I think the weather example rests on the likelihood that we could have complex weather without biology.
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:26 PM Steve <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > And I agree completely with the idea of zooming in (enough) to be at least > hunting subSnarks on a domain composed almost entirely of Snarks... ((Or > Snarkbait?) > > Beating the dead snark, I was mildly perturbed by the implication that the > complexity of weather systems was more than incidentally dependent on the > biological systems that might infiorm them (transpiration from forest or > savannah, light absorption by algae, methane from cattle and termites, etc) > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On May 25, 2017, at 1:39 PM, glen ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I agree completely. But if we look carefully at Russ' question: > > > >> On 05/24/2017 11:00 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: > >> Can we think of anything that is non-biological, non-human, and not a > biological or human artifact that would qualify as an agent based system? > > > > And we consider the previous comments about biology creeping into > (even!) weather patterns and climate, and whether complexity is invariant > through the reduction to physics ... and we can even extend that to > something like Smolin's fecund universe, etc ad forever, it becomes clear > that we're hunting the snark. And I suppose the wisdom of traditions like > Buddhism and such, as well as the falsification/selection approach of > critical rationalism, _strongly_ suggest to us what Harley Davidson tells > us on a regular basis: The journey is the destination. > > > > So, rather than talk about the elusive snark, why not talk explicitly > about the journey ... the workflow, the tools, the thing(s) right in front > of our face/hands? E.g. topological insulators don't look at all plectic > to me. So, I'd be very interested to hear why y'all think they are. (By > using "plectic", I'm admitting that I don't understand quantum physics; so > sure, they're mysterious... but how are they complex in the way we're using > the term, here?) > > > > But I'm more interested in well-defined concepts of agents than I im in > well-defined concepts of complex systems. So, what type of agents are we > talking about? Kauffman's "thermodynamic agents"? Zero intelligence > agents? BDI-capable agents? Etc. These concrete details would put us > squarely inside the journey and outside the destination. > > > > > >> On 05/25/2017 12:21 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > >> MY point (at least, not trying to speak for others) was/is that > "interesting", "life", and "complexity" might very well be highly > superposed or even "conjugated" (to introduce an extremely overloaded > technical term). > >> > >> I suppose to disambiguate, I believe that "Life" is a subset of > "Complex Systems" and life in the larger sense of ALife is a larger subset > of complex systems, though probably still a *proper* subset? The outer > bounds of he vagueness of "Life" convolved with the inner bounds of > vagueness of Complex Systems might allow them to become identical? The > question of "Interesting" seems to be sharpened (or is it dulled?) by the > subjectivity of the term... I suppose "interesting" is usually defined by > being simultaneously "familiar enough to be relevant" and "unfamiliar > enough to be novel". Since we are LIfe ourselves, it seems likely that we > find *life itself* at least relevant and as we expand the definition of > Life it becomes more novel and interesting, up to embracing all of > "complexity"... to the extent that the Alife movement expanded the > consideration from biological life to proto-life and quasi-life, I'm > tempted to claim that *they* would include *all* of complex systems... > >> admitting that the specific boundaries of all the above *are* vague. > >> > >> To re-iterate, I think there IS good evidence to consider "complex > systems" and "life" as highly related and it seems obvious that they would > be "interesting", though I suppose there should be things outside of that > domain which are also obviously "interesting". Agency is another hairball > to sort through and I won't attempt much except that in MY definition of > Life, "Agency" is one of the qualities of proto-life. To that extent, it > would seem that complex systems composed *of* entities with agency are as > likely as any "biological system" to exhibit complexity, etc. > >> > >> As for "Russ clarifying his question", I think this can be a rhetorical > device? It has always seemed to me that Science really degenerates to > "asking the right question" where when properly formulated, the "answer > becomes obvious"... in some sense, I think THIS is what passes for > elegance, the holy grail of scientific theory? > > > > > > -- > > ☣ glen > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
