[FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

I admit to being over my depth, at least in attention, if not in ability 
to parse out your dense text, and more to the point, the entire 
thread(s) which gives me more sympathy with Nick who would like a tool 
to help organize, neaten up, trim, etc. these very complex ( in the more 
common meaning of the term) discussions. My experience with you is that 
you always say what you mean and mean what you say, so I don't doubt 
that there is gold in that mine... just my ability to float the 
overburden and other minerals away with Philosopher's Mercury (PhHg) in 
a timely manner.

I DO think Nick is asking for help from the rest of us in said 
parsing...   to begin, I can parse HIS first definition of "layer" is as 
a "laying hen"... a chicken (or duck?) who is actively laying eggs.   A 
total red-herring to mix metaphors here on a forum facilitated by 
another kind of RedFish altogether... a "fish of a different color" as 
it were, to keep up with the metaphor (aphorism?) mixology.

I DON'T think Owen was referring to you when he said: "troll", I think 
he was being ironical by suggesting Russ himself was being a troll.  But 
I could be wrong.   Owen may not even remember to whom his bell 
"trolled" in that moment?  In any case, I don't find your 
contribution/interaction here to be particularly troll-like.  Yes, you 
can be deliberately provocative, but more in the sense of Socrates who 
got colored as a "gadfly" (before there were trolls in the lexicon?).   
Stay away from the Hemlock, OK?

I'm trying to sort this (simple?) question of the meaning (connotations) 
of layering you use, as I have my own reserved use of the term in 
"complex, layered metaphors" or alternately "layered, complex 
metaphors"... but that is *mostly* an aside.   I believe your onion 
analogy is Nick's "stratum" but I *think* with the added concept that 
each "direction" (theta/phi from onion-center) as a different 
"dimension".   Your subsequent text suggests a high-dimensional venn 
diagram.   My own work in visualization of  Partially Ordered Sets (in 
the Gene Ontology) may begin to address some of this, but I suspect not.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4935.pdf

I may continue to dig into this minefield of rich ore and interesting 
veins, but it has gotten beyond (even) me as a multiple attender who 
thrives on this kind of complexity (with limits apparently!).

I think I heard you suggest that YOU would volunteer to pull in the 
various drawstrings on this multidimensional bag forming of a half-dozen 
or more branching threads...  I'll see if I can find that and ask some 
more pointed questions that might help that happen?

I truly appreciate Nick's role (as another Socrates?) teasing at our 
language to try to get it more plain or perhaps more specific or perhaps 
more concise?  Is there some kind of conservation law in these dimensions?

- Steve



On 6/8/17 10:40 AM, glen ☣ wrote:
> You seem to be asking for people other than me to respond.  But I doubt anyone will try to explain a troll like me. >8^)
>
> I don't have any idea what you mean by "a kind of hen".  So, I'll let that go.  Stratum is a good word, but like level, it implies a direction, namely up-down ("something laid down").  I do mean something very much like level and stratum, except without implying a (constant) direction.  Onion is a better analog than, say, genus or battalion.  There's still a symmetry in the directions from the center of the onion.  But at least you can vary the direction without changing layers.  More complicated layering would be something like doping a silicon chip or spray painting a complicated surface ... or perhaps sand blasting something, where you turn it within the directional gradient.
>
> It's important to graduate from the naive concept of levels to the more sophisticated concept of layers because, e.g. in Russ' urban systems, there are all different types of flows and ebbs, gradients of different speeds, directions, types, etc. that "paint" things on the system in varied ways.  It's not a singular hierarchy in any sense.
>
> If you grok the poverty of the concept of the "landscape" in evolution, then you should grok the poverty of the concept of "level" in cumulative structures.
>
> That's the best I can do to explain it.  Sorry for my inadequacy.
>
> On 06/07/2017 06:32 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> Here is Glen's thoughtful post of January 20, reborn. To be honest, I don’t understand it.  Not a bit.  I am hoping that perhaps one or more of the rest of you can help me get it.  Let’s start with one baby step.  What is meant by LAYER in this text? The possible meanings open to me are, (1) a kind of hen; (2) a stratum in a substance; or (3) a level in a hierarchical descriptive scheme.  So, “genus” is a level as is “battalion”. Are any of these meanings relevant to Glen’s post?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170608/af333e60/attachment.html>