Russell Gonnering wrote circa 10-05-10 03:36 PM: > It would be refreshing to find a venue in which my definition of > complexity (and the one described by Snowden, Stacey, Arthur, etc.) > can be discussed. "Interconnectivity" and "interwoven" things are > present in "complicated" and even "simple" systems as well. The > difference is in how cause and effect function in the system. > Different dynamics are operative.
Yes, it's always refreshing to find a community of people who build on the same foundations as ourselves and explore the superstructure of that foundation. This is why, I think, silos are prevalent in corporations and universities. And it's also why discussions of complex systems are interesting to me, because the people interested in complexity come from all different backgrounds. It's interdisciplinary, which makes it difficult to find a large group with the same foundations. But that reflects my choice of career, as well. I write simulations of all sorts of things, allowing me to skate between domains. I never commit fully to any one domain or foundation. It's true that makes me scatter brained. But it also adds a synoptic view I don't think would be attainable if I committed fully to any given domain. To each his own. > This forum, on the other hand, usually has countless threads > dissecting the exact meaning of this or that word, with voluminous > rants on just why one particular individual is "wrong" and the author > always "right". Then there is a counter rant, complete with the > carefully annotated bits of the prior post, like yours below, > describing how much in error the first (or was it the second) poster > is or was and forever will be. Wow. Either I've wildly mis-implied my point or you've wildly mis-inferred my point. My point was only that it is entirely logical to think the new AZ immigration law will cause racial profiling. You said that it seemed illogical to you. I was merely pointing out that there is logic in their position. I'm not trying to tit-for-tat you to death. I just wanted to make the point that the criticism against the new law is based on logic. > Is this really people's > idea of what complexity is all about? Such intellectual exercise is > no doubt enjoyable to many people, but I tired of that long ago. If > "suitable attractor" in the context of complexity theory is vague to > you, I honestly don't know how we can have a discussion, as we are > talking about such vastly different things. It would be better just > to argue ideology and stop the charade of discussing complexity. Well, I understand your frustration. But the problem is a lack of concreteness, not definitions. I don't have a problem with the phrase "suitable attractor". I just don't know what attractor you happen to be talking about. You seem to think that the current situation in AZ is on an attractor; but we have no data. Is it really on an attractor? Or is it moving between attractors? Has it _ever_ been on an attractor or has it, for the last 200 or so years just _slowly_ been moving in an attractor-less space? None of these questions will go anywhere without deciding what data we want to look at. > Glen, I would suggest you read "Tribal Leadership" by David Logan. > You can download an mp3 version for free from their website: > www.triballeadership.net. Perhaps that will give you some insight > into what I am talking about. Thanks. I'll put it in my queue. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.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
