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, vapour, ice, ions, aerosols.
Thanks for responding
Don't forget dust and the stray exhaust from a passing jet.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.