From: (Bryan Bishop) Sender: (Yaneer Bar-Yam) To: complex-science Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:37:34 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.24] verified) by necsi.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6) with ESMTP id 22689613 for complex-science@necsi.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:00:25 -0400 Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 3so179072qwe.47 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:00:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=E7aad4t6sK888XEEzXouFa72UTijI7rIiIzAczrnPik=; b=pRFvY2t4MlByKSmW9S17XwzF9eAjOPLOPW+zdEMrq+V3HATFXr7YzNDAcDk9igbA3k DTYHJw8/Hx8BQ8WsJwocF1QuPHwlXQnzbuLq0JUTzq/ho+ZoXpplbZAsuUTjXxWBnmRB Ltb1r5sT4+RxcKPChRZ915owMnC/fn32loaJ0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :message-id; b=bIdKWoDj0cZar8Jd3MZ9V57jTPzM01Ewc03sutf1sJIZ4yoLD0rPKTzbWzz5FAz8EZ e3PhrLDEu6mctBV1kaC2UeEkYPyZ9moEMvPHAFOfN5hdn6q5yuaTyk+DeM+f+DM71o6h pu7CeEXth786n6orNJdGc77Jco4MU+m/QC1Os= Received: by 10.215.14.10 with SMTP id r10mr6438313qai.48.1219125624930; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:00:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from dyn232-240.apogeenet.net ( [66.112.232.240]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 34sm1832642yxm.0.2008.08.18.23.00.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:00:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: complex-science@necsi.org Subject: Re: [POSSIBLE SPAM] The 'Brookhavenato r': Self-organizing systmes with critical pr operties X-Original-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:04:38 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary-01=_3JmqIVtNPGwsdJX" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Original-Message-Id: <200808190104.39037.kanzure@gmail.com> --Boundary-01=_3JmqIVtNPGwsdJX Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Monday 18 August 2008, Stanley Salthe wrote: > Folks -- It is well to remember that all probability density > functions are mere tools for analyzing data. =C2=A0Nothing in nature is > either random or orderly. =C2=A0These are windows we peek out from. =C2= =A0In > biology in particular the Normal mean is taken as the 'fact' about > any population. =C2=A0In that field, studying the only realm where Nature > has produced functional individuality, individuals are reckoned to be > of no account. =C2=A0Science so far cannot deal with individuals except > insofar as one individual might be scanned many times using many > different probes, delivering population data. That science cannot yet deal with indviduals means disaster for self-organi= zing systems because of the implicit connection between self and individual= , an individual is a self except all outside-in. This, of course, is coming= from a non-statistical reading of your message.=20 Re: nothing can be random. An event that is truly random, such as in our ps= eudo random number generators on our computers, would not generate a number= , but perhaps a cow, or a steeming pile of biological tissue that would per= haps belong more in a Douglas Adams novel. And an orderly event? That too s= ounds questionable. It has been said by someone, I can't recall who, that r= eality is the most efficient function of predicting its next moment because= it's deterministically so. Anything within reality therefore can only gath= er a small portion of the information required to figure out the big pictur= e. "Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through = chaos, into chaos we fly." s/chaos/mutations/ The advantages of working with individuals can be seen in the lab with dire= cted evolution and selection experiments. This bares some resemblance to mo= dular unit testing in computer programming practices. This, then, becomes a= matter of engineering .. especially because of those 'barriers' of sort th= at Sungchul mentions below; the connection here needs some more work but lo= oks like something Tony is going for: On Wednesday 06 August 2008, Tony Smith wrote: > I'm starting to see that reflexive acceptance of the assumption that > such a definition is in any way related to the world we find > ourselves in might be contributing significantly to lack of progress > in understanding the bigger picture. > > At any moment, our cosmos can be seen as bound by various event =20 > horizons: the Big Bang at the Hubble radius and many black holes =20 > within. Those event horizons are all very porous, but each in one =20 > direction, the CMB flux entering from (near) the Big Bang horizon and > anything that strays too close exiting through the black hole > horizons. > > In 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity', Lee Smolin argues that we can't > know anything beyond these event horizons, then goes on to propose > an evolutionary scenario connecting the two (a scenario I have some > sympathy for but which I still doubt is yet sufficient to give us a > full explanation for conservative physics by natural means). But the > inference relevant here from Smolin's first point is that we should > not use fact of the Big Bang to jump to a conclusion that even the > complete "Universe" (for want of a better word) produced by the Big > Bang is even bound, let alone Closed or Isolated in the sense Sung > uses for clearly confined systems. > > I don't want to take this any further for now. It is just that I have > developed an allergy to the reflexive assumption that local truths > can be safely applied to global considerations. There is not even a > way to get evidence as to whether they can or cannot. I was going to reply to Sungchul earlier on another email, but might as wel= l mention it here: On Monday 18 August 2008, Sungchul Ji wrote: > Can it be that there are many universes, depending on how one defines > them? For example, the universe defined on the basis of the Big Bang > theory, and the one defined based on the first law of thermodynamics > (i.e., the universe wherein the statement, "The energy and matter of > the Universe remains constant", holds). For convenience, we may > refer to the former as the Big Bang universe (BBU) and the latter as > the first-law universe (FLU). If the boundary of BBU is either > undefinable or porous (due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?), > we can still have FLU if BBU happens to contain FLU, i.e., BBU > FLU. The other day I came across the first mention of 'groundtruth' (I'm young).= I had never seen the word before, even if I've been thinking words similar= to it. To 'groundtruth' how you know you know the universe would allow you= to say what you can and cannot extrapolate from given models of increasing= real reality. The same can be said for data sets in a very practical sense= -- you must tell people that certain data is only usable in certain ways b= ecause of assumptions made when taking the data, and so on. The same could = be done for various systems of thinking in philosophy, and I'm sure somebod= y's already worked out a way to validate axiomal purity of arguments or som= esuch. I think it, my hear of it I mean, was at one in the morning outside of Wend= y's with a biologist from the local robot group. Weird mix of circumstances= , but certainly worth it. =2D Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap --Boundary-01=_3JmqIVtNPGwsdJX Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Monday 18 August 2008, Stanley Salthe wrote:

> Folks -- It is well to remember that = all probability density

> functions are mere tools for analyzin= g data. =C2=A0Nothing in nature is

> either random or orderly. =C2=A0These= are windows we peek out from. =C2=A0In

> biology in particular the Normal mean= is taken as the 'fact' about

> any population. =C2=A0In that field, = studying the only realm where Nature

> has produced functional individuality= , individuals are reckoned to be

> of no account. =C2=A0Science so far c= annot deal with individuals except

> insofar as one individual might be sc= anned many times using many

> different probes, delivering populati= on data.

That science cannot yet deal with indviduals means disaster for self-org= anizing systems because of the implicit connection between self and individ= ual, an individual is a self except all outside-in. This, of course, is com= ing from a non-statistical reading of your message.

Re: nothing can be random. An event that is truly random, such as in our= pseudo random number generators on our computers, would not generate a num= ber, but perhaps a cow, or a steeming pile of biological tissue that would = perhaps belong more in a Douglas Adams novel. And an orderly event? That to= o sounds questionable. It has been said by someone, I can't recall who, tha= t reality is the most efficient function of predicting its next moment beca= use it's deterministically so. Anything within reality therefore can only g= ather a small portion of the information required to figure out the big pic= ture. "Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, = through chaos, into chaos we fly."

s/chaos/mutations/

The advantages of working with individuals can be seen in the lab with d= irected evolution and selection experiments. This bares some resemblance to= modular unit testing in computer programming practices. This, then, become= s a matter of engineering .. especially because of those 'barriers' of sort= that Sungchul mentions below; the connection here needs some more work but= looks like something Tony is going for:

On Wednesday 06 August 2008, Tony Smith wrote:

> I'm starting to see that reflexive ac= ceptance of the assumption that

> such a definition is in any way rel= ated to the world we find

> ourselves in might be contributing si= gnificantly to lack of progress

> in understanding the bigger picture.<= /span>

>

> At any moment, our cosmos can be seen= as bound by various event

> horizons: the Big Bang at the Hubble = radius and many black holes

> within. Those event horizons are all = very porous, but each in one

> direction, the CMB flux entering from= (near) the Big Bang horizon and

> anything that strays too close exit= ing through the black hole

> horizons.

>

> In 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity', = Lee Smolin argues that we can't

> know anything beyond these event ho= rizons, then goes on to propose

> an evolutionary scenario connecting t= he two (a scenario I have some

> sympathy for but which I still doubt = is yet sufficient to give us a

> full explanation for conservative phy= sics by natural means). But the

> inference relevant here from Smolin's= first point is that we should

> not use fact of the Big Bang to jump = to a conclusion that even the

> complete "Universe" (for wa= nt of a better word) produced by the Big

> Bang is even bound, let alone Closed = or Isolated in the sense Sung

> uses for clearly confined systems.

>

> I don't want to take this any further= for now. It is just that I have

> developed an allergy to the reflexi= ve assumption that local truths

> can be safely applied to global consi= derations. There is not even a

> way to get evidence as to whether the= y can or cannot.

I was going to reply to Sungchul earlier on another email, but might as = well mention it here:

On Monday 18 August 2008, Sungchul Ji wrote:

> Can it be that there are many univers= es, depending on how one defines

> them? For example, the universe defi= ned on the basis of the Big Bang

> theory, and the one defined based on = the first law of thermodynamics

> (i.e., the universe wherein the state= ment, "The energy and matter of

> the Universe remains constant", = holds). For convenience, we may

> refer to the former as the Big Bang u= niverse (BBU) and the latter as

> the first-law universe (FLU). If the= boundary of BBU is either

> undefinable or porous (due to the Hei= senberg uncertainty principle?),

> we can still have FLU if BBU happens = to contain FLU, i.e., BBU > FLU.

The other day I came across the first mention of 'groundtruth' (I'm youn= g). I had never seen the word before, even if I've been thinking words simi= lar to it. To 'groundtruth' how you know you know the universe would allow = you to say what you can and cannot extrapolate from given models of increas= ing real reality. The same can be said for data sets in a very practical se= nse -- you must tell people that certain data is only usable in certain way= s because of assumptions made when taking the data, and so on. The same cou= ld be done for various systems of thinking in philosophy, and I'm sure some= body's already worked out a way to validate axiomal purity of arguments or = somesuch.

I think it, my hear of it I mean, was at one in the morning outside of W= endy's with a biologist from the local robot group. Weird mix of circumstan= ces, but certainly worth it.

- Bryan

________________________________________

http://heybryan.org/

Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html

irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap

--Boundary-01=_3JmqIVtNPGwsdJX--