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

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Glen,

Missed this the first time.  

Late, here, so I will just say a little.  According to the scientific metaphor game I understand, we would now start to cash out the onion metaphor.  Does the relation between the layers in an onion REALLY capture what you are after.  I would guess not, because (I am holding an onion now) the layers in an onion have relatively little to do with one another.  You can slide one with respect to the other.  I am guessing that you are looking for a metaphor in which one layer interacts with another.  (Ugh.  I have to go wash my hands.)  Remember, you can make a metaphor to an abstract onion.  A model has to have its own reality beyond it’s use to represent your notion of layer.  

Nik 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?


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?  

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove