Russell, thanks for your considerate reply. I 'owe one' to 'vznuri' (whatever name that may be) for the URL of your paper. I glanced at it only, because it is on a different 'basis' from my thinking. I try to explain below. Try, because the "complexity thinking" I seek needs lots of enlightenment and is mostly a criticism of the conventionality, with very little (so far) to go on with. Basically: I don't think in terms of a "complex system" and of the calculable definitions (Kolmogoroff, Shanon, Chaitin, Santa Fe, and - R. Standish<G>,) rather a conceptual "explanatory" narrative (not even a theory) for the 'complementarities' (paradoxes) of the 'science/dilemma' we got into by overstepping the thinking barriers of math-based belief systems (btw. this list started exactly on such dissatisfaction some years ago, before "too much" conventional physics knowledge came into consideration on it).
Quoting from your paper: "Is complexity totally subjective?" As far as our mind-formulated models are concerned: yes. However there are only insufficient models, the 'total model' would be "the thing itself", nit a model. The 'complexity' (I emphasise: wrong word) is called by some students "endogenous impredicative" pointing more closely to the unmodellable diversification of the concept. Since this line would lead into a quagmire and I want to concentrate on emergence, I jump into it. Your definition (among another 1000 words): "....emergence (e-) is the concept of some new phenomenon arising in a system that wasn't in the specification of that system's specification to start with..." Here we go: "NEW", pointing to our (so far) ignorance. Which rests my case for my fist statement about human ignorance. Then you follow up with what you call "my description of (e-), a lengthy mathematical-like part on macro vs micro language (description), irrelevant for me, since a 'description' secures an insufficient model. I appreciate your statement of the 'macrodesciption' as a "good theory". As you conclude - and I agree: "...(the (e-) system) would not be an observed phenomenon". The 'observed' would be our model of the natural system's so far discovered part - while (e-) arises mostly from beyond that knowledge-segment (why we call it an (e-), of course) "Ronald et al. focus on the element of "surprise" as a test of the (e-)..." Another 'resting place' for my statement about 'ignorance' - we are not surprised about things we know. It would be predicted, expected. I do not go into your evidences by entropy, a mathematical ingenuity for making sense of things not understandable - at the informational - epistemic level of thinking 200+ years ago and still carried on by more than a dozen "new and improved" theories - a basic obsession of conventional physicists. I know this is anathema, but I am not religious. I would like to know why you find (e-) applicable for known circumstances. I think it is because of the different views I explained above. Thank you for your position on the math-applicability. One short rremark though: Maybe I call (e-) less of a "product" of a modeling process, rather a view within our modeling-results. Respectfully John Mikes ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 7:11 PM Subject: Re: emergence > John, > I can't remember whether you read my paper "On Complexity and > Emergence" in Complexity International a couple of years > ago. Basically, I think you are well on the mark, except I disagree > with you on the issue that once a mechanism is known, the process is > no longer emergent. I think it still is emergent, and explain why in > that paper. > > As to mathematics predicting emergent phenomena, I believe that the > answer is categorically no. Emergent phenomena is a result of a > modelling process - eg what a brain does, not an analytic > process. Mathematics can be used to describe the emergent phenomenon > after it is discovered, but I don't think the discovery process can > really be called mathematics. > > Cheers > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > The correspondent with that mystical name touched an interesting problem > > (earlier appearing in Hale's and Tim's posts): emergence. > > Colin Hales: > > > Our main gripe is the issue of emergent behaviour and the >mathematical > > treatment thereof? Yes?< > > (Tim's post see below). > > > > I have an indecent opinion of this concept: it is "human ignorance". > > Let me explain. > > As long as we cannot qualify the steps in a 'process' leading to the > > "emerged" new, we call it emergence, later we call it process. > > Just look back into the cultural past, how many emergence-mystiques > > (miracles included) changed into regular quotidien processes, simply by > > developing "more" information about them. > > I did not say: "the" information. Some. > > > > The world as we know about it, consists of models which the mind > > (who's-ever or what's-ever) was capable to construct at a given level of the > > development. > > The natural systems are unconscionably broader and the undisclosed > > (undetected, or just not included) effects play roles in the processes. > > Reductionism closes her limiting/ed eye on such unwanted and > > ununderstandable side-shows and their mathematical treatment as well, since > > the latter is slanted towards the same level of development as is the > > construction of the models considered. > > > > Why can we not deduce an emergence from our known preriquisites? > > There are two sides to the reasons: > > > > Principally: > > Becuase the happenings in nature (I use the word in its broadest sense, like > > existence, or multiverse) are inductive and by deductive thinking we cannot > > reach an induction. > > Practically: > > By churning reasults from the cut-off parts we included into our model we > > cannot reach 'conclusions' including the "rest of it". > > So we call it emergence with awe. > > > > In Tim's example the watch is a mechanism, made from just that many parts > > for a designed function included in its manufacturing purpose. > > The cell? similarly a mechanism, but under the influence of more than we can > > calculate. Biology cuts its interest to a domain so far studied and > > discovered. From time to time new information occurs and the image changes. > > Who can predict such "emergences" of the coming centuries in the human > > epistemic enrichment? > > Evolution follows the environmental influences (called pressures) of a wider > > involvement than what our 'present' cognitive inventory can cover . (Any > > 'present' of course). > > All kinds of variations occur instead of repetitions and selectively > > survive. > > So do societal changes in organizations, human and other (biosphere, > > body/health, cosmic history, etc. etc.). > > > > I wonder if mathematics can 'predict' the outcome of such 'emergences' which > > are subject to unlimited variables unknown and their interchanging > > influential efficiency upon a substrate, the total extent of which is also > > unknown, way beyond (the known limitations of) the model we talk about. > > Of course, a TOE may calculate this, but only a "real" one which includes > > and handles all these (limitless) unknown I/O factors in its organized > > mathematical performance. > > > > John Mikes > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:25 PM > > Subject: emergence > > > > > > > > > > hi all. in a recent msg I talked about emergence as > > > a theme for the algorithmic revolution & CH zooms in & comments on that, > > > spurring some more of my thoughts. > > > this is a very tricky idea that I feel I definitely have not wrapped > > > my own brain around, nor has anyone else. but, imho, its a genuinely > > > new idea. "emergence" as a buzzword does seem to > > > be a key element of a new TOE & the algorithmic revolution. > > > > > > > > > flash: "emergence" is the opposite of reductionism. just as > > > the 20th century and most of all prior science is about > > > reductionism, we can now study emergence. perhaps that > > > will be a key theme of 21st century science, physics, etc. > > > the algorithm/computer is the breakthrough new tool that allows > > > us to study emergence. > > > > > > emergence <=> reductionism are not mutually exclusive. > > > its a feedback loop, a dichotomy, a bohrian complementarity. > > > the forest versus the trees. > > > mathematics underlies both, but in a different sense. the approaches > > > & techniques are different. emergence tends to be a more qualitative > > > than quantitative picture, rules or equations that one can write down > > > but not so easily derive from the basic principles of the > > > system. > > > > > > also, the clockwork universe theme seems to encourage reductionism. > > > whereas maybe the algorithmical metaphor encourages "emergencism". > > > > > > what is emergence? its a very loaded word. we all pretty much > > > feel we understand "reductionism" probably, but emergence > > > is a new concept. I would argue its being defined as we speak > > > & that science is coming to grips with an accurate definition. > > > perhaps people here will contribute to that definition. > > > > > > > > > my favorite examples of emergence that Ive noticed recently > > > & can expand on if there is interest. > > > > > > - I have a web site that catalogs over 4000 known gliders for > > > the game of life. **breathtaking**. can you predict these given > > > the life rules? or how about, find a theory that predicts > > > the gliders from a given set of rules?? this ties in with > > > a brilliant proof that rule 110 is a universal TM, mentioned > > > in wolframs book, which is very much oriented around glider > > > physics of the rule. > > > > > > - oscillons. emergent behavior from many particles. a picture > > > is worth a thousand words. check em out. still under the radar > > > of just about everyone, but a quite exquisitely beautiful > > > example. I believe it will be shown to predict all particle > > > dynamics in the not-too-distant future. > > > > > > - fractals. another good metaphor for emergence. who would > > > predict the equation z <- z^2 + c could lead to such incredible > > > artwork & tapestries. cosmic. > > > > > > - robotics. imagine the aibo software, and then how that > > > software animates the bot. and imagine putting aibos together. > > > the behavior is emergent, unpredictable, intelligent, dynamic. > > > > > > - the cyberspace web. thriving, pulsing, growing, changing, > > > constantly. all built out of basic building blocks like HTML, > > > HTTP, apache servers, microsoft, whatever. > > > > > > - biology. ecosystems. parasites <=> hosts. predator <=> prey > > > etcetera. biologists are just now starting to get an idea > > > of how the whole fabric is woven together. a zillion interactions. > > > unexpected findings. > > > > > > - graph theory is now starting to study "small world graphs" which > > > have many extraordinary properties entailing emergence ("six degrees > > > of separation"). several new books on the subject. > > > a buzzword in the making. > > > > > > > > > and so on!! so I am out of ideas at the moment > > > until someone else says something else.. > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > A/Prof Russell Standish Director > High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile) > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (") > Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --