is a "basin of attraction" that would emerge from this
environment.
In my mind, homogeneity is important ... although I prefer the phrase
"self-similar," as the agents don't have to be completely the same ...
they just have to be close to each other in their attributes that
relate to the emergent property.
It's a good thought experiment, though. Thanks.
I suspect this is where Buckminster Fullerenes come from. I don't know
the lore... but my guess is that somehow the carbon atoms they are
formed from are somehow under such wicked stresses that the only
"structures" that form are those whose integral strength exceeds that of
the forces they are under.
This seems to be on the "lower" edge of emergence. Like the scale of
gravel in a streambed matching a size profile based on the conditions?
I think that tensegrity structures have collective rather than emergent
properties, but again, this might qualify for being at the "lower"
boundary of emergence.
Frankly I admit that it is hard for me to think of "emergence" without
activity. To the extent that a tensegrity structure is (conventionally)
designed and built, and its collective properties do not "show up" until
it is complete (or subunits are complete) seems to be an indication that
what we are seeing is *not* emergence. Somehow I think incrementality
is as important as serendipity.
Going back to the Bucky Balls, I'm not sure, but I don't think that
there are any "incomplete" forms that have any of the interesting
properties of the complete form. Bucky Tubes, perhaps... which leads
me full-circle back to crystal growth.
I believe Crystal Growth shows more emergence.... incremental change
which by itself does not show qualitatively new properties but once
above some threshold, DOES.
I believe *all* of the discussion (Triangles, Fullerenes, Crystals) are
examples of *weak emergence*. I'd never really thought about whether
there were "degrees of emergence" within the loose categories of "weak"
vs "strong". Triangles vs Geodesic Domes are (perhaps) a good example.
- Steve
============================================================
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
