There are some projects I would never even try at this point in my life because I can see there have been smart people that worked on them for long time and made a lot of progress. When I was younger, I might have been more eager and dove in, happily ignorant of what others have done. I might have even made my own progress. In this sense that ignorance can be useful, if it makes one inclined to try and develop momentum. Google was once a small start-up, and what did they do really? It is just some boring indexing algorithm!
I can see that having smaller distributed communities might have lower activation energies, if one puts aside the fact that the problems of community #00491 are almost identical to community #21432. The interesting questions to me have to do with what are the common and unique properties of these systems and why, not a mastery over one of them. I think the generating functions for each of these communities is more-or-less the same and it is more important to learn that than NOT to learn it. It seems silly to have to say that. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 12:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The solution to Trump-Biden polarization may be easier (and cheaper) than we think Yes! But I'd argue that an endogenous, dynamic (never mind buzzwords like "emergent") control system *is* related to the diversity in the repertoire of the components. I can imagine if all components have a huge, high diversity repertoire, then stable (endogenous and dynamic) control systems may *never* obtain. And if all components have only 1 behavior in their repertoire, then the same perfect order will always obtain. But rather than a flat, zero friction, edge of chaos sort of thing, there's some distribution of repertoire sizes and diversities that results in a large space of possible control systems ... and a weird landscape when trying to move from one control to another in that space. I.e. how do those of us with large appetites successfully organize with those of us with small appetites? And, importantly, how do we *know* what our own (and others') appetite(s) looks like? On 11/7/20 11:37 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > 3) A distributed, emergent control system is beside the point and it has > nothing to do with spatial distribution or sparsity. The limitation is in > the ability or opportunity of agents to ingest information and to develop a > unique value system and set of goals. If this appetite is missing, then > things like QAnon and Trump pop up to fill the hole, exploiting a capable > communication network to reach a large audience that is prone to being led by > a confident liar. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
