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

[Steven A Smith]

Vlad -

I find your use/choice/settling-upon "lamina/laminae" seems very 
motivated, though I can't articulate why.  I suppose because it has some 
connotation related to concepts like "laminar flow" which is 
structurally similar to the vulgar (your implication not mine) "layer" 
which connotes the "laying down of" a series of membranes or strata.  
I'm not sure I know how to think about ply which seems to be derived 
from the world of engineered "laminates", suggesting perhaps a small 
number (under 5?) and engineered rather than "grown" or "evolved"?

The idea of one lamina penetrating another is fascinating... it seems 
like strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for 
that, but I can't think of a biological example, nor can I guess what 
you were trying to achieve by developing methods for said penetration?

I appreciate your offering the insight that networks (can?) offer a 
redistribution of "stress" (which I take to include 
engineering/mechanical stress, but also hydrostatic pressure, even 
semantic stresses in a concept graph/network) ?

As a long time practicioner in the field of 3D Viz, I understand your 
affinity for it, but feel it has it's limits.   Not all concepts ground 
directly out in 3D Geometry, but require much more subtle and complex 
metaphorical basis which in turn might be *rendered* as a 3D object 
(more to the point, a complex system projected down into a 3D space 
using geometric primitives?)

I do agree with what I think is your supposition that our evolution as 
animal/mammal/primate/omnivore/predator has given us tools for 3D 
spatial reasoning, but I think we are also blessed (cursed) with 
topological reasoning (graphs/networks) of which linguistics/semiotics 
might simply be a (signifcant) subset of? I would claim that code is 
primarily topological, though in a somewhat degenerate fashion.   I used 
to wonder why the term "spaghetti code" was used in such derision, I 
suspect the most interesting code might very well be so arbitrarily 
complex as to deserve that term.   I understand that taking (otherwise) 
simple linear structures and rendering them unrecognizeable with 
jumps/goto's is pathological.

I think I will have to think a little (lot) more about your description 
of your stack of rectangular matrices, self-avoiding walks and 
Hamiltonian/Eulerian (processes?).  I will attempt to parse more of this 
and respond under separate cover.

Referencing your (imaginary) namesake, I am feeling mildly impaled on my 
own petard here!

- Steve

On 6/9/17 6:51 PM, Vladimyr wrote:
> Nicholas,
> I hear your plea and would come to your defense if we were closer.
>
> I have a small story that explains my attitude to layer from an    Advanced Composite Engineering view point.
> It took me probably 3 years to eradicate the word in my laboratory We were using various materials and filament
> winding with robotic machines. The basic concept is to use lamina as a term to describe an entity with specific material properties.
> When we talked about many lamina then we used the term laminae each was composed of any number of lamina
> having a unique material property set and referenced to local and global coordinates. This aggressive language facilitated
> structural analysis of complex structures. Each lamina had a designation to allow it to function within a laminate . no one really cared
> very much about what a single lamina of unidirectional Carbon fiber thought of the terminology. What mattered was the finished structure
> with interacting laminates and monolithic components to remain intact when used by people.
>
> Layer is a word used by simpletons or illiterates that never have to  analyze why something failed and killed good people.
> The Onion is a metaphor for some complicated word gamers or a hamburger condiment but one must specify which context before
> breaking into a brawl.
>
> We had other terms used at the same time as layer, such as plies from the lumber industry but they were easier to eradicate.
>
> Our specificity was a consequence of our Mathematics and our robots. Matrix Stacking was the key procedure we used.
> In our case no lamina ever penetrated another, until I violated the social norms and found a method to do so but that innovation
> never found a mathematical support structure nor does it have a biological analogue.
>
> The language seems to control the way your group thinks. English was my third language so I am not so biased about some words
> as some of you seem. Now the conversation is sliding ever closer to my interests, graph theory and networks, though I seem unique
> in seeing engineered structures as networks that can or cannot redistribute stress.
>
> Since language can become a tool of Control Freaks I tend to favour 3D images to explain critical matters. They usually shut down the bickering.
>
> But lately I have gone a bit rogue using stacks of images and video to try and explain what twirls in my head. Nicholas and Steve Smith
> seem to be punching in the right direction. I ran into a problem with some of my code that was wholly unexpected and it actually
> was the circularity condition. You had to view it from a certain location to see the Circularity , anywhere else you would see either columns or helices.
>
> I had not specifically written the code to do any of these, my brain was jumping to conclusions.  I had the code on one screen and the graphics running beside on the left.
>
> I had to spend hours staring and watching my own brain fight over which reality to accept. Evolution has left us many peculiar brain structures that were once useful but now
> a hindrance.
>
> Complexity may be real, but it may also be an unnatural effort for some brains. Words are nearly  useless in this arena. So well maybe are the 2D excel charts. Steve may just be accidentally
> flattering my interests having recently been reading up on Graph Theory. Indeed I wonder about Nodes and unusual valences. To illustrate my own bent mental models I used
> my mental models to write code and translate a Stack of Rectangular Matrices (6 in total) 28 rows and 162 columns  Each represents a Self Avoiding walk neither Eulerian or Hamiltonian,
> or a little of each since I work in 3D at least. I did the unthinkable... I connected Nodes to Nodes of different Matrices, then I purged nodes only connected to those of each sheet. What remained
> I plotted as surfaces in 3D. Then I converted these vertex positions into Object files .obj which now can be printed by 3D printers when scaled properly. So there gentleman I can now print my
> Mad Mental Models but that is just the beginning I have established a methodology to distinguish rigid Body Motion from Growth and present them simultaneously. But now it get`s very weird,
> To see the growth I had to do much fiddling with code. The growth must be synchronized to the  frame rate of the display. Or to my brain throughput capacity.
> I have seen great Hollywood animations and may have repeated what is already well known but generally out of reach for academics. I use Processing to display these moving 3D objects with some difficulty
> but it does work.
>
> So take a look you may have to download
>
> https://1drv.ms/v/s!AjdC7pqwzaUUkyNFoHD7DbjevjZM
>
> This Flower is the intersection of 5 Self Avoiding Walk Graphs in 3D space, each Matrix is tubular they are nested inside each other as like a Russian Doll.
> Not an Onion .I applied a growth factor to a single region of the fifth matrix while moving the entire structure via rotation. Examination of any single Matrix would
> never reveal the existence of the whole entity but a combination of any two would give the wrong conclusion but only some vague insight that something exists but not what it is.
> Oh each frame is a complete 3D structure so this may mean the video is 4D yet you are seeing it on a 2D display device pretty good for a geezer.
> Next each edge needs to be given some material properties amenable to change perhaps based on proximity.
>
> I suppose any man that goes this far must be quite Mad Indeed , but I hope it helps keep us engaged and civil.
> It looks like it may be possible to target each region with unique Growth Factors or engineering properties.
>
> I hope this qualifies as useful.
> vib
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
> Sent: June-09-17 3:02 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: Any non-biological complex systems?
>
> Sorry.  Slip of the "pen".   Layers it is.
>
> Nick
>
> 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: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:06 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?
>
>
> Ha!  I don't know if this is fun or not.  But you are making me giggle.  So that's good. 8^)
>
> On 06/09/2017 11:54 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> But wait a minute!  Holding a side the mathematical meaning of model for a minute, what is the difference between a model and a metaphor?
>
> I recently made an ass of myself arguing this very point with Vladimyr and Robert.  But to recap, "model" is too ambiguous to be reliable without lots of context.  Onions are definitely not metaphors.  When you bit into one, your body reacts.  To the best of my knowledge, no such reaction occurs when you bite into a metaphor.
>
>
>> In which case, don't we get to examine which features of an onion you have in mind?
>
> The feature I care about is the 3 dimensional near-symmetry and the fact that the concept of levels is less useful in such a situation.  We could also use Russian dolls instead of onions, if that would be clearer.
>
>
>> If your notion of an onion is just a project of your notion of levels of complexity, then how does it help to say that levels of complexity (or whatever) are onion-like?
>
> Sheesh.  I'm trying to stop you from using the word "level".  That's all I'm doing.  Maybe you're too smart for your own good.  I don't care about ANYTHING else at this point, simply that the word "level" sucks.  Stop using it.
>
>
>> Remember, I am the guy who thinks that a lot of the problems we have in evolutionary science arise from failing to take Darwin's metaphor (natural selection) seriously enough.
>
> Yes, I know.  That's why it baffles me that you can't see my point that layer is better than level.
>
>
> --
> ☣ 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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>