Yeah, there is a distinction between structures that obtain from anastomosis (that are
now in/near some steady state) and anastomosing/anastomizing, the process by which the
structures are formed. Maybe one could say that Jon's observation is about
post-anastomizing anastomotic code as opposed to anastomizing "code". But code
is data and data is code. Anastomizing code would have to be anastomizing some other
structure (e.g. copyleft stuff puncturing intellectual property norms). But what
anastomizes code is the code creator/extruder, including prcesses like humans,
[semi]automated things like LLMs, genetic programming algorithms, or especially hackers
attempting to exploit the weak points.
Unfortunately, the word "anastomotic" can refer to either structure that
obtains or the process by which it's obtained. Stupid English.
On 11/1/24 10:48, steve smith wrote:
On 11/1/24 11:16 AM, glen wrote:
I suppressed a reaction to "wuwei for code" in relation to anastomosis before
... because believe it or not, I try not to be too negative. 8^D But anastomosis is
antithetical to wu wei. Anastomotic structures are a result of violent forcing, a very
slow explosion. I'm ignorant. But as I understand it wu wei is more about going with the
(mostly laminar) flow, with some gentle nudging. They seem like complete opposites. But
what do i know?
I think this is a useful/interesting point... my suggestion that this all relates to stationary action and Onsager
relations is probably also contradicted by the "slow explosion" metaphor/analogy/model. I think the
"eruption of emergence" is a "slow explosion" (e.g. Cambrian Explosion)? But as you point out, I'm
not offering a demonstration or estimation of scale so this thought might "ought to be ignored".
Onsagers are defined on "near equilibrium" systems so OK... very wuwei, not
anastomosing. And Lagrangian formulated stationary action might be totally
irrelevant/tangential?
Your hermit crab and tree-of-liberty examples are (to me) good examples of
exaptation based adaptation?
Thanks for the pointer to (non) distance-edged hypergraphs... they deserve a
fresh mulling in this context.
Re hierarchies. I share your belief (to whatever degree I understand you) that strict hierarchies are an abstraction,
especially in the organization of the structure and dynamics of real world systems. I am still entranced (ensorcled?)
by the idea that the *evolution* of systems yields a constant (but not monotonic?) march into increased complexity with
something like "levels" of abstraction being established? As implied by your examples, the
"exaptation" that occurs not only drives this complexity "forward" but perhaps also breaks the
(strict) hierarchy sometimes? Likely this is just me "over-reifying"...
Thanks also for the Frantz Fanon reference which sends me on other tangents
which I will suppress (here) for the moment. Your breadth of awareness of
such things is always a treat.
- Steve
In the context of the polity, by anastomosing an idealist slab poured over the
grass, I'm trying to channel something like Frantz Fanon ... or maybe
Jefferson's tree of liberty, blood of patriots majiggy. The hermit crab doesn't
gently go with the flow of acidification, warming, and pollution. She
stigmergically, forcibly, occupies the cracks that exist in *all* ideologies,
re-claims or newly claims parts of the built environment for herself. Same with
my new mushroom crop out in the yard. They're not going with the flow. They're
trying to forcibly reclaim their territory from the stupid grass and fertilizer
the last owner paved them over with.
This is similar to Trump's gaming of the NYC code. And it's why I thought Gorard's
non-distance edged hypergraphs in relation to Sabine's distance-based edges were in
context. She started her essay saying that all graph-based representations of physics
must be discretizations and that all such discretizations fail. And ended it by admitting
that this discretization might work ... "life will find a way" ... and physics
proceeds one funeral at a time. Cheers to Sabine for changing her mind, even if her bar
is unreasonably high.
And, yes, strict hierarchies are a myth, which is why I object so strongly to
the concept of levels. The closest we can really get is to the decoupling
approximations, where we demonstrate (we have to demonstrate it) that when we
ignore some fine-grained process, that ignorance has a small impact on the
larger *scope*. If you don't demonstrate it or if you don't explicitly address
the size of the impact, we can/should ignore what you've said.
On 11/1/24 08:56, steve smith wrote:
I love it when Glen (or anyone) introduces new terms which offer nuanced
alternatives to the more simple/obvious/direct/blunt terms. i.e. Anastamosis vs
Resectioning/Bypassing/Self-Healing/Network-Refactoring/Adaptivity?
I think this is the ideation behind my questions about the emergent BRICS+ vs
NATO+ structure/dynamics:
If we look at political structures, they too struggle with
over-reification. Systems idealize permanence, but political reality reveals
itself in shifting alliances, the ebb and flow of influence, and the
redirection of resources in response to new pressures. As software structures
grow in complexity, they parallel political and social constructs, often
calcifying in ways that resist needed changes. In this context, anastomotic
computing could offer a sort of “wuwei for code,” emphasizing responsiveness
and transience over rigid structure, letting code act in harmony with shifting
needs rather than forcing it into premature stasis.
I can't help but believe that this over-reification is part of the ever-active wheel of evolution... the
"over" reification is relative to the parts/subsystems of the emerging "system" but this
stasis is what provides the stability for the higher level (more aggregate?) system to now explore a whole
qualitatively new suite of "adjacent possible affordances".
I don't know if Glen is parsing this as convoluted word-salad nonsense but if there were
one implication I hope he weighs in on or elaborates it is cryptic references to
"levels" in the past which *I* was only able to catch the gist of but suspect
is relevant to my hypo-thesis above?
Tx to SG for (re?)introducing wuwei, have we discussed here (or only over
tequila at TVM) the Wuwei vs Stationary Action? Are the ebb and flow of money
and power and commodities among the NATO+/BRICS+ superorganisms describable as
Onsager relations? Are our global geopolitical-economics a near-equilibrium
system (before the Nukes actually fly?).
On 11/1/24 3:32 AM, Santafe wrote:
I have to say, that qualifies as art.
The idealists will never stop idealizing and then reifying their ideal. To
Engineer is Human. But those of us who know (or merely confidently believe)
reality is made up of a diverse non-wellfounded set of ... what? ... urges? ...
nano-agents? ... IDK, whatever, will always anastomose that built environment
... or at least reclaim it like a hermit crab squatting in a tin can.
I like the visual and deeper concept, Glen. A kind of wuwei attitude.
sequeing impermanence of political structures to over-reified software:
Today at lunch, John Zingale lamented that the residence time of code in the
system seems to be decreasing. Perhaps Anastomotic Computing is the next big
thing.
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
