[FRIAM] Re-named topic to: Mono- and bi-directionality in systems
Tom Johnson
tom at jtjohnson.com
Thu Jun 7 00:15:41 EDT 2007
I certainly agree, Lou.
-tom
On 6/6/07, Louis Macovsky <dynbiosys at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> From a "lurker"...
>
> >>So, I again submit that there usually (always?) is bi-directionality in
> living systems, but perhaps others will have examples where
> mono-directionality (As Robert said: " The cause-and-effect arrow of
> implication is one-way.") is the only case.<<
>
> Isn't "mono vs. bi" directionality dependent upon model "grain" or or the
> bias of scale. I would think all one-way causal relationships can become
> bidirectional as perspective zooms in or out.
>
> Bidirectionality can be represented by a causal *loop* diagram where the
> cause-and-effect arrow is always one-way.
>
> Lou
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Robert Howard <rob at symmetricobjects.com>
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'<friam at redfish.com>; 'Tom
> Johnson' <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, June 04, 2007 6:23 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Re-named topic to: Mono- and bi-directionality in
> systems
>
>
>
> *…then things change simply because they are dynamic*
>
>
>
> Yes. Change and Dynamic are synonyms.
>
>
>
> *What if the "30-cent collective" were capable of deciding...*
>
>
>
> I don't know what it means for a collective to decide. I know what it
> means for an individual to decide. I know how voting systems work. I know
> what it means for two (or more) people to agree on a contracted future based
> on unforeseen triggers. Is this what you are referring to?
>
>
>
> *"Hey, the nickel and the quarter are fine, but wouldn't the collective be
> better off if our rules required two dimes, a nickel and five pennies*
>
>
>
> Then the rules (the dynamics; the functions) still depend on the coins
> (the statics). As for "better", I only imagine you or I deciding—not the
> coins.
>
>
>
> *Then what/who determines the flight direction of the flock.*
>
>
>
> I think that question presupposes a determiner. It's like asking "why did
> the planet decide to orbit the sun?" It presupposes that planets decide.
> "Who caused the universe?" presupposes God. "I think, therefore I am"
> presupposes "I", which presupposes "exists", which is a tautology.
>
>
>
> *Do three birds constitute a flock? *
>
>
>
> Only if you and I agree on the constraints of the model—the rules of
> play—the definition of flock! We're the authority!
>
> Lot's of intellectual progress occurs when someone like you says "Let's
> assume that three birds constitutes a flock", and I say "ok, let's" – and
> then attempt to deduce new knowledge from those assumptions.
>
>
>
> When Langton wrote Boids, he put all the rules inside the birds—not inside
> the flock. The flocking dynamics were directly caused by the birds. The
> flock is nothing without the birds, but each bird is something without the
> flock.
>
>
>
> *I realize that not everyone in Arizona is a cowboy*
>
>
>
> Everyone in Arizona is a cowboy. It's state law! I really only see
> pictures of cows but still…
>
>
>
> *behavior of a cow-calf "unit" can influence the collective herd*
>
>
>
> The cow-calf unit is interesting. But the so called emergent behavior for
> herd flow is the execution of rules inside the brains of each cow. Each
> cow's rule set is mostly like the others (called the abstract part, or the
> collective) and partly unique (called the concrete part or the individual).
> However, the predicates that decide which element of one cow's rule set is
> also a member of another cow's rule set (i.e. the union) are define by the
> observer according to a model. We decide if two cows are acting similarly or
> differently. And we call the similar part *the herd* and each dissimilar
> part *a cow*. Just as we see constellation in the stars, we see the
> collective in the parts!
>
>
>
> Each cow sees itself as part of a group, and each view is a spanning tree<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanning_tree_%28mathematics%29>—which
> is unidirectional.
>
> So I submit again in different words, that to model a complex system
> properly with minimum pain and maximum comprehension, define the system to
> be the superposition of many unidirectional spanning trees rather than one
> big bi-directional graph, and then iterate across each spanning tree (or
> fork threads) for each agent in the model.
>
>
>
> And from what I see from the Redfish Group, this is exactly what their
> code does internally when they make these really impressive simulations.
>
>
>
> Robert Howard
> Phoenix, Arizona
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* jtjohnson555 at gmail.com [mailto:jtjohnson555 at gmail.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Tom Johnson
> *Sent:* Monday, June 04, 2007 3:23 PM
> *To:* rob at symmetricobjects.com
> *Subject:* Re-named topic to: Mono- and bi-directionality in systems
>
>
>
> [The conversation topic seems to have moved on to a much higher plane than
> Robert's and my original discussion ( describe ABM (and IBM)
> methodologies. ), hence I've taken the liberty of re-naming the topic.]
>
> It seems to me that the conversation started with discussing adaptive
> (dynamic) living systems, as contrasted with conceptual systems and their
> taxonomies. Your [Robert's] 30-cent collective, for example. And I grant
> you that case as being mono-directional.
>
> However, when we turn to dynamic systems -- the birds, for example -- then
> things change simply because they are dynamic. What if the "30-cent
> collective" were capable of deciding, "Hey, the nickel and the quarter are
> fine, but wouldn't the collective be better off if our rules required two
> dimes, a nickel and five pennies. Then we could have a greater range of
> 'purchasing' power because the collective would have more options for exact
> payment?"
>
> Or, in the case of the birds, "How many birds does the system require to
> constitute a flock?" Is two a flock? Probably not, as i"flock" is commonly
> understood. But let's say the threshold of flock sufficiency is reached.
> Then what/who determines the flight direction of the flock. Is there a
> leader, unconsciously recognized and acknowledged by all the members of the
> flock? Or is the flock's behavior -- and that of its individual members --
> *also *influenced by, say, rainfall or wind direction, and each member
> "deciding" to seek the closest refuge in a tree or under an eave? Ergo, the
> "environment" -- the context -- is driving the action. And when members of
> the flock recognize that one of their peers -- and not necessarily the
> "leader" -- has veered off and taken refuge, that individual will do like
> wise. Eventually the flock -- the system -- could take a dramatically
> different form, all because one of its original members decided to take a
> deviant action.
>
> Another example: I realize that not everyone in Arizona is a cowboy, but
> anyone who has herded cattle in the spring -- when mother cows have young
> calves at their side -- will recognize how behavior of a cow-calf "unit" can
> influence the collective herd. For example, cattle can be herded if the
> individual units (essentially the mother cows) recognize and follow a lead
> cow, the alpha cow. However, if for some reason, a cow and her calf become
> separated, that can generate a type of herd chaos, usually limited. The cow
> will stop trailing the leader and literally stop and mill about until she
> can reunite with her calf. That stopping action can at the least jam up the
> flow of the herd ( especially depending on the terrain; thick forest, narrow
> canyon, etc.), which in itself, can have a ripple effect as other cows get
> separated from their calves. Consequently, a good trail boss -- a cowboy,
> not a cow -- will periodically stop the moving herd to let the cows and
> calves "mother up," re-establishing the system that is the herd. (There are
> also cows that move much faster than others, which adds a whole new
> dimension to the herd/system, but that's another story.)
>
> So, I again submit that there usually (always?) is bi-directionality in
> living systems, but perhaps others will have examples where
> mono-directionality (As Robert said: " The cause-and-effect arrow of
> implication is one-way.") is the only case.
>
> -tom
>
> On 6/3/07, *Robert Howard* <rob at symmetricobjects.com> wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
>
>
> But is there really such thing as a collective—physically? If I have a
> nickel and a dime in my pocket, the collective total is 30 cents. But where
> is the object whose value is thirty cents? Both the nickel and the dime can
> exist independently of the 30 cent thingy; but not the other way around. Do
> not the birds define a flock, and not the other way around? We can talk
> about a plurality of things, but only if deductively consistent with the
> characteristics of every part. Is it the collective that generates and
> governs data flow? Or is it merely one object sending data to another
> repeated many times?
>
>
>
> I always get tripped up in this type of philosophy! J And when I get
> tripped up, I've learned to check my assumptions and retreat to the
> fundamental principles I hold dearly: that implication flows one way.
>
>
>
> Did you have an example that you were thinking about?
>
>
>
> Robert Howard
> Phoenix, Arizona
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto: friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Tom Johnson
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 03, 2007 8:18 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: ABM
>
>
>
> Robert:
>
>
>
> It seems to me that there is usually (always?) bi-directionality involved
> in a dynamic system, especially between the individual and the collective.
> The collective often (Usually? Always?) provides a context that generates
> and governs data flow, a time frame, rugged landscapes or not, etc. Such
> data flows can hinder or enhance the individual's decisions and actions and,
> possibly, those of the collective.
>
>
>
> -Tom
>
>
>
> On 6/3/07, *Robert Howard* <rob at symmetricobjects.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting paper!
>
> I do like seeing the phrase:
>
>
>
> Individual-based models (IBMs) allow researchers to study how system level
> properties emerge from the adaptive behaviour of individuals
>
>
>
> The collective presupposes the individual.
>
> Information and properties of the part flow to the whole—not the other way
> around.
>
> The cause-and-effect arrow of implication is one-way.
>
>
>
> Robert Howard
> Phoenix, Arizona
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts
> *Sent:* Friday, June 01, 2007 11:25 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Fwd: ABM
>
>
>
> FRIAMers,
>
> I received this today from several of my co-workers and thought I'd pass
> it on.
>
> I still can't help but feeling that in general, *way* too many words are
> being used to describe ABM (and IBM) methodologies. The underlying concept
> of object-oriented software design as the basis for ABM simulation
> architecture is just so straight forward and intuitive that I am repeatedly
> amazed at how people continue to make such a big, mysterious deal out of it.
>
>
> But, I suppose that's just me, and my opinion...
>
> --Doug
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org
> doug at parrot-farm.net
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>
> ****************************************************
>
> This is a very interesting resource re: Agent Based Modeling.
>
>
>
> http://www.openabm.org/site/
>
>
>
> Note also the current efforts re: ODD (Overview, Design Concepts and
> Details) –based descriptions (cf. attached manuscript).
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> ==========================================
> J. T. Johnson
> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> www.analyticjournalism.com
> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
> http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us
>
> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> existing model obsolete."
> -- Buckminster Fuller
> ==========================================
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> ==========================================
> J. T. Johnson
> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> www.analyticjournalism.com
> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
> http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us
>
> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> existing model obsolete."
> -- Buckminster Fuller
> ==========================================
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
--
==========================================
J. T. Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
www.analyticjournalism.com
505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the
existing model obsolete."
-- Buckminster Fuller
==========================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070606/7133f400/attachment.html
More information about the Friam
mailing list