But when you say "single entity", you're also implying a universe in which that single entity sits. I think in one of your posts, you put off talking about where the inputs/outputs come from/go to. We don't have to go all the way to multiple entities in order to continue the comparison of the 3 defns we have so far: 1) Nick's asymptote, 2) naive realist's "out there", and 3) your fatigue, lock, channelization.
We can go the route of comparing the sensor-web-effector's (SWE) structure as a *model* of the universe in which the entity sits, assuming there's only 1 SWE entity. 1) When the interactive/adaptive SWE settles on a stable pattern, that's true according to (1). 2) When the SWE's structure matches the universe's structure, that's true according to (2). 3) When the SWE's structure decouples from its universe in one of those 3 ways, that's a truth/failure according to (3). If we can begin discussing in this way, we can address things like Marcus' recent post, and relations between (1), (2), and (3), as well as the distinction Frank raised awhile back about validity vs. soundness of a model (as well as all the other people/ideas we've mentioned). I also think we can get to the ideas Steve wants to address without adding multiple SWEs. At least in agent-based modeling, we distinguish one type of inter-agent communication as purely environment-mediated. So, the model effectively reduces to only 1 agent and its environment, regardless of the structure of that environment. On 10/19/2017 11:34 AM, Prof David West wrote: > Nick's definition arises at the level of a group, while mine is restricted to > the condition of a single entity. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ 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
