Yes, you're right. Scale is merely one parameter by which the domain can be
shifted. The only problem is that "domain" is a pretty abstract concept. So
choosing a concrete example (like scale) helps move the discussion along
without getting too caught up in the generalization. This bears directly on the
hedging Nick shows with "internal states" and I suspect lingers with the word
"hidden". Why some thing/process/state/behavior is hidden shouldn't get in the
way of recognizing that it's hidden. It can be hidden by the perspective (I
can't see that far) or by definition ("There are many like it, but this one is
mine.") or standard control theory unreachability or the complexity of the
gen-phen map or whatever. And too much talk of the abstraction (domain) allows
the conversation to blossom in too many ambiguous directions. But once the
particular examples are well-handled, the abstraction is necessary in order to
make the full point (a kind of holographic principle).
On 5/12/20 9:58 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> but where Glen refers
> to /scale/ I would speak of /domain of definition/. That a shift in
> domain happens to be size, rather than some other contextual
> specification, may not be what we want. If this isn't the case
> Glen, please let me know.
--
☣ uǝlƃ
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... ....
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
