Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

Russ, 

 

Thanks for continuing to press on this. 

 

Before Roger C., went to Sea in Boston Harbor, he gave me a wonderful History 
of Chemistry, which I valiantly read from cover to cover.  Of course, I 
understood very little of it, but I brought it with me to the Mosquito Infested 
Swamp, and I plan to have another go, this summer.  

 

One of the points of the Lipton and Thompson article that I pressed on Glen is 
that recursive (reflexive?) explanations – explanations that  mention the 
explanandum in the explanans but are not strictly circular -- may serve as 
place holders for the real thing as scientists home in on it.  So, “the aids 
vector” could have served as a recursive explanation for AIDS before folks knew 
whether that vector was a virus or a bacterium.  That sort of sounds like what 
you are saying.  

 

But if one allows recursive explanations, one has to be absolutely clear that 
they are explanations only up to a point, and beyond that point they are 
assertions of ignorance.  So, before an audience of South Africans a decade 
ago, “AIDS is caused by the AIDS vector” would have been an explanation, 
because South Africans denied at that time that aids was caused by any vector.  
Before an American scientific audience at that time, it would simply have been 
a declaration of ignorance.  

 

And I still don’t think that lets you-guys off the hook  of identifying the 
citadel you intend to assault before you bring up your siege engines and your 
catapults.  

 

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 11:49 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

 

Seems backwards to me. Another example is atomic weight as characterizing 
elements. (I'm afraid I don't remember the details of the story.) Before we 
understood isotopes scientists were confused that different samples of what 
seemed like the same element had different weights. If an element type is 
characterized by its atomic weight, which was the original inclination, that 
would have produced wrong categories. Element types are defined by the number 
of protons in the nucleus, independent of the number of neutrons, which is what 
fouls up the atomic weight approach. But if you pushed scientists to commit to 
a definition of element type too early that would have fouled everything up. It 
was only after we understood more about the phenomena we were trying to 
categorize that we were able to come up with an appropriate definition. 

 

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:03 PM Nick Thompson  > wrote:

Russ, 

 

You have a knack for lining things up for me: i.e., putting them in ways that 
maximize my ability to make the distinctions I want to make.  You wrote: 

 

Nick, it's my understanding that "species" is not well defined in biology. Yet 
we tend to use the term and don't get ourselves in too much trouble. "Complex 
system" is probably a similarly undefined by useful pseudo-category.

 

Well, “species” is a wonderful example of the very problem of “painting 
ourselves into a corner” that I want to talk about.  So, in Darwin’s time, the 
the notion of species as a kind was not in dispute.  The question was, How did 
these kinds come about, and Darwin theorized that they came  about not through 
creation but through diversifying natural selectionl  This view became so 
orthodox that in time the species was DEFINED as a reproductivelly isolated 
population. This lasted only until people began to notice that some creatures 
became very different without being reproductively isolated (“ring” species) 
and some reproductively isolate populations did not produce different species 
(I think this was mice in large midwestern chicken barns, but I don’t remember 
for sure) .  Then there was that wonderful example on the Galapagos Islands, 
where the finches speciated every 4 – 8 years depending on El Nino.   It’s been 
a while since I have had anybody to talk to about this, but I get the 
impression that the matter stands approximately there.  To my knowledge, nobody 
has ever worked with the plain phenomological fact that animals seem to be sort 
of arrayed in sorts.  This discontinuity in character possession is the fact 
that, once we give up on God, needs explaining.  Why do animals come in 
‘sort-of sorts”?   And what is the role of natural selection, reproductive 
isolation, and other factors in contributing to this sortiness.  But without a 
formal definition of “sortiness” and perhaps also a mathematical description, 
the work of answering that question 

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Frank Wimberly]

Glen,

If you want to see how NPD is amenable to type 2 treatment see "Analysis of
the Self" by Kohut. I dare you.

Frank




Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 7, 2017 9:51 PM, "Nick Thompson"  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Here is Glen's thoughtful post of January 20, reborn. To be honest, I
> don’t understand it.  Not a bit.  I am hoping that perhaps one or more of
> the rest of you can help me get it.  Let’s start with one baby step.  What
> is meant by LAYER in this text? The possible meanings open to me are, (1) a
> kind of hen; (2) a stratum in a substance; or (3) a level in a hierarchical
> descriptive scheme.  So, “genus” is a level as is “battalion”. Are any of
> these meanings relevant to Glen’s post?
>
>
>
> Please help me out here.  Intuition tells me that there is gold, here, but
> I just don’t have the tools to mine it out.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Excellent!  Thanks, Eric (and everyone -- I'm enjoying this).  So, here's
> my, in class, answer to Nick's quiz:
>
>
>
> nick> What is the difference between a circular explanation and a
> recursive one.  What is the key dimension that determines whether an
> explanation is viciously circular?   Is the virtuus dormitiva viciously
> circular? Why?  Why not?
>
>
>
> *Recursive explanations contain layers of reasoning (e.g. mechanism vs
> phenomenon) whereas circular ones are flat.* [bolding by NST]  Vicious
> circularity simply means "has only 1 layer".  (I disagree with this
> idea.[*])  The virtus dormitiva has multiple (abstraction of language)
> layers and, by the single-layer defn of "vicious" is not vicious.
>
>
>
> Now, on to N[arcissitic]P[ersonality]D[isorder], I think we have 2 types
> of recursion: 1) communicative, as Frank (probably) tried to point out to
> me before, and 2) phenomenological.  When we land in an attractor like
> "something is wrong with Trump", we're still within a single layer of
> reasoning (intuition, emotion, systemic gestalt, whatever).  If we have a
> tacit feeling for NPD, we can stay within that single layer and simply
> assign a token to it: NPD.  But if we're at all reductionist, we'll look
> for ways to break that layer into parts.  Parts don't necessarily imply
> crossing layers.  E.g. a meaningful picture can be cut into curvy pieces
> without claiming the images on the pieces also have meaning.  So 1) we can
> simply name various (same layer) phenomena that hook together like jigsaw
> pieces to comprise NPD. Or 2) we can assert that personality traits are
> layered so that the lower/inner turtles _construct_ the higher/outer
> turtles.
>
>
>
> What Frank says below is of type (1).  What Jochen (and others) have
> talked about before (childhood experiences, etc.) is more like type (2).
> The question arises of whether the layering of symbolic compression
> (renaming sets of same-layer attributes) is merely type (1) or does it
> become type (2).  To me, mere _renaming_ doesn't cut it.  There must be a
> somewhat objectively defined difference, a name-independent difference.
> So, if we changed all the words we use (don't use "narcissism",
> "personality", "disorder", "emptiness", etc. ... use booga1, booga2,
> booga3, etc.), would we _still_ see a cross-trophic effect?  Note that
> mathematics has elicited lots of such demonstrations of irreducible
> layering ... e.g. various no-go theorems.  But those are syntactic
> _demonstrations_ ... without the vagaries introduced by natural language
> and scientific grounding.  To assert that problems like natural selection
> vs. adaptation or the diagnosis of NPD also demonstrate such cross-trophic
> properties would _require_ complete formalization into math.  Wolpert did
> this (I think) to some extent.  But I doubt it's been done in evolutionary
> theory and I'm fairly confident it hasn't been done in psychiatry.  (I
> admit my ignorance, of course... doubt is a good mistress but a bad master.)
>
>
>
> More importantly, though, I personally don't believe a recursive cycle is
> _any_ different from a flat cycle.  Who was it that said all deductive
> inference is tautology?  I have it in a book somewhere, cited by John
> Woods.  Unless there is some significantly different chunk of reasoning
> somewhere in one of the layers, all the layers perfectly _reduce_ to a
> single layer.
>
>
>
> Hence, my answer to Nick's quiz (at the pub after class) is that _all_
> cycles are "vicious" (if vicious means single layer), but if we take my
> concept of "vicious", then only those cycles that _hide_ behind (false)
> layers are vicious.
>
>
>
>
>
> [*] I think a cycle is vicious iff it causes problems.  Tautologies don't
> cause problems.  They don't solve them.  But they don't cause them either.
> So a vicious cycle must have more than 1 layer.
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

Dear All, 

 

Here is Glen's thoughtful post of January 20, reborn. To be honest, I don’t 
understand it.  Not a bit.  I am hoping that perhaps one or more of the rest of 
you can help me get it.  Let’s start with one baby step.  What is meant by 
LAYER in this text? The possible meanings open to me are, (1) a kind of hen; 
(2) a stratum in a substance; or (3) a level in a hierarchical descriptive 
scheme.  So, “genus” is a level as is “battalion”. Are any of these meanings 
relevant to Glen’s post?  

 

Please help me out here.  Intuition tells me that there is gold, here, but I 
just don’t have the tools to mine it out. 

 

Nick 

 

Excellent!  Thanks, Eric (and everyone -- I'm enjoying this).  So, here's my, 
in class, answer to Nick's quiz:

 

nick> What is the difference between a circular explanation and a recursive 
one.  What is the key dimension that determines whether an explanation is 
viciously circular?   Is the virtuus dormitiva viciously circular? Why?  Why 
not?

 

Recursive explanations contain layers of reasoning (e.g. mechanism vs 
phenomenon) whereas circular ones are flat. [bolding by NST]  Vicious 
circularity simply means "has only 1 layer".  (I disagree with this idea.[*])  
The virtus dormitiva has multiple (abstraction of language) layers and, by the 
single-layer defn of "vicious" is not vicious.

 

Now, on to N[arcissitic]P[ersonality]D[isorder], I think we have 2 types of 
recursion: 1) communicative, as Frank (probably) tried to point out to me 
before, and 2) phenomenological.  When we land in an attractor like "something 
is wrong with Trump", we're still within a single layer of reasoning 
(intuition, emotion, systemic gestalt, whatever).  If we have a tacit feeling 
for NPD, we can stay within that single layer and simply assign a token to it: 
NPD.  But if we're at all reductionist, we'll look for ways to break that layer 
into parts.  Parts don't necessarily imply crossing layers.  E.g. a meaningful 
picture can be cut into curvy pieces without claiming the images on the pieces 
also have meaning.  So 1) we can simply name various (same layer) phenomena 
that hook together like jigsaw pieces to comprise NPD. Or 2) we can assert that 
personality traits are layered so that the lower/inner turtles _construct_ the 
higher/outer turtles.

 

What Frank says below is of type (1).  What Jochen (and others) have talked 
about before (childhood experiences, etc.) is more like type (2).  The question 
arises of whether the layering of symbolic compression (renaming sets of 
same-layer attributes) is merely type (1) or does it become type (2).  To me, 
mere _renaming_ doesn't cut it.  There must be a somewhat objectively defined 
difference, a name-independent difference.  So, if we changed all the words we 
use (don't use "narcissism", "personality", "disorder", "emptiness", etc. ... 
use booga1, booga2, booga3, etc.), would we _still_ see a cross-trophic effect? 
 Note that mathematics has elicited lots of such demonstrations of irreducible 
layering ... e.g. various no-go theorems.  But those are syntactic 
_demonstrations_ ... without the vagaries introduced by natural language and 
scientific grounding.  To assert that problems like natural selection vs. 
adaptation or the diagnosis of NPD also demonstrate such cross-trophic 
properties would _require_ complete formalization into math.  Wolpert did this 
(I think) to some extent.  But I doubt it's been done in evolutionary theory 
and I'm fairly confident it hasn't been done in psychiatry.  (I admit my 
ignorance, of course... doubt is a good mistress but a bad master.)

 

More importantly, though, I personally don't believe a recursive cycle is _any_ 
different from a flat cycle.  Who was it that said all deductive inference is 
tautology?  I have it in a book somewhere, cited by John Woods.  Unless there 
is some significantly different chunk of reasoning somewhere in one of the 
layers, all the layers perfectly _reduce_ to a single layer.

 

Hence, my answer to Nick's quiz (at the pub after class) is that _all_ cycles 
are "vicious" (if vicious means single layer), but if we take my concept of 
"vicious", then only those cycles that _hide_ behind (false) layers are vicious.

 

 

[*] I think a cycle is vicious iff it causes problems.  Tautologies don't cause 
problems.  They don't solve them.  But they don't cause them either.  So a 
vicious cycle must have more than 1 layer.

 

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: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 4:57 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

 

+1

 

Having been called a "troll" for most of my adult life, I'd love 

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Russ Abbott]

Seems backwards to me. Another example is atomic weight as characterizing
elements. (I'm afraid I don't remember the details of the story.) Before we
understood isotopes scientists were confused that different samples of what
seemed like the same element had different weights. If an element type is
characterized by its atomic weight, which was the original inclination,
that would have produced wrong categories. Element types are defined by the
number of protons in the nucleus, independent of the number of neutrons,
which is what fouls up the atomic weight approach. But if you pushed
scientists to commit to a definition of element type too early that would
have fouled everything up. It was only after we understood more about the
phenomena we were trying to categorize that we were able to come up with an
appropriate definition.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:03 PM Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Russ,
>
>
>
> You have a knack for lining things up for me: i.e., putting them in ways
> that maximize my ability to make the distinctions I want to make.  You
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Nick, it's my understanding that "species" is not well defined in biology.
> Yet we tend to use the term and don't get ourselves in too much trouble.
> "Complex system" is probably a similarly undefined by useful
> pseudo-category.
>
>
>
> Well, “species” is a wonderful example of the very problem of “painting
> ourselves into a corner” that I want to talk about.  So, in Darwin’s time,
> the the notion of species as a kind was not in dispute.  The question was,
> How did these kinds come about, and Darwin theorized that they came  about
> not through creation but through diversifying natural selectionl  This view
> became so orthodox that in time the species was DEFINED as a
> reproductivelly isolated population. This lasted only until people began to
> notice that some creatures became very different without being
> reproductively isolated (“ring” species) and some reproductively isolate
> populations did not produce different species (I think this was mice in
> large midwestern chicken barns, but I don’t remember for sure) .  Then
> there was that wonderful example on the Galapagos Islands, where the
> finches speciated every 4 – 8 years depending on El Nino.   It’s been a
> while since I have had anybody to talk to about this, but I get the
> impression that the matter stands approximately there.  To my knowledge,
> nobody has ever worked with the plain phenomological fact that animals seem
> to be sort of arrayed in sorts.  This discontinuity in character possession
> is the fact that, once we give up on God, needs explaining.  Why do animals
> come in ‘sort-of sorts”?   And what is the role of natural selection,
> reproductive isolation, and other factors in contributing to this
> sortiness.  But without a formal definition of “sortiness” and perhaps also
> a mathematical description, the work of answering that question can’t go
> forward.
>
>
>
> What may be subject to challenge here is my assumption that a science
> cannot usefully go forward without explit descriptoins of the phenomena it
> is hoping to explain because its practioners never know if they are talking
> about the same thing.  So their explanatory hypothises are confounded with
> descrptive vicissitudes.
>
>
>
> I don’t know what the troll business was about.  I asked Owen and he
> hasn’t answered yet.
>
>
>
> 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 8:00 PM
>
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem
> WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
>
>
>
> Notwithstanding the trolls, lurking trolls, and meta-trolls, let me
> address the issue.
>
>
>
> My sense is that the term "complex system" was used to refer to systems
> that seemed to have properties that were not common in other
> (physics-based) systems. I don't think the term was ever intended to
> characterize a class of systems in a formal sense. It was more an informal
> way of saying that some system probably won't yield to traditional
> analysis.
>
>
>
> That raises two questions. (1) What are those properties that systems we
> (informally) call complex posses that other systems don't. (2) Do we want
> to want to define the term "complex system" formally, e.g., the way
> mathematician define a group, so that we might, perhaps, prove theorems
> about systems that satisfy the definition?
>
>
>
> My answers are: (1) Yes, it's useful to try to pin down the properties
> that tend to make systems resistant to traditional analysis. (2) No.
> "Complex System" is not a formally defined type (or as philosophers say
> "kind") in the way a mathematical 

[FRIAM] apologies for using the list, but need help

[Prof David West]

anyone in Santa Fe know an honest electrician? I need someone to get a
permit and inspection to put in an electric meter. Time is critical.

dave west


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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

Russ, 

 

You have a knack for lining things up for me: i.e., putting them in ways that 
maximize my ability to make the distinctions I want to make.  You wrote: 

 

Nick, it's my understanding that "species" is not well defined in biology. Yet 
we tend to use the term and don't get ourselves in too much trouble. "Complex 
system" is probably a similarly undefined by useful pseudo-category.

 

Well, “species” is a wonderful example of the very problem of “painting 
ourselves into a corner” that I want to talk about.  So, in Darwin’s time, the 
the notion of species as a kind was not in dispute.  The question was, How did 
these kinds come about, and Darwin theorized that they came  about not through 
creation but through diversifying natural selectionl  This view became so 
orthodox that in time the species was DEFINED as a reproductivelly isolated 
population. This lasted only until people began to notice that some creatures 
became very different without being reproductively isolated (“ring” species) 
and some reproductively isolate populations did not produce different species 
(I think this was mice in large midwestern chicken barns, but I don’t remember 
for sure) .  Then there was that wonderful example on the Galapagos Islands, 
where the finches speciated every 4 – 8 years depending on El Nino.   It’s been 
a while since I have had anybody to talk to about this, but I get the 
impression that the matter stands approximately there.  To my knowledge, nobody 
has ever worked with the plain phenomological fact that animals seem to be sort 
of arrayed in sorts.  This discontinuity in character possession is the fact 
that, once we give up on God, needs explaining.  Why do animals come in 
‘sort-of sorts”?   And what is the role of natural selection, reproductive 
isolation, and other factors in contributing to this sortiness.  But without a 
formal definition of “sortiness” and perhaps also a mathematical description, 
the work of answering that question can’t go forward. 

 

What may be subject to challenge here is my assumption that a science cannot 
usefully go forward without explit descriptoins of the phenomena it is hoping 
to explain because its practioners never know if they are talking about the 
same thing.  So their explanatory hypothises are confounded with descrptive 
vicissitudes.  

 

I don’t know what the troll business was about.  I asked Owen and he hasn’t 
answered yet.  

 

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 8:00 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

 

Notwithstanding the trolls, lurking trolls, and meta-trolls, let me address the 
issue.

 

My sense is that the term "complex system" was used to refer to systems that 
seemed to have properties that were not common in other (physics-based) 
systems. I don't think the term was ever intended to characterize a class of 
systems in a formal sense. It was more an informal way of saying that some 
system probably won't yield to traditional analysis. 

 

That raises two questions. (1) What are those properties that systems we 
(informally) call complex posses that other systems don't. (2) Do we want to 
want to define the term "complex system" formally, e.g., the way mathematician 
define a group, so that we might, perhaps, prove theorems about systems that 
satisfy the definition?

 

My answers are: (1) Yes, it's useful to try to pin down the properties that 
tend to make systems resistant to traditional analysis. (2) No. "Complex 
System" is not a formally defined type (or as philosophers say "kind") in the 
way a mathematical group is. Nick, it's my understanding that "species" is not 
well defined in biology. Yet we tend to use the term and don't get ourselves in 
too much trouble. "Complex system" is probably a similarly undefined by useful 
pseudo-category.

 

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:08 PM Marcus Daniels  > wrote:

I guess there’s stuff to pick apart there, but a troll would make me feel 
compelled to do so from a place of poor footing.  How is Russ’ post an instance 
of that?Or is this a meta troll?

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com 
 ] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 2:40 PM


To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group  >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

 

Troll

 

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ Abbott 

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Russ Abbott]

Notwithstanding the trolls, lurking trolls, and meta-trolls, let me address
the issue.

My sense is that the term "complex system" was used to refer to systems
that seemed to have properties that were not common in other
(physics-based) systems. I don't think the term was ever intended to
characterize a class of systems in a formal sense. It was more an informal
way of saying that some system probably won't yield to traditional
analysis.

That raises two questions. (1) What are those properties that systems we
(informally) call complex posses that other systems don't. (2) Do we want
to want to define the term "complex system" formally, e.g., the way
mathematician define a group, so that we might, perhaps, prove theorems
about systems that satisfy the definition?

My answers are: (1) Yes, it's useful to try to pin down the properties that
tend to make systems resistant to traditional analysis. (2) No. "Complex
System" is not a formally defined type (or as philosophers say "kind") in
the way a mathematical group is. Nick, it's my understanding that "species"
is not well defined in biology. Yet we tend to use the term and don't get
ourselves in too much trouble. "Complex system" is probably a similarly
undefined by useful pseudo-category.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:08 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> I guess there’s stuff to pick apart there, but a troll would make me feel
> compelled to do so from a place of poor footing.  How is Russ’ post an
> instance of that?Or is this a meta troll?
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Owen
> Densmore
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 2:40 PM
>
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem
> WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
>
>
>
> Troll
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ Abbott 
> 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 
> 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 

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Marcus Daniels]

I guess there’s stuff to pick apart there, but a troll would make me feel 
compelled to do so from a place of poor footing.  How is Russ’ post an instance 
of that?Or is this a meta troll?

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 2:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

Troll

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ Abbott 
> 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 
> 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 
>
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 

[FRIAM] And now for something completely different.

[glen ☣]

While engaged in a literature search for something entirely different, I landed 
on this fun paper:

  Consequences of removing cheap, super-strength beer and cider: a qualitative 
study of a UK local alcohol availability intervention
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5051338/

> Increasingly, English local authorities have encouraged the implementation of 
> an intervention called ‘Reducing the Strength’ (RtS) whereby off-licences 
> voluntarily stop selling inexpensive ‘super-strength’ (≥6.5% alcohol by 
> volume (ABV)) beers and ciders. We conceptualised RtS as an event within a 
> complex system in order to identify pathways by which the intervention may 
> lead to intended and unintended consequences.


Objargon included.  I now have a new career path: simulation AND session beer!

-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[glen ☣]

+1

Having been called a "troll" for most of my adult life, I'd love to hear why 
Owen lobs the insult.


On 06/07/2017 01:54 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Owen, 
> 
>  
> 
> I don’t understand this comment.  Who’s a troll?  Are you trolling, here?  Is 
> this irony?  I don’t follow.  
> 
> [...]
> 
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 4:40 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
> non-biological complex systems?
> 
>  
> 
> Troll

-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

Owen, 

 

I don’t understand this comment.  Who’s a troll?  Are you trolling, here?  Is 
this irony?  I don’t follow.  

 

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 Owen Densmore
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 4:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

 

Troll

 

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ Abbott  > 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  > 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, 

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

Russ Rote, 

 

When you say "This is a great test," I'm not sure what the "this" is. Would you 
mind saying what it is again.

 

I meant that your definition of complexity, with it’s clear appeal to 
explanatory concepts, the same concepts that one might appeal to to EXPLAIN 
complexity, is a great test of my proposition that you-all are in danger of 
painting yourselves into a corner by how you define your object of study. 

 

If I cannot make you uneasy about this definition, my cause is lost. 

 

Russ also Rote: 

 

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?

I think I want to ask, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the 
development of a complex system.  To ask that question, I have ALREADY to know 
what a complex system is.  In other words, on pain of vicious circularity,  the 
conditions that determine whether I call something a complex system cannot be 
the same condition that I use to explain it.  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 1:28 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any 
non-biological complex systems?

 

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  > 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 

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Owen Densmore]

Troll

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ Abbott  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 
> 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 

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[glen ☣]

I don't want to distract from the new thread, which I think is more important 
than this part of this thread.  So, feel free to ignore this one.  But I'll 
answer now because I have the time now.  FWIW, I'm not annoyed.  But I'd like 
to see us (everyone) make some progress, even if it's not toward a paper or 
other artifact.  (To answer Owen, I am willing to help organize the content.)  
Anyway, the rest below:

On 06/07/2017 09:31 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> [gepr] Below is what I wrote in response to Stephen's suggestion that any 
> physical system might qualify as complex.
> 
> On 05/26/2017 12:40 PM, glen ☣ wrote:
> 
>> [gepr] Yeah, but you're relying on the ambiguity of the concept.  A system 
>> that is only complex for very short spans of time, or under very special 
>> conditions wouldn't fit with _most_ people's concept of "complex".  To boot, 
>> unadulterated oscillation wouldn't satisfy it either.  And, as has been said 
>> earlier in the thread, allowing any an all physical systems to be called 
>> "complex" when they're placed under special circumstances defeats the 
>> purpose of the concept.
> 
> [NST==>I am keen to know what is meant by “the purpose of the concept”.  
> Peirce says the meaning of a concept is the difference in the observations 
> (experiments) that it leads us to make.  What difference does calling 
> something complex make for you.  Forgive me please if this requires you to 
> direct my attention to earlier posts.  <==nst] 



It means nothing to _me_.  Whenever someone says it, I a) abandon the 
conversation, b) ask them what they think it means, or c) impute what I think 
they mean.  But I can tell you what I think it means to most.  "Complex" is 
like "obscenity".  And this is why the discussion of the "order parameter" is 
important (and why so many ABMs are qualitiative and not quantitative).  When 
other people use the term, I think they mean "I can't tease out the causes of 
the phenomenon I'm looking at."  Sometimes they might (also) mean "It would 
take me a lot of effort to discuss what we're looking at."  Hence, the purpose 
of the concept of complexity (better termed "plectics") is to identify that 
"interesting region" of the phenotype ... or perhaps to distinguish one 
phenotype from another.

So, Stephen's suggestion that complexity is common defeats that purpose.  It's 
like when someone asks me if I believe in extraterrestrial life.  I say yes.  
But if someone asks if I believe in extraterrestrial intelligence, I say no.  
Further, to say that a system is complex, when only tiny regions of its 
behavior space exhibit complexity is equally useless.  It's like saying that 
all the air molecules in a room _could_ condense up into the corner, "in 
principle".  Sure, to people who think hard about theories and ideas, that 
helps explain what the theory means.  But to most people, it's either 
misleading or useless.



> [gepr] I'm used to thinking in terms of things being closed to one operation 
> and open to others.  I'm also used to using it as a verb, e.g. "closing a 
> set" by, say, adding the limit point to it.  Or more appropriate to this 
> context, closing a region by wrapping a boundary around to itself like you 
> would by tying a string to itself to get a loop.  Further, a region of some 
> "space" can be "partially closed" by being very convex ... like some 
> champagne flutes, bulging in the middle with a small-ish opening at one end 
> ... or maybe think of a pinhole camera or a black body radiation device.
> 
> [NST==>But doesn’t this bring us back to the question that I got into a 
> tangle with Steve about: Whether a system can close it self?  Or whether 
> closure has to be be provided “from the outside” (=petri dish).  <==nst]


Yes, but we don't _have_ to go there.  Closure can be done by an outside actor 
(lab grad student setting up a BZ reaction in a dish).  Russ states it well: 
"around which one can draw a boundary".  That is a type of closure.  A hollow 
sphere or a shallow dish or whatever.  We can even attribute/draw a boundary 
around a hurricane.  But where and how we "close" the collection of 
thermals/molecules/trees/trucks/etc matters.  It's a study of how things are 
closed or open.

A self-referencing closure, a boundary defined by the bounded, is a fantastic 
sophisma, well beaten but not dead by Rosen et al.  But you don't have to leap 
all the way from ordinary closures to "teleological" or anticipatory closures.




>> [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]
> 
>  
> 
> 8^)  Right.  You can't sa[NST==><==nst] by you're being naive and then get 
> all hyper-technical about whatever naive statement you made.
> 
> [NST==>Naïve in the sense of standing apart from the technical details.  
> Would “phenomological” be better?  I am a great believer in the importance of 
> outsiders to the health of science – the Emperor’s New Clothes 

Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Russ Abbott]

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 
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 

[FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

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 
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  > 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 

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, glen, 

 

Thanks.  No wonder you're annoyed at me.  See larding below. 

 

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: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 10:31 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

 

 

 

On 06/06/2017 09:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> [gepr] 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]

 

Below is what I wrote in response to Stephen's suggestion that any physical 
system might qualify as complex.

 

On 05/26/2017 12:40 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

> Yeah, but you're relying on the ambiguity of the concept.  A system that is 
> only complex for very short spans of time, or under very special conditions 
> wouldn't fit with _most_ people's concept of "complex".  To boot, 
> unadulterated oscillation wouldn't satisfy it either.  And, as has been said 
> earlier in the thread, allowing any an all physical systems to be called 
> "complex" when they're placed under special circumstances defeats the purpose 
> of the concept.

[NST==>I am keen to know what is meant by “the purpose of the concept”.  Peirce 
says the meaning of a concept is the difference in the observations 
(experiments) that it leads us to make.  What difference does calling something 
complex make for you.  Forgive me please if this requires you to direct my 
attention to earlier posts.  <==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_psychol

> ogy_and_the_recursive_structure_of_filter_explanations 

>  logy_and_the_recursive_structure_of_filter_explanations%3c==nst> 

> <==nst]

 

 

We've talked about your recursive filter explanation paper before.  I don't 
think you responded to what I said about it after EricC's explanation.  Here is 
my comment:  
 
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2017-January/075190.html

 

[NST==>For whatever reason, server feckless or my own, I don’t remember ever 
seeing this before.  It looks like the most through going attempt to confront 
the ideas in that paper that anybody has ever provided, and deserved (and 
deserves) to be read carefully and discussed.  Please forgive my failure to do 
so.  I will get on it.  <==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]

 

 

 

I will find some.  But a more fundamental read is this:  
 
http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/predicativity.pdf

[NST==>Don’t do any more work for me until I have read this.  You are giving me 
guilt feelings<==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]

 

 

Yes, I can see that.  I'm used to thinking in terms of things being closed to 
one operation and open to others.  I'm also used to using it as a verb, e.g. 
"closing a set" by, say, adding the limit point to 

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Russ Abbott]

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 
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 
> 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 
> 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
> ]*
>
>  So, it is not 

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Nick Thompson]

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 
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  > 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  >
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]

 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 

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[┣glen┫]

That's completely reasonable.  I suppose this was a bad example because it's 
difficult to decouple from its context.


On 06/07/2017 07:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> In this example, the discussion was more about the composition of functional 
> relationships (ion transport, DNA repair) and their consequences than it is 
> about objects.   
> 
> My concern isn't that a calculation work as intended, it is that the desire 
> for formalism could be in opposition to quantitative prediction.   If your 
> goal is to weed out intellectual disability, it might be better to use a 
> statistical model method based on higher dimensional data (e.g. comparing raw 
> sequences), than one that invokes biological concepts.


-- 
␦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

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[┣glen┫]

On 06/06/2017 09:05 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> [gepr] 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] 

Below is what I wrote in response to Stephen's suggestion that any physical 
system might qualify as complex.

On 05/26/2017 12:40 PM, glen ☣ wrote:
> Yeah, but you're relying on the ambiguity of the concept.  A system that is 
> only complex for very short spans of time, or under very special conditions 
> wouldn't fit with _most_ people's concept of "complex".  To boot, 
> unadulterated oscillation wouldn't satisfy it either.  And, as has been said 
> earlier in the thread, allowing any an all physical systems to be called 
> "complex" when they're placed under special circumstances defeats the purpose 
> of the concept.

>  (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]


We've talked about your recursive filter explanation paper before.  I don't 
think you responded to what I said about it after EricC's explanation.  Here is 
my comment: 
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2017-January/075190.html


>  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] 



I will find some.  But a more fundamental read is this: 
http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/predicativity.pdf



> 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]


Yes, I can see that.  I'm used to thinking in terms of things being closed to 
one operation and open to others.  I'm also used to using it as a verb, e.g. 
"closing a set" by, say, adding the limit point to it.  Or more appropriate to 
this context, closing a region by wrapping a boundary around to itself like you 
would by tying a string to itself to get a loop.  Further, a region of some 
"space" can be "partially closed" by being very convex ... like some champagne 
flutes, bulging in the middle with a small-ish opening at one end ... or maybe 
think of a pinhole camera or a black body radiation device.


> 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]


Coherence can be ambiguous, too.  But my main point is that much of what we've 
been arguing about in this thread is about closure, what it means, and whether 
it's necessary for something to be called a complex system.  Russ' claim 
includes some form of closure.  This is much stronger than Stephen's claim.  
Yours falls somewhere between.  But we won't be able to get at your middle 
ground without more formality.


>  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] 


8^)  Right.  You can't say you're being naive and then get all hyper-technical 
about whatever naive statement you made.



>   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.  

Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[Marcus Daniels]

"But (I think) they use it as an immediate proxy for the real objects.  So, 
their defn of coherence wouldn't change.  My focus isn't so much on whether 
their calculation actually works as intended.  Just that it is a more formal 
concept than Nick's "objects that interact more with themselves than others".

In this example, the discussion was more about the composition of functional 
relationships (ion transport, DNA repair) and their consequences than it is 
about objects.   

My concern isn't that a calculation work as intended, it is that the desire for 
formalism could be in opposition to quantitative prediction.   If your goal is 
to weed out intellectual disability, it might be better to use a statistical 
model method based on higher dimensional data (e.g. comparing raw sequences), 
than one that invokes biological concepts.

Marcus 

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