Robert, > > Phil, > The questions you are asking are too broad for cogent > answers. But I'm always game for a go at this sort of thing: In some ways, yes, but it could also be like saying you can't really hold a flopping fish in your hands, failing to consider the possibility of having a net. >> Does something direct the rapid evolution of growth systems? > Sometimes yes, sometime no. I guess it depends what you do > and don't mean by a "growth system" (care to provide a definition?) There are several kinds of physical behaviors you might expect to find associated with data curves that appear to have successive changes in slope implying that all derivatives are real and of the same sign. I'm usually referring to the rapidly evolving distributed physical systems within that group. Some people commonly see growth as including both the accelerating and decelerating periods of organizational development. The two trickiest parts, I think, are associating data curves with derivatives (when to read dots as curves), and what to call a system in which all parts are disconnected and if it's "a thing".
>> Do growth process animate themselves and discover their futures? > Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I guess it depends on what you > mean by "animate" (can growth only be a property of something > with the awareness to animate itself and discover things? > Sounds unlikely... that rules out a lot of non-sentient > "growth processes") Well, taken that way, since all language is written from the human point of view, perhaps we could question lots of our assertions about physical things. The 'ani' syllable is one that I expand a little for the purpose. I take it as 'action making' in a broad sense, separate from any form of cognition. The question I'm getting at is about the 'gradients' that are usually credited with causing the action in nature. The alternative is finding that the gradients are passive resources being employed by the internal workings of the growth processes that use them. I don't think that interpretation requires implying 'awareness' or 'intention', or any of that stuff, to describe rapidly evolving loops of organization. >> Do events begin and end or are all events on an ideal >> universal continuum in which nothing original ever occurs? > No surprise here: sometimes yes, sometimes no. I guess it > depends what you mean by "begin", "end" and "continuum" > [though I think you mean cycle: that implies repetition and > continuum does not]. Parmenides has some interesting thoughts > on the notion of "begin" and "end". Hinduism has some > thoughts on cosmic cycles (and it's about 427,000 years till > the end of the current Kali Yuga). It's very hard to tell when or if anything begins or ends, because if so it's at times and in ways that are too small to observe. Another way to say that is that beginning and ending always seem to violate their scales. That theorem I mentioned says that energy conservation requires that if things are to begin or end they must do so at invisible scales and have periods of development during which all implied derivatives are of the same sign. The testable part of that seems to match observation. The continuous processes that have no discernable beginning or end, say planetary orbits and gravity, or just a good sin wave on a screen, won't have any periods when all derivatives are of the same sign. > Want to ask rather more precise questions? Or shall we just > continue these metaphysical ramblings? Well, did I? :,) Phil > Robert > > On 10/14/06, Phil Henshaw < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe it can be approached with two questions. Does > something direct > the rapid evolution of growth systems and know about what > they're going to run into before they get there, > predetermining how they should respond, or do growth > processes animate themselves and discover their own futures, > inventing their responses to what they run into as that > occurs? If you think about this you'll see it is the same as the > question of whether events begin and end, or whether all > events are on an ideal universal continuum in which nothing > original ever occurs. > > I certainly use which ever assumption is useful at the > moment, given the situation, of course. There's a theorem > I'll be including in my talk as NECSI in a couple weeks that > proves that growth is the required behavior > for things that begin and end. In so far as growth is commonly > observed, it seems demonstrated that growth is self-animating > and change occurs as a discovery process rather than as a > consequence of it's > predictability. You follow? > > Then the second question is, if growth systems are autonomous > little storms of some kind, inventing their internal > evolution and external responses, what is feedback? > > > Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Phil Henshaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 4:34 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Growth (was Re: so what would be wrong > > with saying what you think?) > > > > > > More later, but yes, and the ones of particular interest being the > > properties of organizational developmental processes. > Some of those > > can be refined to describe universal process structures. Of those > > the most interesting to me is that the organizational development of > > growth is self destabilizing... We might have to work a little to > > specify what those terms refer to in the physical world. The big > > hurdle seems to be just to make the attempt and then start to sort > > things out rather than dismiss it as impractical without trying. > > > > > > > > > it's also possible that my statement of what > > > > seems to be the most fascinating and relevant > > > > problem of our times is incomplete, and I very > > > > openly welcome contributions to how it should be posed > > > > > > It seems to be a bit incomplete indeed. > > > If I understand you right, you want us > > > to formulate the question which you want to > > > ask us then ? That's a bit odd, isn't it ? > > > Why do you think growth is the most > > > fascinating and relevant problem of our > > > times ? Here are four reasons why growth > > > is interesting. > > > > > > 1. What I find interesting about growth is > > > that it is often associated with shrinkage, > > > for instance you become a personality > > > by giving up the freedom to try different > > > things, by learning more and more about > > > an increasingly narrow field until you > > > have become an expert who knows everything > > > about nothing. > > > > > > 2. Growth is also interesting because it is > > > of fundamental importance in many complex > > > adaptive systems and organizations: religious, > > > political, military and other groups try to do > > > everything to ensure growth. Growth means more > > > jobs, more money, more gain. The more agents an > > > organization has, the more power, influence, > > > and reputation are available for the leader. > > > This contant drive for growth causes a lot of > > > problems, but it is more a fact than a problem. > > > As Shimon Peres said "If a problem has no > > > solution, it may not be a problem, but a fact > > > - not to be solved, but to be coped with over > > > time." > > > > > > 3. Growth is important to nourish illusions of > > > the poor to become rich: the classic american > > > dream resembles the dreams of China and India > > > today. Most people are poor and have a bad life, > > > and everybody beliefs he can make it if he only > > > works hard enough, and this belief is fueled by > > > constant growth. Yet real success is often an > > > exception, while most people are exploited badly, > > > only a few people really make it, often lucky > > > people who have been at the right place at the > > > right time with the right idea. > > > > > > 4. Finally growth is interesting because it is > > > a process related to self-organization and > > > the increase of complexity, especially if it > > > is combined with positive feedback (for example > > > Paul Krugman's model of city formation or > > > Schelling's segregation model, or the > > > "preferential attachment" model for complex > > > scale-free networks). > > > > > > -J. > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, > > > archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ~ > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
