Discussion:
Nature and Creation are Too Simple to Believe
(too old to reply)
Jonathan
2021-07-14 15:35:25 UTC
Permalink
My hobby of complexity science is essentially
the abstract version of Darwinian evolution.

Placing evolution in entirely abstract terms does
something utter astonishing in understanding
how nature works.

This theory allows us to see what all the realms
of nature have in common, whether the physical
universe, life or mind.

The definition of complexity theory can be
used for all the realms of nature with
equal validity due to it's abstract form.

"Critically interacting systems self-organize
to form potentially evolving structures
exhibiting a hierarchy of emergent system
properties."

The first four words tell the secret to nature...

"Critically interacting systems..."

THAT'S the common source of creation and
evolution for all visible order. Whether
the universe, life or mind.

Understand the term 'critically interacting'
and you know immediately how all things
came into being and evolve.

Perhaps the simplest example of a critically
interacting system is a pedestrian cloud.

A cloud stands poised at the transition point
between it's system-specific opposing states
of matter and vapor.

Change the conditions of this 'critically interacting
system' even an iota and it quickly decoheres to
either opposing form.

Water or vapor.

But when critically interacting water and vapor
form a cloud where it is neither water or vapor
but /both/ at the same time. Chaotically transitioning
back and forth so that one can't tell which
opposite dominates the whole.

Just like the Mona Lisa smile.

Deliberately left uncertain or 'complex' so that
no on can tell which opposite emotion is being
displayed.

Nature, the universe, is that simple.

If you can understand what a cloud is, you have
the secret to nature. And even God if you like
as I believe the two are one in the same.

Critically interacting so that one can't tell
which opposite defines the whole.

Science or religion.

Just like the Mona Lisa smile, it's your choice
and no one can tell you you're wrong.

The universe is too simple and wonderful to believe
or even properly state.


Jonathan



"I found the words to every thought
I ever had — but One
And that — defies me
As a Hand did try to chalk the Sun

To Races — nurtured in the Dark
How would your own — begin?
Can Blaze be shown in Cochineal
Or Noon — in Mazarin?"



By E Dickinson











https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Jonathan
2021-07-14 15:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
My hobby of complexity science is essentially
the abstract version of Darwinian evolution.
Placing evolution in entirely abstract terms does
something utter astonishing in understanding
how nature works.
This theory allows us to see what all the realms
of nature have in common, whether the physical
universe, life or mind.
The definition of complexity theory can be
used for all the realms of nature with
equal validity due to it's abstract form.
  "Critically interacting systems self-organize
   to form potentially evolving structures
   exhibiting a hierarchy of emergent system
   properties."
The first four words tell the secret to nature...
   "Critically interacting systems..."
OK three words, good grief~
Post by Jonathan
THAT'S the common source of creation and
evolution for all visible order. Whether
the universe, life or mind.
Understand the term 'critically interacting'
and you know immediately how all things
came into being and evolve.
Perhaps the simplest example of a critically
interacting system is a pedestrian cloud.
A cloud stands poised at the transition point
between it's system-specific opposing states
of matter and vapor.
Change the conditions of this 'critically interacting
system' even an iota and it quickly decoheres to
either opposing form.
Water or vapor.
But when critically interacting water and vapor
form a cloud where it is neither water or vapor
but /both/ at the same time. Chaotically transitioning
back and forth so that one can't tell which
opposite dominates the whole.
Just like the Mona Lisa smile.
Deliberately left uncertain or 'complex' so that
no on can tell which opposite emotion is being
displayed.
Nature, the universe, is that simple.
If you can understand what a cloud is, you have
the secret to nature. And even God if you like
as I believe the two are one in the same.
Critically interacting so that one can't tell
which opposite defines the whole.
Science or religion.
Just like the Mona Lisa smile, it's your choice
and no one can tell you you're wrong.
The universe is too simple and wonderful to believe
or even properly state.
Jonathan
"I found the words to every thought
 I ever had — but One
 And that — defies me
 As a Hand did try to chalk the Sun
 To Races — nurtured in the Dark
 How would your own — begin?
 Can Blaze be shown in Cochineal
 Or Noon — in Mazarin?"
By E Dickinson
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Jonathan
2021-07-14 15:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
My hobby of complexity science is essentially
the abstract version of Darwinian evolution.
Placing evolution in entirely abstract terms does
something utter astonishing in understanding
how nature works.
This theory allows us to see what all the realms
of nature have in common, whether the physical
universe, life or mind.
The definition of complexity theory can be
used for all the realms of nature with
equal validity due to it's abstract form.
  "Critically interacting systems self-organize
   to form potentially evolving structures
   exhibiting a hierarchy of emergent system
   properties."
The first four words tell the secret to nature...
   "Critically interacting systems..."
THAT'S the common source of creation and
evolution for all visible order. Whether
the universe, life or mind.
Understand the term 'critically interacting'
and you know immediately how all things
came into being and evolve.
Perhaps the simplest example of a critically
interacting system is a pedestrian cloud.
A cloud stands poised at the transition point
between it's system-specific opposing states
of matter and vapor.
Water and vapor, for crying out loud proof read.
Post by Jonathan
Change the conditions of this 'critically interacting
system' even an iota and it quickly decoheres to
either opposing form.
Water or vapor.
But when critically interacting water and vapor
form a cloud where it is neither water or vapor
but /both/ at the same time. Chaotically transitioning
back and forth so that one can't tell which
opposite dominates the whole.
Just like the Mona Lisa smile.
Deliberately left uncertain or 'complex' so that
no on can tell which opposite emotion is being
displayed.
Nature, the universe, is that simple.
If you can understand what a cloud is, you have
the secret to nature. And even God if you like
as I believe the two are one in the same.
Critically interacting so that one can't tell
which opposite defines the whole.
Science or religion.
Just like the Mona Lisa smile, it's your choice
and no one can tell you you're wrong.
The universe is too simple and wonderful to believe
or even properly state.
Jonathan
"I found the words to every thought
 I ever had — but One
 And that — defies me
 As a Hand did try to chalk the Sun
 To Races — nurtured in the Dark
 How would your own — begin?
 Can Blaze be shown in Cochineal
 Or Noon — in Mazarin?"
By E Dickinson
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
William Hyde
2021-07-14 20:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
A cloud stands poised at the transition point
between it's system-specific opposing states
of matter and vapor.
No. Not true in any sense. Even with the correction below.
Post by Jonathan
Water and vapor, for crying out loud proof read.
Do you actually think cloud particles are made of liquid
water?

Water, vapour, ice, ions, aerosols.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
Change the conditions of this 'critically interacting
system' even an iota and it quickly decoheres to
either opposing form.
Also not true. Even for fairly big iotas.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
Water or vapor.
You are imposing a primitive duality on an (ironically) complex process
and not even for illustrative purposes is it justified.


William Hyde
Jonathan
2021-07-15 13:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
A cloud stands poised at the transition point
between it's system-specific opposing states
of matter and vapor.
No. Not true in any sense. Even with the correction below.
Post by Jonathan
Water and vapor, for crying out loud proof read.
Do you actually think cloud particles are made of liquid
water?
Water, vapour, ice, ions, aerosols.
Thanks for responding

Don't forget dust and the stray exhaust from a passing jet.

Typical view from a reductionist where one begins with
the parts to understand the whole.

That's fine for building things, but for...natural order
that's not the defining direction of causation.

As complex systems can't be understood by looking at
the parts first and extrapolating out to the whole
for the following reason, among many.

With ANY complex system the components interact
chaotically, so they can't be precisely measured or
determined without deconstructing the system at hand.

For instance try to study a tornado from a puddle of water.
Only when a cloud, a complex system, can such effects
emerge for us to study.

This is systems theory I'm discussing, in
particular complex systems. This is an
exercise in /highly abstract/ concepts
where causation is top down.

Due to the defining emergent system properties
that result from the collective properties of
highly unconstrained interactions among countless
independent components.


Imperial College Press Advanced Physics Texts:
Volume 1
Complexity and Criticality

"Criticality refers to the behaviour of extended systems
at a phase transition where scale invariance prevails.
The many constituent microscopic parts bring about macroscopic
phenomena that cannot be understood by considering a
single part alone.

Besides fractals and phase transitions, there are many examples
in Nature of the emergence of such complex behaviour in
slowly driven non-equilibrium systems: earthquakes in
seismic systems, avalanches in granular media and
rainfall in the atmosphere."
https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p365


Do you deny a cloud is a complex system?

Do you deny complex systems are critically
interacting systems?

Do you deny critically interacting systems
follow the Butterfly Effect and as a result
are highly sensitive to changes in conditions?

Do you deny critically interacting systems
are modeled by chaos theory, where in abstract
form spontaneous order is the result of the
critically interacting components of
order and disorder.

Do you deny that water and vapor properly
represent the relatively ordered and disordered
states of a cloud? Their opposing states of
matter?


I can supply all the cites you need.
Post by William Hyde
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
Change the conditions of this 'critically interacting
system' even an iota and it quickly decoheres to
either opposing form.
Also not true. Even for fairly big iotas.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
Water or vapor.
You are imposing a primitive duality on an (ironically) complex process
and not even for illustrative purposes is it justified.
Tell that to this meteorologist.


THE ATMOSPHERE AS A COMPLEX SYSTEM

METEOROLOGIST JEFF HABY

The atmosphere is a complex system. Characteristics of a
complex system are several variables, connections between
various variables, interdependence of variables and
adaptations that occur when stresses are added.

1) Extreme events can occur within a complex system (e.g.
hurricanes, severe storms, intense arctic air masses,
intense jet stream wind)

2) A slight change at one location can have tremendous changes
in the state of the atmosphere when given enough time
(e.g. Chaos theory… butterfly flapping wings eventually
leading to a tornado in Texas). This makes the atmosphere
extremely hard to predict as time increases (e.g. difficult
to forecast exact weather characteristics 2 weeks out and
beyond).

http://theweatherprediction.com/habyhints4/1002/


The point is also that ALL visible order in the
universe are complex systems where their components
are critically interacting.

Such as a cloud, a universe, life, society and even mind.
All are critically interacting complex systems
which stand poised at the critical thresholds
between their static and chaotic forms.

For a democracy the static and chaotic forms
are laws and freedom. Or in particular the
Constitution and Bill of Rights.

For Darwinian evolution the static and chaotic
forms are genetics and natural selection.

For an idea the static and chaotic forms
are facts and imagination.

For an universe, gravity and cosmic expansion.

In abstract form, all visible order in the universe
is the result of the critical interaction between
behavior which tends to...create order over time
and behavior which tends to...create disorder over time.

All visible order begins at the subcritical/supercritical
boundary.


As with the simplest possible example of a
...pedestrian cloud.
Post by William Hyde
William Hyde
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Charles Packer
2021-07-16 13:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Typical view from a reductionist where one begins with the parts to
understand the whole.
By all means carry on with your ceaseless expositions if it makes you
feel better. But draw your examples from economics or sociology. Then,
if they're monumentally wrong, I won't know and won't comment.
This is how Jonathan's writings could read if he had the benefit of
a mainstream media editor:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01925-9
Jack Bohn
2021-07-16 16:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Packer
Typical view from a reductionist where one begins with the parts to
understand the whole.
By all means carry on with your ceaseless expositions if it makes you
feel better. But draw your examples from economics or sociology. Then,
if they're monumentally wrong, I won't know and won't comment.
This is how Jonathan's writings could read if he had the benefit of
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01925-9
Hmm... the last sentence of the first paragraph might sail a bit close to presenting a panacea.

On the plus side, it doesn't hurl insults at the audience it's trying to win over.
--
-Jack
Scott Lurndal
2021-07-16 16:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Charles Packer
Typical view from a reductionist where one begins with the parts to
understand the whole.
By all means carry on with your ceaseless expositions if it makes you
feel better. But draw your examples from economics or sociology. Then,
if they're monumentally wrong, I won't know and won't comment.
This is how Jonathan's writings could read if he had the benefit of
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01925-9
Hmm... the last sentence of the first paragraph might sail a bit close to presenting a panacea.
On the plus side, it doesn't hurl insults at the audience it's trying to win over.
And on the gripping hand, it's a letter, so it wasn't edited by anyone other than
the author.
Charles Packer
2021-07-17 20:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Jack Bohn
By all means carry on with your ceaseless expositions if it makes
you feel better. But draw your examples from economics or sociology.
Then,
if they're monumentally wrong, I won't know and won't comment.
This is how Jonathan's writings could read if he had the benefit of a
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01925-9
Hmm... the last sentence of the first paragraph might sail a bit close
to presenting a panacea.
On the plus side, it doesn't hurl insults at the audience it's trying to win over.
And on the gripping hand, it's a letter, so it wasn't edited by anyone
other than the author.
Letters to Nature go through the same editorial mill as everything
else, evidently. I discovered this when I was privileged to have
my own submission accepted.

https://www.nature.com/articles/488157e

In particular, they simply rewrote my second paragraph. This
smoothed wrinkles out of my syntax but also homogenized the
style.
Quadibloc
2021-07-16 17:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Bohn
Hmm... the last sentence of the first paragraph might sail a bit close to presenting a panacea.
On the plus side, it doesn't hurl insults at the audience it's trying to win over.
However, the reaction of "the audience it's trying to win over" might well be summed
up as:

Yes, we know this. But it's way too much work - which is why we have to break
systems down into small parts to make any progress. Also, while economic
inequality certainly will contribute to future pandemics, efforts to reduce it
are very expensive, so the decision to make such efforts remains up to governments.

While we're waiting for a massive effort to reduce global inequality to take
place, it would be criminal to neglect the cheap things like face masks and
vaccines we can do in the meantime. Addressing those kinds of measures
does not mean we are dismissing the larger picture.

So it may not be insulting, but it will still be dismissed as unhelpful.

John Savard
Kevrob
2021-07-18 22:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Charles Packer
Typical view from a reductionist where one begins with the parts to
understand the whole.
By all means carry on with your ceaseless expositions if it makes you
feel better. But draw your examples from economics or sociology. Then,
if they're monumentally wrong, I won't know and won't comment.
This is how Jonathan's writings could read if he had the benefit of
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01925-9
Hmm... the last sentence of the first paragraph might sail a bit close to presenting a panacea.
On the plus side, it doesn't hurl insults at the audience it's trying to win over.
".... reduce inequality, stabilize democracy...."

Or. as someone from fields such as history, politics and economics might
put it, "wish _real_ hard."

--
Kevin R
Jonathan
2021-07-21 14:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Charles Packer
Typical view from a reductionist where one begins with the parts to
understand the whole.
By all means carry on with your ceaseless expositions if it makes you
feel better. But draw your examples from economics or sociology. Then,
if they're monumentally wrong, I won't know and won't comment.
This is how Jonathan's writings could read if he had the benefit of
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01925-9
Hmm... the last sentence of the first paragraph might sail a bit close to presenting a panacea.
On the plus side, it doesn't hurl insults at the audience it's trying to win over.
From the cite your talking about...

"Our socio-economic-ecological world is a complex adaptive network,
in which behaviours emerge that cannot be understood by looking
at the interacting components in isolation. Such a networked system
can undergo sudden, often unpredictable, change, for example
in the climate or the global economy..."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01925-9


If you want to understand how nature and the universe works
it is a panacea. Complexity theory is the new totally
abstract version of our beloved Darwinian evolution
with a few important gaps filled in.

This theory is limited to only systems with large
numbers of parts that re constantly changing.

It's hard to find a system that DOES NOT qualify
as having lots of changing parts.

But more importantly, it turns out all visible order
is an evolving system. This is a concept that could
easily be defined as Darwin on Steroids, or the
strong version of Darwin, as the idea isn't limited
to only biology, but applies with equal validity to
the universe, life and everything else.

I believe in Darwin times ten most others, for good reason.



Complex adaptive system
From Wikipedia,


A complex adaptive system is a system that is complex in
that it is a dynamic network of interactions, but the behavior
of the ensemble may not be predictable according to the behavior
of the components. It is adaptive in that the individual and
collective behavior mutate and self-organize corresponding
to the change-initiating micro-event or collection of events.

[1][2][3] It is a "complex macroscopic collection" of
relatively "similar and partially connected micro-structures"
formed in order to adapt to the changing environment and
increase their survivability as a macro-structure.[1][2][4] T

The Complex Adaptive Systems approach builds on replicator dynamics.[5]

The study of complex adaptive systems, a subset of nonlinear
dynamical systems,[6] is an interdisciplinary matter that
attempts to blend insights from the natural and social sciences
to develop system-level models and insights that allow for
heterogeneous agents, phase transition, and emergent behavior.[7]

The study of CAS focuses on complex, emergent and macroscopic
properties of the system.[4][9][10] John H. Holland said that CAS
"are systems that have a large numbers of components, often
called agents, that interact and adapt or learn".[11]

Typical examples of complex adaptive systems include: climate;
cities; firms; markets; governments; industries; ecosystems;
social networks; power grids; animal swarms; traffic flows;
social insect (e.g. ant) colonies;[12] the brain and the
immune system; and the cell and the developing embryo.

Human social group-based endeavors, such as political
parties communities, geopolitical organizations, war,
and terrorist networks are also considered CAS.

[12][13][14] The internet and cyberspace—composed, collaborated,
and managed by a complex mix of human–computer interactions,
is also regarded as a complex adaptive system.[15][16][17]

CAS can be hierarchical, but more often exhibit aspects of
"self-organization".[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system



EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN - ONE CONCEPT!


How can anyone not be curious about that?
But as my mentor said, to explain new ideas
one must be patient, repetitive and try
in as many different ways as you can think.



"Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise

As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —"
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
pete...@gmail.com
2021-07-21 14:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jack Bohn
Post by Charles Packer
Typical view from a reductionist where one begins with the parts to
understand the whole.
By all means carry on with your ceaseless expositions if it makes you
feel better. But draw your examples from economics or sociology. Then,
if they're monumentally wrong, I won't know and won't comment.
This is how Jonathan's writings could read if he had the benefit of
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01925-9
Hmm... the last sentence of the first paragraph might sail a bit close to presenting a panacea.
On the plus side, it doesn't hurl insults at the audience it's trying to win over.
From the cite your talking about...
"Our socio-economic-ecological world is a complex adaptive network,
in which behaviours emerge that cannot be understood by looking
at the interacting components in isolation. Such a networked system
can undergo sudden, often unpredictable, change, for example
in the climate or the global economy..."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01925-9
If you want to understand how nature and the universe works
it is a panacea. Complexity theory is the new totally
abstract version of our beloved Darwinian evolution
with a few important gaps filled in.
This theory is limited to only systems with large
numbers of parts that re constantly changing.
It's hard to find a system that DOES NOT qualify
as having lots of changing parts.
But more importantly, it turns out all visible order
is an evolving system. This is a concept that could
easily be defined as Darwin on Steroids, or the
strong version of Darwin, as the idea isn't limited
to only biology, but applies with equal validity to
the universe, life and everything else.
I believe in Darwin times ten most others, for good reason.
Complex adaptive system
From Wikipedia,
A complex adaptive system is a system that is complex in
that it is a dynamic network of interactions, but the behavior
of the ensemble may not be predictable according to the behavior
of the components. It is adaptive in that the individual and
collective behavior mutate and self-organize corresponding
to the change-initiating micro-event or collection of events.
[1][2][3] It is a "complex macroscopic collection" of
relatively "similar and partially connected micro-structures"
formed in order to adapt to the changing environment and
increase their survivability as a macro-structure.[1][2][4] T
The Complex Adaptive Systems approach builds on replicator dynamics.[5]
The study of complex adaptive systems, a subset of nonlinear
dynamical systems,[6] is an interdisciplinary matter that
attempts to blend insights from the natural and social sciences
to develop system-level models and insights that allow for
heterogeneous agents, phase transition, and emergent behavior.[7]
The study of CAS focuses on complex, emergent and macroscopic
properties of the system.[4][9][10] John H. Holland said that CAS
"are systems that have a large numbers of components, often
called agents, that interact and adapt or learn".[11]
Typical examples of complex adaptive systems include: climate;
cities; firms; markets; governments; industries; ecosystems;
social networks; power grids; animal swarms; traffic flows;
social insect (e.g. ant) colonies;[12] the brain and the
immune system; and the cell and the developing embryo.
Human social group-based endeavors, such as political
parties communities, geopolitical organizations, war,
and terrorist networks are also considered CAS.
[12][13][14] The internet and cyberspace—composed, collaborated,
and managed by a complex mix of human–computer interactions,
is also regarded as a complex adaptive system.[15][16][17]
CAS can be hierarchical, but more often exhibit aspects of
"self-organization".[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system
EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN - ONE CONCEPT!
How can anyone not be curious about that?
But as my mentor said, to explain new ideas
one must be patient, repetitive and try
in as many different ways as you can think.
"Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —"
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Am I the only one who finds these essays similar to reading the
label on Dr. Bronner's Soap?

pt
Scott Lurndal
2021-07-21 15:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Am I the only one who finds these essays similar to reading the
label on Dr. Bronner's Soap?
You may be the only one who actually reads them.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2021-07-21 19:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by ***@gmail.com
Am I the only one who finds these essays similar to reading the
label on Dr. Bronner's Soap?
You may be the only one who actually reads them.
I was gonna say....

Seriously, why hasn't Jonathan been universally killfiled?
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer & the Steam-Powered Saurians.
Paul S Person
2021-07-22 15:15:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:52:48 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by ***@gmail.com
Am I the only one who finds these essays similar to reading the
label on Dr. Bronner's Soap?
You may be the only one who actually reads them.
I was gonna say....
Seriously, why hasn't Jonathan been universally killfiled?
Excessive killfiling kills the conversation.

And lack of conversation kills newsgroups.

Be careful what you wish for.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
pete...@gmail.com
2021-07-22 15:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:52:48 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by ***@gmail.com
Am I the only one who finds these essays similar to reading the
label on Dr. Bronner's Soap?
You may be the only one who actually reads them.
I was gonna say....
Seriously, why hasn't Jonathan been universally killfiled?
Excessive killfiling kills the conversation.
And lack of conversation kills newsgroups.
Be careful what you wish for.
I don't killfile anyone.

However, there are a number of posters whose content my
eyes skip over pretty damn quickly.

pt
Scott Lurndal
2021-07-22 16:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:52:48 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by ***@gmail.com
Am I the only one who finds these essays similar to reading the
label on Dr. Bronner's Soap?
You may be the only one who actually reads them.
I was gonna say....
Seriously, why hasn't Jonathan been universally killfiled?
Excessive killfiling kills the conversation.
And lack of conversation kills newsgroups.
Be careful what you wish for.
I don't killfile anyone.
Indeed - even a dim bulb sheds some light.
Post by ***@gmail.com
However, there are a number of posters whose content my
eyes skip over pretty damn quickly.
That's a fact.
Robert Carnegie
2021-07-22 21:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:52:48 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by ***@gmail.com
Am I the only one who finds these essays similar to reading the
label on Dr. Bronner's Soap?
You may be the only one who actually reads them.
I was gonna say....
Seriously, why hasn't Jonathan been universally killfiled?
Excessive killfiling kills the conversation.
And lack of conversation kills newsgroups.
Be careful what you wish for.
I don't killfile anyone.
Indeed - even a dim bulb sheds some light.
Yeah, but replace half the stars in the sky with
brown dwarfs, it'll be distinctly darker at night.
There are groups worse than that.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by ***@gmail.com
However, there are a number of posters whose content my
eyes skip over pretty damn quickly.
That's a fact.
Jonathan
2021-07-21 13:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Packer
Typical view from a reductionist where one begins with the parts to
understand the whole.
By all means carry on with your ceaseless expositions if it makes you
feel better. But draw your examples from economics or sociology. Then,
if they're monumentally wrong, I won't know and won't comment.
This is how Jonathan's writings could read if he had the benefit of
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01925-9
Not sure what a media editor has to do with it, but
I like your cite, thanks for posting it.

To build resilience, study complex systems

"Our socio-economic-ecological world is a complex adaptive network,
in which behaviours emerge that cannot be understood by looking
at the interacting components in isolation."
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Robert Carnegie
2021-07-16 14:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
A cloud stands poised at the transition point
between it's system-specific opposing states
of matter and vapor.
No. Not true in any sense. Even with the correction below.
Post by Jonathan
Water and vapor, for crying out loud proof read.
Do you actually think cloud particles are made of liquid
water?
Water, vapour, ice, ions, aerosols.
Thanks for responding
Don't forget dust and the stray exhaust from a passing jet.
Aerosols.
Just what I was going to say. ;-)
Jonathan
2021-07-21 13:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
A cloud stands poised at the transition point
between it's system-specific opposing states
of matter and vapor.
No. Not true in any sense. Even with the correction below.
Post by Jonathan
Water and vapor, for crying out loud proof read.
Do you actually think cloud particles are made of liquid
water?
Water, vapour, ice, ions, aerosols.
Thanks for responding
Don't forget dust and the stray exhaust from a passing jet.
Aerosols.
Post by Jonathan
Typical view from a reductionist where one begins with
the parts to understand the whole.
No, just pointing out that you don't even know the parts.
You're right, but the parts are not irrelevant to this so I don't
care much about them.

A cloud was used as an /abstract/ example of the concept of
complexity, as defined by complexity science.

I could have easily been using democracy, a solar system
or an idea as an example.

Here's the big discovery as concisely as I can.

You can't see the secret to nature by looking at parts.
Only the whole.

Here's why, the properties of an evolving system that
gives it the tendency to settle on the best solution and
hence to evolve, are...collective...properties, not part
properties.

Or emergent properties that result from HOW the parts interact.
Not what the parts are made of, but how they..behave.

This is an output based frame of reference, not input based.
As the output reflects the interactions of ALL the parts
even the chaotic or random. Nothing is simplified away
as is routinely done in objective reductionism.

The system becomes the starting point, not the parts
to understanding how nature, and in fact, the entire
universe really works.

It works because complexity science inverses the basic
frame of reference of classical objective science in
a rigorous way.

Complexity science inverts away from a frame of upward causation
to downward causation as the primary source of knowledge
of nature.

But also inverting from a part properties frame to
a system /behavior/ frame.

From what the parts do, to how the parts behave.
Qualitative instead of qualitative all bound up in
the abstract concept of the complex adaptive system.

So when...you see a water molecule, a gene or the US Constitution
...I see a static attractor.

And when you see vapor, natural selection or the Bill of Rights
I see a chaotic attractor.

And when the two system-specific opposing states in possibility
are at the transition point between each other, you see a cloud
I see a complex system.

Don't you see, the defining collective properties CAN'T be seen
in the parts as the moment you 'freeze-frame' a system to detail
it's parts the collective or emergent properties instantly
VANISH - POOF they're gone.

The secret to nature is destroyed the minute
you attempt to detail it's parts.

This abstract version of Darwinian evolution
shows us, for the first time, what all evolving
or natural systems HAVE IN COMMON wrt to their
creation and evolution.

The commonality is that their parts are ...behaving
critically, as in a cloud. As in a rumor etc.

The defining emergent properties are collective properties
and only exist while the system is intact, operating
and more importantly...far from equilibrium.

Objective reductionism looks for near equilibrium
to make the detailed part properties definable.
It really does
not matter how good complexity theory is, if you don't know just what
is being complex. Would a cloud of ball bearings behave like a cloud
of water droplets?
They could both behave like a complex system.
But you miss the basic structure of a complex system.

It requires the interaction between at least two
opposing states.

One static the other chaotic.
One representing internal order and the other disorder.

The static is behavior that tends to maintain or create...order
over time such as gravity, particles or the rule of law.

The chaotic is behavior that tends to create...disorder over time
such as cosmic expansion, gasses or freedom.

Complexity is when the two opposing forces for order and disorder
are at the transition point between each other. As in a cloud
or democracy, and can generate...defining...emergent properties
such as vortexes and market forces.

Or in the origanal jargon of perhaps the founder of
complexity science Stuart Kauffman...

At the transition point between steady and trembling hands emerges
Adam Smith-like invisible hands.
I didn't say a word against complexity theory, only pointed out that
your example is a bad one. And that you know too little of clouds
to understand that.
It's not necessary to understand clouds. You fail to see
the difference between a reductionist and emergent frame.

If I look at any system and observe collective or emergent
behavior I immediately know that the parts are critically
interacting with each other.

I know the system-specific static and chaotic attractors are present
and at the threshold between each other.

I know the parts can't be detailed without destroying
the system's defining emergent properties.

And I don't need to know a single thing about the parts
of that system to come to that conclusion or to
diagnose any naturally evolving system.

Don't you see why? When parts are critically interacting
they are behaving...chaotically and changing chaotically
fast.

And yet you insist on detailing the parts for an extrapolation
out to the whole as a method of understanding nature???

If the parts of any complex/natural system can't be detailed
what good is trying to detail them? It's called scientific folly
to try to turn chaotic noise into conclusions or
predictions about the system output.

'Nature is too messy, so let's simplify and simplify away
to make the math possible. Right down to the 'God particle'.

But then what we're looking for can't be seen.
The correct response to my post was not to double down, but to learn.
I'm not a big fan of the wikipedia article on cloud physics, but it's far
better than nothing. There's a short but illuminating chapter on
cloud physics in "Atmospheric science: an introduction" by Wallace
and Hobbs, probably available by interlibrary loan.
By all means carry on with your ceaseless expositions if it makes you feel
better. But draw your examples from economics or sociology.
That's fine, I'm happy to go from abstract to concrete examples.
Every discipline under the sun dealing with naturally evolving
systems are being redefined on a theoretical level using the
concepts of complexity and emergence.

Please feel free to test this assertion by asking about
ANY DISCIPLINE WHATSOEVER. Provided it deals with the
natural world. And you'll see it's universal application
and world changing discoveries.

And even more telling, you'll see how the abstracts from
entirely different disciplines all sound pretty much
the...same now. Complexity, self-organization, emergence
and complex adaptive systems.


Economic agents and markets as emergent phenomena
Leigh Tesfatsion*
Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1070

An overview of recent work in agent-based computational economics
is provided, with a stress on the research areas highlighted
in the National Academy of Sciences Sackler Colloquium
session ‘‘Economic Agents and Markets as Emergent Phenomena’’
held in October 2001.

Decentralized market economies are complex adaptive systems
consisting of large numbers of buyers and sellers involved
in massively parallel local interactions. These local interactions
give rise to macroeconomic regularities such as shared market
protocols and behavioral norms which, in turn, feed back
into the determination of local interactions.

The result is a complicated dynamic system of recurrent causal
chains connecting individual behaviors, interaction
networks, and social welfare outcomes.

This intricate two-way feedback between microstructure
and macrostructure has been recognized within economics
for a very long time (1–3). Nevertheless, for much of
this time, economists have lacked the means to model
this feedback quantitatively in its full dynamic complexity.

The most salient characteristic of traditional quantitative
economic models supported by microfoundations has been
their top down construction.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/99/suppl_3/7191.full.pdf



Complex Systems Theory: Some Considerations for SociologyRosalia Condorelli

Department of Political and Social Sciences, Catania University, Via
Vittorio Emanuele II 8, Catania, Italy.
DOI: 10.4236/ojapps.2016.67044 PDF HTML XML 2,415 Downloads
5,465 Views Citations
Abstract

This essay presents a reflection on the main implications of
Complexity Theory for science in general, redefining and
dispelling myths of traditional science, and Sociology
in particular, suggesting a redefinition of Parsons’ classic concept
of Social System, articulated around the property of self-maintenance
of order rather than on its possible discontinuity and instability.

It argues that Complexity Theory has established the limits of
Classic Science, leading to a more realistic awareness of working
and evolution mechanisms of Natural and Social Systems and showing
the limits of our capacity to predict and control events.

Dissipative structures have shown the creative role of time.
Instability, emergence, surprise, unpredictability are the rule
rather than the exception when systems move away from
equilibrium (entropy), even if these processes are generated
from a system’s deterministic working mechanisms. Therefore,
we have come to realize how constructive the contribution of
Complexity is, in regards to the long lasting problem of
the relationship between order and disorder.

Today, the terms of this relationship have been re-specified
in its new configuration of inter-relationship link, according
to a unicum which finds its synthesis in self-organization
and deterministic chaos concepts. From this perspective, as
Prigogine suggested, studies on Complex Systems are heading
toward a historical, biological conception of Physics, and a
new alliance between natural systems and living, social systems.

Non-linearity, far from equilibrium self-organization, emergence
and surprise meet at all levels, as this paper attempts to highlight.
In Sociology, insights of Complexity Theory have contributed to a
new way of thinking about social systems, by re-addressing s
ome fundamental issues starting to social system, emergence and
change concepts.

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=69101
Then, if
they're monumentally wrong, I won't know and won't comment.
If helps to point out anything you disagree with
so I can try to explain better.

I tend to go on and on as you can see as it's not
a short or simple topic.
William Hyde
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
William Hyde
2021-07-21 23:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
A cloud stands poised at the transition point
between it's system-specific opposing states
of matter and vapor.
No. Not true in any sense. Even with the correction below.
Post by Jonathan
Water and vapor, for crying out loud proof read.
Do you actually think cloud particles are made of liquid
water?
Water, vapour, ice, ions, aerosols.
Thanks for responding
Don't forget dust and the stray exhaust from a passing jet.
Aerosols.
Post by Jonathan
Typical view from a reductionist where one begins with
the parts to understand the whole.
No, just pointing out that you don't even know the parts.
You're right, but the parts are not irrelevant to this so I don't
care much about them.
Don't tempt me.

This is getting long. Let me attempt to summarize my point of view.

Complexity/chaos theory is real with real results which are important. This has
been known for decades. Nothing new here. Even I stumbled across it in larval
form in the 1970s when it was called "catastrophe theory".

However, complexity theory is not a substitute for what you call (incorrectly in
may cases) "reductionism". We need both. Ammonia clouds and water clouds
share many similar properties. But are also very different. If you want to make
specific as opposed to general predictions (will it rain, how much, when) you
need to know about the parts. No farmer on earth has ever prayed for a nice
ammonia shower.

It reminds me a bit of chess. You can't be a great player without being a
great positional player. But you can be very good. However you can't even be
an average player without tactical skill and the great players have always, since
the invention of positional chess, combined positional and tactical strength.
(I know this to my cost, as I am a better positional than tactical player). The
analogy is admittedly not exact, but I think it serves (presumably computers
will eventually solve chess using tactical means alone, but the universe is
more complex than chess).

"Reductionist" science has achieved a great improvement in weather forecasting
over the past 40 years. But this is only possible using our knowledge of the
parts of the system. If you are aware of a "complexity science" based forecast
which does not use the properties of water, Coriolis force, or Newton's laws,
let's see it.

There is IIRC a chaotic attractor in the earth-mars orbital interaction. Again, IIRC it
was discovered about thirty years ago by Jacques Laskar (along with much else).
But dirty reductionist that he is, he used the masses of the planets, their current
orbits, Newton' laws and other such stuff to find it. Can anyone find that attractor
with none of the above?

We have made a great deal of progress with chaos/complexity theory and we will
make much more (well, other people will). But we must also know what we are talking about.

William Hyde
pete...@gmail.com
2021-07-15 18:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
A cloud stands poised at the transition point
between it's system-specific opposing states
of matter and vapor.
No. Not true in any sense. Even with the correction below.
Post by Jonathan
Water and vapor, for crying out loud proof read.
Do you actually think cloud particles are made of liquid
water?
Clouds are made of droplets of liquid water, or ice crystals.

I won't address the rest of the ideas in this thread.

pt
Scott Lurndal
2021-07-15 19:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Jonathan
Post by Jonathan
A cloud stands poised at the transition point
between it's system-specific opposing states
of matter and vapor.
No. Not true in any sense. Even with the correction below.
Post by Jonathan
Water and vapor, for crying out loud proof read.
Do you actually think cloud particles are made of liquid
water?
Clouds are made of droplets of liquid water, or ice crystals.
I won't address the rest of the ideas in this thread.
I think Dr. Hyde has it covered.
Loading...