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" <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
To: <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: <vznuri.domain.name.hidden>; <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>;
<vznuri.domain.name.hidden>
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
>
> jamikes.domain.name.hidden 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: <vznuri.domain.name.hidden>
> > To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> > Cc: <vznuri.domain.name.hidden>
> > 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 R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Received on Mon Nov 25 2002 - 12:12:43 PST