I suppose I see changes in memory as being mediated by changes in the properties of the sediment/stigmergy, and composition scope being a kind of algebraic process over the model. Sub-branches can be selected and compared. For instance, given a single binary tree with a Markov property specifying downward transitions, the left branch at a node can be seen as an alternative possibility to the right branch. Perhaps, there could exist some kind of limiting *river delta* that all others can be mapped into. In any case, I am unclear how the composition scope might need to be extraneous.
For the record, I am not married to the river delta model, but I see it as being one of many that might meet your theory and so I will continue to clarify where I can. I am attempting a model-theoretic perspective where: 1) There is some phenomena to explore, say symmetry. 2) We posit a theory, say the axioms of a group. 3) We create models of the theory: finite groups, Lie groups, topological groups, etc... 4) We explore what the different models elucidate about our phenomena. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
