Troll On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick, > > When you say "This is a great test," I'm not sure what the "this" is. > Would you mind saying what it is again. > > In partial answer to your question about what's left to explain, let me > quote a list of bullet points I recently wrote when writing about urban > systems. > > > - Urban systems are open (in the system sense of openness). They > exchange materials and energy with the world beyond their boundaries. > > > - Urban systems are chaotic (in the formal sense). Small changes in > initial conditions may produce very different results. > > > - Urban systems are path-dependent. > > > - Urban systems are subject to paradoxes and unintended consequences. > > > - Urban systems involve disproportionate causality. Small causes may > produce large effects. > > > - Urban systems are adaptive and change through evolutionary > processes. > > > - Urban systems typically involve multiple (and often large) numbers > of agents or equivalent sources of energy. As discussed below, many of > these are causally autonomous. > > > - Urban systems are not in equilibrium. > > > - Urban systems must be sustainable, i.e., it remains within a range > of relatively familiar or foreseeable states. > > > - Urban systems must be resilient, with mechanisms to return to an > acceptable state after a serious disruption. > > > - Urban systems must also remain flexible and vital with means to > adapt to changing conditions. > > These tend to be qualities we attribute to (most?) complex systems. Do we > want to say that all complex systems (most?) have these qualities? Do we > want to ask how a complex system defined according to definition X > necessarily develops these qualities or provably has them? > > Is this what you are getting at? > > -- Russ > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:00 AM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > >> Hi, Russ, >> >> >> >> Something Glen said suggests to me that my concerns about circularity are >> detracking this thread from its Higher Purpose. I have therefore started a >> new thread. >> >> >> >> Thanks for providing this definition. It really helps to mark my >> concern. I would argue that what you are offering here is *an >> explanation of* complex systems, and that this definition actually begs >> the question of what is a complex system. Yeah. I know. Where do I >> muster the arrogance to make such an assertion? >> >> >> >> Try this: Let it be the case that you define complex systems in the way >> you have, what is left to be explained about them? In other words, if >> this is what complex systems ARE, what are you still curious about? >> >> >> >> If you take seriously the definition of complex system I have given (or >> some other non-explanatory definition), then your definition here *becomes >> a [heuristic] theory of complex systems*. It answers the question, How >> did complex systems come about? What are the essential conditions for the >> occurrence of such systems. And we can precede to ask ourselves, as an >> empirical matter, how many of these features are actually necessary (or >> sufficient) for a complex system to arise. From my point of view, what >> complexity-folk always do is insist that discussants endorse a particularly >> explanatory metaphor BEFORE any question can be raised. That would be like >> insisting that discussants endorse the proposition that natural selection >> explains evolution before we get to ask the question, What is evolution and >> how did it come about? >> >> >> >> This is a great test. If I cannot convince you, and the others, to see >> any possible perils in the sort of definition you offer here, then you >> probably should just go back to “painting the floor” and leave me to rave >> in peace about the fact that there is no door in the corner you are so >> skillfully painting. >> >> >> >> Thanks for putting the matter so clearly. Clarity is an absolute >> necessity for progress. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ >> Abbott >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 12:21 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems? >> >> >> >> I didn't define complex system. (Actually, this thread is so long I may >> have offered one. I don't remember.) >> >> >> >> I take a complex system to be a system (do we need to define that? >> Presumably some collection of interacting entities around which one can >> draw a boundary that distinguishes the collection from its environment.) >> that has the following characteristics/capabilities. >> >> - It can acquire and store free energy, e.g., as fat biologically or >> stress geologically. The free energy is acquired from outside the system. >> - It does that in multiple (more or less) independent ways, (E.g., >> lots of "agents.") >> - Those reservoirs of free energy can be released by triggers. (E.g., >> there are switches that open and close the flow of energy from these >> reservoirs.) >> - The released energy flows in some cases act as triggers, i.e., they >> flip switches, to release other energy flows. >> >> I think that's the core of it. (I haven't attempted to develop a complete >> definition. I'm not sure it's worth doing.) >> >> >> >> I would like an additional feature, although I'm unsure to what extent I >> would consider it necessary. >> >> - The system operates in part on the basis of symbols, i.e., >> information. (I'm not sure things other than biological systems and human >> artifacts do that, which is what probably prompted my question in the >> first >> place.) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:05 AM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> >> Russ, >> >> >> >> I seem to be missing some of the correspondence, and I apologize for >> that. Thanks for updating me. >> >> >> >> So, did you also, in your post, offer a definition of “complex system” >> that excludes hurricanes? >> >> >> >> I am, as you would predict, a little troubled by your locution, “that >> uses energy.” Seems somehow to suggest that the hurricane, as a system, >> exists in advance of the energy flows that make it happen. The “use” >> metaphor – I use a hammer to hit a nail – implies that both me and the >> hammer exist before the use takes place. If we use the hurricane as a >> metaphor for nail use, the nail and the hammer construct me to use them, or >> something like that. That formulation is weird, also, but sufficient to >> make my point. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ >> Abbott >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 12:46 AM >> >> >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems? >> >> >> >> Nick, >> >> >> >> When you suggested a hurricane as an example of a complex system I >> replied that a hurricane is interesting because it's a non-biological >> system (and not a human artifact) that uses energy that it extracts from >> outside itself to maintain its structure. That's an interesting and >> important characteristic. Biological systems do that also, Maturana & >> Varela, but I don't see that as sufficient to grant it the quality of being >> a complex system. >> >> >> >> -- Russ >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:06 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks, Glen, >> >> >> >> Larding below: >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ?glen? >> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 11:34 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com >> > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems? >> >> >> >> Although you're repeating what I'd said earlier about relying on a more >> vernacular sense of "complex", we have to admit something you've yet to >> acknowledge. >> >> *[NST==>I missed this, and going back through the thread, I have not >> found it. Can you reproduce it for me without too much strain? <==nst] * >> >> (I realize that the things I've said in this thread have been mostly >> ignorable. So, it's reasonable that they've been missed.) First, circular >> reasoning is used all the time in math. >> >> *[NST==>I am not talking about tautology, here: x is x. I am talking >> about circular explanation: x is the cause of x. Surely you would agree >> that having defined X as whatever is caused by Y, I have not added much to >> our store of knowledge concerning what sorts of things Y causes. But you >> are correct, not all circular explanations are entirely vicious/vacuous, of >> course. It depends on the assumptions the discussants bring to the table. >> See, >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281410347_Comparative_psychology_and_the_recursive_structure_of_filter_explanations<==nst >> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281410347_Comparative_psychology_and_the_recursive_structure_of_filter_explanations%3c==nst>]* >> >> So, it is not the bug-a-boo logicians claim it to be. Again, Maturana & >> Varela, Rosen, Kaufmann, et al have all used it to valid and sound effect. >> >> *[NST==>I would be grateful for a passage from any of these folks where >> strictly circular reasoning is used to good effect. <==nst] * >> >> >> >> Second, your "interact more closely with one another than they do with >> entities outside the set" is nothing but _closure_. >> >> *[NST==>Well, if that is how one defines closure, then I am bound to >> agree. Then, it’s not clear to me what the function of “nothing but” is, >> in your sentence. But reading through your earlier posts (petri dish) >> suggests that for you closure is absolute; for me, systematicity is a >> variable and we would have to have some sort of a mutual understanding of >> where along that dimension we start calling something a system. <==nst] * >> >> Or if I can infer from the lack of response to my broaching the term, we >> could use "coherence" or some other word. >> >> *[NST==>Yes, but coherence, for me, carries more richness than what I was >> grasping for. For you, perhaps not. I guess “coherence” is ok. <==nst] * >> >> And that means that your working definition is not naive. >> >> *[NST==>Huh? You mean I don’t get to be in charge of whether I am naïve, >> or not? Are you some kind of behaviorist? <==nst] * >> >> It does rely on an intuition that many of us share. >> >> *[NST==>Bollox! It relies on the plain meaning of the word (he said >> grumpily). <==nst] * >> >> But in order for you to know what you're talking about, you have to >> apply a bit more formality to that concept. >> >> *[NST==>This thread isn’t coherent for me. Somebody asks if natural >> systems can be complex. This is a lot of intricate talk which I frankly >> didn’t follow but which seemed to suggest that only symbol systems could be >> complex. But I could detect no definition of complexity to warrant that >> restriction. So I offered a definition of complexity (which may have been >> the same as yours – forgive me), offered an example of a natural complex >> system, a hurricane, and came to the conclusion that indeed, some natural >> systems are complex. To my knowledge, nobody has addressed that claim. >> But I have been traveling, my eye sight sucks, and I may have missed it. >> If anybody has addressed this claim, could somebody direct me to a copy of >> their post. I would be grateful. <==nst] * >> >> >> >> *Perhaps Steve Smith, who has often rescued me when I have made these >> messes in the past, could gently point out to me my error. * >> >> >> >> *Top temperature today 49 degrees. 90’s predicted for next week. I am >> ready. * >> >> >> >> *Best to you all, * >> >> >> >> *Nick * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 06/06/2017 07:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> >> > Dear Eric and Steve, and the gang, >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > When I first moved to Santa Fe on Sabbatical 12 years ago, I was merely >> 67, and there was a chance, just a chance, that I might become expert >> enough in complexity science and model programming to deal with you guys >> on a somewhat equal footing. But that never happened, and, now, it is too >> late. I am amazed by the intricacy of your discussion and the broad reach >> of your thought. There is really little more than I can do then wish you >> all well, and back out of the conversation with my head bowed and my hat >> clasped to my chest. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Before I leave this conversation, I would like to offer the dubious >> benefits of what expertise I do have, which concerns the perils of circular >> reasoning. I come by that expertise honestly, through years of struggling >> with the odd paradox of evolutionary biology and psychology, that neither >> field seems every to quite get on with the business of explaining the >> design of things. When George Williams famously defined adaptation as >> whatever natural selection produces he forever foreclosed to himself and >> his legions of followers, the possibility of saying what sort of a world an >> adapted world is, what the products of natural selection are like. One of >> you has pointed out that this is an old hobby horse with me, and suggested, >> perhaps, that it's time to drag the old nag to the glue factory. But I >> intend to give it one last outing. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > So, I have a question for you all: Do you guys know what you are >> talking about?! Now I DON’T mean that how it sounds. I don’t mean to >> question your deep knowledge of the technology and theory of complexity. >> Hardly. What I do mean to ask is if, perhaps, you may sometimes lose >> sight of the phenomenon you are trying to explain, the mystery you hope to >> solve. Natural selection theory became so sophisticated, well-developed >> and intricate that its practitioners lost track of the phenomenon they were >> trying to account for, the mystery they were trying to solve. We never >> developed a descriptive mathematics of design to complement our elaborate >> explanatory mathematics of natural selection. Until we have such a >> descriptive system, natural selection theory is just a series of ad hoc >> inventions, not a theory subject to falsification but “a metaphysical >> research program” as Popper once famously said, which can always be >> rejiggered to be correct. Is there a risk of an analogous problem in >> complexity science? You will have to say. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > So, I will ask the question again: Do you guys know what you are >> talking about?! What is complexity?? If the answer you give is in terms >> of the deeply technical, causal language of your field, there is a danger >> that you have lost sight of what it is you are trying to account for. And >> here a little bit of naivety could be very helpful. Naivety is all I have >> to offer, I will offer it. Whatever complexity might be, it is the >> opposite of simplicity, no? It is in that spirit that I propose a working >> definition of complexity with which to explore this thread’s question: >> “Are any non-biological systems complex?” >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > An object is any collection or entity designated for the purposes of >> conversation. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > A system is a set of objects that interact more closely with one >> another than they do with entities outside the set. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > A system is complex if the objects that compose it are themselves >> systems. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Only when complex systems have been clearly defined, is it rational to >> ask the question, “Are any natural systems complex?” Now you may not like >> my definition, but I think you will agree that once it is accepted, the >> answer to the question is clearly, “Yes!” >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Take hurricanes. Is a hurricane composed of >> thunderstorms? Clearly, Yes. Are thunderstorms themselves systems. This >> is a bit less clear, because the boundaries among thunderstorms in a >> hurricane may be a bit hazy, but if one thinks of a thunderstorm as a >> convective cell -- a column of rising air and its related low level inflow >> and high level outflow – then a thunderstorm is definitely a system, and a >> hurricanes are made up of them. Hurricanes may also display an >> intermediate system-level, a spiral band, which consists of a system of >> thunderstorms spiraling in toward the hurricane’s center. Thus, a >> hurricane could easily be shown to be a three-level complex system. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Notice that this way preceding saves all the intricate explanatory >> apparatus of complexity theory for the job of accounting for how hurricanes >> come about. Now we can ask the question, What kinds of energy flows (insert >> correct terminology, here) occur in all complex systems? Notice also, >> that this procedure prevents any of us from importing his favorite >> explanation for complex systems into their definition, guaranteeing the >> truth of the explanation no matter what the facts might be, and rendering >> the theory vacuous. . >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > One last comment. When I wrote that perhaps we might inquire of the >> system whether it is complex or not, I left myself wide open to be >> misunderstood. I meant only to say, that it is the properties of the >> system, itself, not its causes, that should determine the answer to the >> question. Remember that, in all matters, I am a behaviorist. If I would >> distrust your answer concerning whether you are hungry or not, I certainly >> would not trust a systems answer concerning whether it is complex or not. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ␦glen? >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove