Tom,
But is there really such thing as a collective—physically? If I have a nickel and a dime in my pocket, the collective total is 30 cents. But where is the object whose value is thirty cents? Both the nickel and the dime can exist independently of the 30 cent thingy; but not the other way around. Do not the birds define a flock, and not the other way around? We can talk about a plurality of things, but only if deductively consistent with the characteristics of every part. Is it the collective that generates and governs data flow? Or is it merely one object sending data to another repeated many times? I always get tripped up in this type of philosophy! :-) And when I get tripped up, I’ve learned to check my assumptions and retreat to the fundamental principles I hold dearly: that implication flows one way. Did you have an example that you were thinking about? Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Johnson Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 8:18 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: ABM Robert: It seems to me that there is usually (always?) bi-directionality involved in a dynamic system, especially between the individual and the collective. The collective often (Usually? Always?) provides a context that generates and governs data flow, a time frame, rugged landscapes or not, etc. Such data flows can hinder or enhance the individual's decisions and actions and, possibly, those of the collective. -Tom On 6/3/07, Robert Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Interesting paper! I do like seeing the phrase: Individual-based models (IBMs) allow researchers to study how system level properties emerge from the adaptive behaviour of individuals The collective presupposes the individual. Information and properties of the part flow to the whole—not the other way around. The cause-and-effect arrow of implication is one-way. Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:25 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: ABM FRIAMers, I received this today from several of my co-workers and thought I'd pass it on. I still can't help but feeling that in general, *way* too many words are being used to describe ABM (and IBM) methodologies. The underlying concept of object-oriented software design as the basis for ABM simulation architecture is just so straight forward and intuitive that I am repeatedly amazed at how people continue to make such a big, mysterious deal out of it. But, I suppose that's just me, and my opinion... --Doug -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell **************************************************** This is a very interesting resource re: Agent Based Modeling. http://www.openabm.org/site/ Note also the current efforts re: ODD (Overview, Design Concepts and Details) –based descriptions (cf. attached manuscript). ============================================================ 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 <http://www.friam.org/> -- ========================================== J. T. Johnson Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA www.analyticjournalism.com 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) http://www.jtjohnson.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -- Buckminster Fuller ==========================================
============================================================ 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
