The more, that the cart is a system-level outcome of compatibility of interfaces among what are just more desserts, all the way down, though of several different kinds….
> On May 6, 2021, at 5:29 AM, <thompnicks...@gmail.com> > <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Oh, and …. this problem … > If that intuition is valid, then the only things Selection could ever rescue > from chaos become those that get canalized into these ur- developmental > “programs”, with defined roles for genes, and merely allelic variation within > each role. I would like to find a formal way to frame that assertion as a > question and then solve it. > … is the one that keeps me awake at night. > > Let me put it another way: When the waiter rolls up the dessert cart, you are > so dazzled by choice between the crème caramel, the tiramisu and the > chocolate mousse cake, that you never stop to wonder how the cart got > created. > > Nick > > > Nick Thompson > thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,0iKhIvGCCzqgnmccw-t_e5JcfkDw5ttDafp9sMWKcY2mOF6kPObh079ymbrvNaKzfHIOpXY2xngaM42cGn_DKygbJPB5s_r3lsJ-28sc0HDPxwe8dA,,&typo=1> > > From: thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > <thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> > Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 2:01 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam@redfish.com > <mailto:friam@redfish.com>> > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] (no subject) > > Jon, > > Mostly your comments were out of my league. > > However, one probably irrelevant fragment caught my eye. > > While Lamarckism wasn't right for Darwin… . > > Darwin always was a Lamarckian and became ever more so with every passing > edition of the Origin. My favorite question in Biology orals was, “Who was > the most famous Lamarckian?” > > I think you could say, with out contradiction > > While Lamarckism isn’t right for most contemporary Darwinians… . > > > … but evern that is becoming less true. > > I think you are talking about Weismann and Weismann’s Barrier > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weismann_barrier>? Lamarckism was definitely > not right for Weisman. > > Nick Thompson > thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,OGf5Hd-XUAmtZbmOWqNFbMKNL_pw_C1icR3NseffzQdYML75PIiPlJmHiNyqVgOvAcKnIasXY91lpDvTD7itw4rt1Jiz5FQLQ7IO42PH-DDut5Ef_Q,,&typo=1> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On > Behalf Of jon zingale > Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 10:45 AM > To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] (no subject) > > EricS, > > Thank you for the kind and thoughtful response. Your 'three levels' > project is interesting to me and reminds me (even if only tangentially) of an > analysis I worked on regarding food webs, n-species Lotka-Volterra, and ABMs. > I wanted to clarify for myself what each level of analysis offered or > bracketed relative to one another. There: > > 1. Food webs were analyzed as weighted graphs with the obvious Markov chain > interpretation[ρ]. Each edge effectively summarizing the complex > predator-prey interactions found at level 2, but without the plethora of ODEs > to solve. > > 2. N-species Lotka-Volterra, while being a jumble of equations, offered > dynamics. Here, one could get insight into how the static edge values of > level 1 were in fact fluctuating values in n-dimensional phase space. But > still, one is working with an aggregate model where species is summarized > wholly by population count. > > 3. ABMs, in theory, ought to be the whole story of individuals located in > space and time. There the agents (a lynx, say) 'decides' what to eat based, > perhaps, on what is most readily available. But as everyone on the list > knows, analysis at such a fine-grained scale is simply a mess. > > I never did get as far with the analysis as I would have liked, and I never > got the chance to share my findings, so yeah, thanks for the tangential > opportunity, here and now, to say just this much. > > 1'. "site-rewrite rules in Walter Fontana’s site-graph abstractions" > > Fleshing out some of your references, I found this Fontana paper[σ]. > As you suggest, the style is fairly straightforward category theory. > Site-graphs and their morphisms form a well-defined category and a number of > universal constructions (push-outs, pullbacks, cospans,...) are used to > analyze the algebra and to establish its logic. > > 2'. "There is still an algebra of operation of reactions, but it is simpler > than the algebra of rules, and mostly about counting." > > I am not entirely sure that I follow the distinction. Am I far off in seeing > an analogy here to the differences found between my one and two above? I > would love to have a facility with stochastic techniques like these, but I > most likely will need to remain a spectator for the rest of my days. > Occasionally, I meet LANL folk that can talk Feller and Fokker with ease, and > I am always jealous. It would be great to even have a better understanding of > where Lie groups (something I can at least think about) meet the stochastic > world. > > 3'. "So the state space is just a lattice. The “generator” from Level 2 is > the generator of stochastic processes over this state space, and it is where > probability distributions live." > > Please write more on this. By 'just a lattice' do you mean integer-valued on > account of the counts being so? Is the state space used to some extent, like > a modulii/classifying space, for characterizing the species of reactions? I > feel the fuzziest on how this level and the 2nd relate. > > I am thankful to have had drinks with Artemy on a number of occasions, though > I am embarrassed to have never asked him to blow my mind, as he could so > easily have done. > > I am working, slowly, through Valiant's discussion of evolvability problems > regarding monotone disjunction and parity. I will hopefully have more to say > soon. One thing that stands out for me is the idea that Lamarck could be so > right, but about the wrong thing, a concept in search of a problem. While > Lamarckism wasn't right for Darwin, it was fine for perceptrons. > > """ > If that intuition is valid, then the only things Selection could ever rescue > from chaos become those that get canalized into these ur- developmental > “programs”, with defined roles for genes, and merely allelic variation within > each role. I would like to find a formal way to frame that assertion as a > question and then solve it. > """ > > Yes, that would be very exciting. > > Cheers, > Jon > > ps. I wrote Nick and Frank about a dream a day or two before your post, where > I found myself sitting with a figure that kept morphing between Chris Kempes > and Marcus. The figure was attempting to explain a Turing complete ball game > to me. I appreciate the synchronicity. > > [ρ] Here, I mostly followed Levine's approach to computing trophic level. > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002251938090288X > <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002251938090288X> > > [σ] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.00592.pdf > <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.00592.pdf> > > > > -- > Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> un/subscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,T4heemxLOWo1jtt30FyywAlHeghNjmuhhlPFNoKHmaApTukcav4P03sKkomMZLQl73djuiCrQ5uGmMgECus5WBqmIrtqMoKryxF_dRGcmHhZGBunwJ2YtqE,&typo=1> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,_rKwH6dFNN55V9m8DlFUJoiWeZ1rFL3sfBRn008t7Lt4FExW-23R9mN052xdx2KIj18KgoajeLKa-_cnK7KIk4okEJhhYBprdtOnHxHPOrSv-0JGqcfwFQw,&typo=1> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... > -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,L2ZA23tKyKJaqJu6PZUxLOVWi-oESvUSP5QT-ROV4WnZe0LF8Q3zpp94Nuf4fpNwn5EsiOmaHS1Qug1fKBsxr-aTYC_LuE5smHsQl29R&typo=1 > > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,L2ZA23tKyKJaqJu6PZUxLOVWi-oESvUSP5QT-ROV4WnZe0LF8Q3zpp94Nuf4fpNwn5EsiOmaHS1Qug1fKBsxr-aTYC_LuE5smHsQl29R&typo=1> > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,5rDElfiiqKlVhG5G4Enb4-e6CBEG3eNJm5lO2PwvMIOnrHF2jnHoeUebSVeftADAA-_OrhOwynta1QFeBl6EKGxFOCxs5hv8rGritnLj4cbaeAfZu_FW0Tg,&typo=1 > > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,5rDElfiiqKlVhG5G4Enb4-e6CBEG3eNJm5lO2PwvMIOnrHF2jnHoeUebSVeftADAA-_OrhOwynta1QFeBl6EKGxFOCxs5hv8rGritnLj4cbaeAfZu_FW0Tg,&typo=1> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
