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

Sat Jun 10 14:04:46 EDT 2017

Dear Vib, 

So, perhaps the question we should all be asking ourselves is “How far do we engage in a conversation in which we don’t really understand one another?  And, when we find ourselves engaged in such a conversation what do we do?  One option, of course, is for each us to put his fingers in his ears and continue to shout at one another, each using his own language and his own favorite metaphor.  Another option, is to give up, with graceful acknowledgements of one another’s wisdom.  

Is there a third option? I think so.  (Surprise!)  I think it is to find a common “model” to work with.  Now to me, a “model” is a formal scientific metaphor.  To serve as a model, a metaphor has to be a specific phenomenon that is  thoroughly understood by all participants in the discussion.  “Natural Selection” was such a model in its time because everybody understood how to breed domestic animals. That funny reaction that Steve Guerin describes which spontaneously organizes into cells has often served as a “model” for his and my discussions of convection, although I am not as familiar with its details as I should be.  

So, is there a model of layers that we want to work with?  If so, then we might study together on that model until we are all thoroughly familiar with it.   If not, then giving up would seem to be better than the “fingers-in-the-ears-shouting” method. 

I take it that our interest in a layers model arises from our shared intuition that all complex phenomena are layered, in some important sense?  

Nick 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Vladimyr
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 1:26 AM
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?

Frank and the Congregation,

Shame on me for neglecting the obvious biological intermingling but stress redistribution

is so mechanical and direction sensitive it never dawned on me.

But  what I did is more like weaving using nodes as intersection points without breaking

the filaments. 

Giving up at such a time seems horribly sad even pathetic.

So now do we agree, in part,  that lamina can penetrate other lamina and generate very complex systems.

Is a lamina a real entity then with properties. I can already  make these flowers with cold rolled steel for edges.   

The complex system is interacting or intersecting laminae. Every view point presents a different structure.

It seems insufficient to treat lamina as inert since they could just as easily become transit or vascular systems.

So information can be accommodated… 

I had to pause to think about this but will let it stand. Pumping networks are very real.

But this code is now close to my own physical limit.

Time is short for all of us.

vib 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: June-09-17 11:21 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?

"strata in geology have *some* precedent (shears and folds) for that, but I can't think of a biological example"

Epidermis, dermis, hypodermis?  They interact.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Jun 9, 2017 10:12 PM, "Steven A Smith" <sasmyth at swcp.com <mailto:sasmyth at swcp.com> > wrote:

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 <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 <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 <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170610/8091ee4d/attachment.html>