[FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 167, Issue 58
Jon Zingale
jonzingale at gmail.com
Mon May 29 20:06:45 EDT 2017
Wrt Nick's response, I personally think anthropomorphism
is fine. Until there is a clear (perhaps formal) system we are
working inside, anthropomorphism is an efficient way to
'throw mud' on developing metaphor. That aside, I agree
with Nick that if we had something like consensus on what
phenomena was on the table to describe, we could do all of
this heavy machinery justice.
Jon
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 2:32 PM, <friam-request at redfish.com> wrote:
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam at redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> friam-request at redfish.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> friam-owner at redfish.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Any non-biological complex systems? (Stephen Guerin)
> 2. Re: Any non-biological complex systems? (Nick Thompson)
> 3. Re: Any non-biological complex systems? (Stephen Guerin)
> 4. Re: Any non-biological complex systems? (Nick Thompson)
> 5. Re: Any non-biological complex systems? (glen ?)
> 6. Re: Any non-biological complex systems? (Nick Thompson)
> 7. Re: Any non-biological complex systems? (Stephen Guerin)
> 8. Re: Any non-biological complex systems? (Marcus Daniels)
> 9. Re: IS: Ruminations from the M.I. S. WAS: Any non-biological
> complex systems? (Barry MacKichan)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 11:43:28 -0600
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
> I agree.
>
> It would still be left open as to whether you choose do model the weather,
> economics or defense systems as Dynamical Systems, Complex Systems (ABM) or
> Discrete Event Queuing models. The whole coupled system could be one way or
> the other or most probably a hybrid
>
> To take an example of traffic modeling that we've done we use all three:
>
> For large spatial areas with many roads, we'll model traffic as a
> Dynamical System of coupled differential equations of traffic density
> flowing from sources to sinks. As we zoom in, we explode the road densities
> to agent-based complex systems models that can have driver-driver
> interactions that allows for congestion and traffic jam dynamics. As we get
> to intersections, we transition from agent-based models and model the
> intersections as a discrete event queue where the traffic light is moving
> cars from incoming road graph edges to outgoing edges.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Stephen.Guerin at Simtable.com <stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
> CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com
> 1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505
> office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828
> twitter: @simtable
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Stephen writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> “Dynamical Systems and Complex Systems language are often used
>> interchangeably by different complexity researchers and the boundaries are
>> fuzzy in practice.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would say a modelling effort would be more of interest to the Complex
>> Systems community, if say, a weather model were coupled to a weather
>> modification effort and the weather modification effort was coupled to
>> economic or defense concerns. In your second example, it is not crucial
>> to have a sophisticated physics model of the weather. In the example
>> above, it would be.
>>
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <
> friam at redfish.com>, "'Eric Smith'" <desmith at santafe.edu>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 14:10:52 -0400
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>
> SG,
>
>
>
> There are now THREE issues lurking here between us.
>
>
>
> IS THE CRITERION FOR A SYSTEM ARBITRARY: You say yes; I say no. We’ve
> already covered that ground.
>
>
>
> IS A HURRICANE A SYSTEM: For me, that is the question of whether the
> collection of thunderstorms we call a hurricane interact with one another
> more than they interact with their collective surroundings. Another way to
> put this question is in terms of redundancy. If we were to go about
> describing the movements of the thunderstorms of a hurricane, would we get
> a simpler, less redundant description if we referred their movements to the
> center of the hurricane. I think the answer to this question is clearly
> YES.
>
>
>
> IS A HURRICANE COMPLEX? For me, complexity means “multi-layered” . So, a *complex
> *system is one composed of other systems. A hurricane is a system of
> thunderstorms which themselves are a system of thermals (handwaving,
> here). Thus a hurricane is at least a three-level system. So, yes. It is
> complex.
>
>
>
> SS, am I splitting hairs or playing at language? Absolutely not. Or if I
> am, shoot me now before I do more harm. What we are arguing about here is
> whether complexity science actually has a wet edge, or whether you are
> painting yourselves into a corner. I gather that you, and most of the
> folks on this list want to define complex in terms of its dynamics. In
> other words you want to define Complexity-sub-SG as the causes of
> complexity-sub-NST. My suspicion is that this kind of definition will lead
> you into a devastating circularity loop, similar to the circularity loop
> that follows when people define adaptation as whatever natural selection
> produces. Being in a circularity loop is like participating in a square
> dance; it’s lots of fun, and you work up a sweat, but you don’t actually
> get anywhere. It is circular reasoning, I suspect, that gives complexity
> talk some of the aura of a cult.
>
>
>
> Now, circularity in scientific reasoning is not quite the anti-heuristic
> poison I have always taken it to be. Much interesting research has been
> done within the circular adaptionist frame work of contemporary
> evolutionary psychology, for instance; I don’t know complexity science
> well enough to say, but the success of Simtable is evidence enough to me of
> its creativity. But, I would argue, that despite all this scientific
> activity, not much progress has been made concerning the fundamental
> question of the selective origins of natural design. In a similar way,
> hearing you guys argue, I wonder if much progress has been made on the
> question of what conditions make possible the spontaneous progressive
> layering of natural systems. Or if it has been done, it has been done by
> people who did not define complexity in terms of its processes, but rather
> in terms of its products.
>
>
>
> Eric Smith?
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen
> Guerin
> *Sent:* Monday, May 29, 2017 1:11 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>
>
>
> Nick asks:
>
> Is a hurricane a “complex system”?
>
>
>
> It depends. What is your metaphor (model) of a hurricane?
>
>
>
> If I wanted to understand how a hurricane forms, I might model dissipative
> structure formation in the presence of temperature and pressure gradients.
> I would call this a complex system.
>
>
>
> If I needed to add a hurricane track simulation to our Simtable, for the
> purposes of how my customers would use it for emergency planning, it would
> probably be enough to model its track as a random walker biased by global
> winds and a curve parameter to represent the Coriolis effect. I would not
> call this a complex system.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc: Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu>
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:29:59 -0600
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Stephen.Guerin at Simtable.com <stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
> CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com
> 1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505
> office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828
> twitter: @simtable
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson <
> nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> SG,
>>
>>
>>
>> There are now THREE issues lurking here between us.
>>
>>
>>
>> IS THE CRITERION FOR A SYSTEM ARBITRARY: You say yes; I say no. We’ve
>> already covered that ground.
>>
>
> In my post, I said it is *not* arbitrary. It's a function of what the
> researcher is trying to use it for or explain.
>
>
>>
>>
>> IS A HURRICANE A SYSTEM: For me, that is the question of whether the
>> collection of thunderstorms we call a hurricane interact with one another
>> more than they interact with their collective surroundings. Another way to
>> put this question is in terms of redundancy. If we were to go about
>> describing the movements of the thunderstorms of a hurricane, would we get
>> a simpler, less redundant description if we referred their movements to the
>> center of the hurricane. I think the answer to this question is clearly
>> YES.
>>
>
> Yes you could model the movement in a simpler way by modeling the movement
> of the center point. And that was my second model of a hurricane as a
> random walker biased by a global wind vector and Coriolis curve term. And I
> said that was not a complex system.
>
>
>>
>>
>> IS A HURRICANE COMPLEX? For me, complexity means “multi-layered” . So,
>> a *complex *system is one composed of other systems. A hurricane is a
>> system of thunderstorms which themselves are a system of thermals
>> (handwaving, here). Thus a hurricane is at least a three-level system.
>> So, yes. It is complex.
>>
>
> I agree about complex systems as having multiple layers - a macro scale
> and a micro scale. I would say there's one system. If I was trying to model
> a hurricane in my first example of an emergent vortex dissipating
> temperature and pressure gradients, I would model the air with a
> combination of air particles and patches of air - at LANL they would
> describe these as particle in a box models or hybrid lagrangian and
> eulerian models. I would not introduce thunderstorms at the micro level.
> But there's many ways to skin a hurricane :-)
>
> Some would say the micro level air particles and air cell components which
> I would model as finite state machines (agents with a lower case "a") are
> systems in their own right and have boundaries. I don't see the benefit of
> calling them systems as their aren't multiple interacting components within
> them. But don't feel like arguing too hard here.
>
>>
>>
>> Eric Smith?
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, where are you Eric Smith
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIFJLMyUwrg>?
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <
> friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 14:45:12 -0400
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>
> SS,
>
>
>
> I was going to let this go, but now see that I can’:
>
>
>
> . *I did hear Nick ask if a system could (somehow?) choose it's own
> boundaries and dismissed it as (yet another) distraction*
>
>
>
> I hate anthropomorphism in all its forms, so despite the plain meaning of
> these words, I did not mean this anthropomorphically.
>
>
>
> My “high bit” as Owen used to say, is distinguishing between the thing we
> are explaining and the thing we are explaining it WITH. If I have anything
> to contirubute to this conversation it is to make you all aware that you
> keep sliding back and forth between those two things. So when I asked SG if
> a system “get’s a voice” in whether it is a system or not, I was only
> asking if there was a “thing-with-properties” out there that we are curious
> about before we begin bring to bear all the heavy weaponry of complexity
> talk. My candidate for the “thing that excites our curiosity” is
> multilevel systems, whether or not they involve organisms. I promise I
> have NO INTENTION of asking a huriicane if it is a system, and I wouldn’t
> trust the answer if I got one.
>
>
>
> Also, I don’t one understands what philosophy can do for science if you
> call it sophistry. If you were happily painting the floor of a room and I
> pointed out that you had neglected to leave yourself a way out of the room,
> you wouldn’t call that sophistry, no matter how well the painting was going
> at the moment or how beautiful the painted floor looked. That’s the role
> of philosophy in science.
>
>
>
> 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 Steven A Smith
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 12:02 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>
>
>
> Glen -
>
> > I think the sophistry around the defn of "model" is important, but a
>
> > distraction from this conversation. (I've got a few publications that
>
> > target it almost directly if anyone cares.)
>
> Yes, it was an aside, but I think an important one to help Nick
> follow/focus with us.
>
> > As Russ and Nick point out, this conversation is about the boundary
> and its ontological status. Russ is leaping a bit further ahead and
> focusing on an _effect_ of the boundary while Nick (and I) are focusing on
> the prerequisite for symbol machines.
>
> I appreciate your stating it this way. I did hear Nick ask if a system
> could (somehow?) choose it's own boundaries and dismissed it as (yet
>
> another) distraction but would now like to hear more. It felt like an
>
> anthropomorphism to suggest a system could "choose" it's own boundaries,
> but I'm open to having that explored if anyone can/will.
>
>
>
> Similarly, your and Stephen's sparring about boundaries (compartments in
>
> a refrigerator?) and the distinction of systems/subsystems, etc. was
>
> not something I felt able to parse out completely, so I'm hoping your post
> here leads to more elaboration of that question.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > My claim is that Stephen's 3 examples are _not_ systems, much less
> complex systems at all because they are idealized out of their context. In
> order to be systems, they have to have some sort of objectively determined
> boundary (like a petri dish). Any bounded gob of goo can be thought of as
> a system. An agent, however, must be _closed_ under some operation.
> Hence, all agents are systems. But not all systems are agents. Whether
> the agent's boundary is loopy, self-defining, or not is the subject of
> Rosen's work (from which Kauffman's is derivative).
>
> >
>
> > Whether a symbol machine can be merely a system (with an objectively
> determined boundary) or must be an agent (with some form of closure) is an
> important question.
>
> I'm waiting with 'bated breath, and trying to guess if this is directly
> relevant to Russ's comment/question about "living in two worlds" of symbol
> AND energy processing (if I understood his point correctly).
>
>
>
> I wish I had more to contribute myself, perhaps I should study Rosen
> again, some more.
>
>
>
> - Steve
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On 05/28/2017 08:40 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
> >> [NST==>Ok, but the question before us is, Does the system itself “get
>
> >> to participate” in determining its own boundaries. <==nst]
>
> > On 05/28/2017 08:35 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:>
>
> >> Symbolic processing, including computers, is a step beyond switches.
>
> >> Half a century ago Newell and Simon defined computers as physical
> symbol machines.
>
> >> We and many biological organisms are physical symbol machines also.
>
> >> I think that's an important way to look at it.
>
> >>
>
> >> The thing about physical symbol machines is that the rules of
>
> >> causation they follow are more complex than those of physics.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
>
> 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
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "glen ☣" <gepropella at gmail.com>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 11:49:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>
> Ugh. Sorry. I often forget to use "other people's words" when I talk.
> Sophistry is not a bad thing in my own private lexicon. We are surrounded
> by sophismata (is that the right word?). The disambiguation of the
> meanings of "model" is one such sophisma. It is not resolvable, at least
> in the short term. But every conversation about such disambiguation is
> fruitful and worthwhile. It's just not the particular sophistry we need
> for this conversation.
>
> On 05/29/2017 11:45 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > Also, I don’t one understands what philosophy can do for science if you
> call it sophistry. If you were happily painting the floor of a room and I
> pointed out that you had neglected to leave yourself a way out of the room,
> you wouldn’t call that sophistry, no matter how well the painting was going
> at the moment or how beautiful the painted floor looked. That’s the role
> of philosophy in science.
>
> --
> ☣ glen
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <
> friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 14:53:33 -0400
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>
> Thanks, Steve.
>
>
>
> Larding below
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen
> Guerin
> *Sent:* Monday, May 29, 2017 2:30 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Cc:* Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Stephen.Guerin at Simtable.com <stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
>
> CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com
>
> 1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828
>
> twitter: @simtable
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Nick Thompson <
> nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> SG,
>
>
>
> There are now THREE issues lurking here between us.
>
>
>
> IS THE CRITERION FOR A SYSTEM ARBITRARY: You say yes; I say no. We’ve
> already covered that ground.
>
>
>
> In my post, I said it is *not* arbitrary. It's a function of what the
> researcher is trying to use it for or explain.
>
> *[NST==>Well, that sounds like arbitrary to me. But it’s a subtle point,
> and bordering on the edge of a word-bicker, so I won’t pursue it now.
> Someday, I would like to do a thing on “subjective vs objective” some day,
> but today time is limited. <==nst] *
>
>
>
> IS A HURRICANE A SYSTEM: For me, that is the question of whether the
> collection of thunderstorms we call a hurricane interact with one another
> more than they interact with their collective surroundings. Another way to
> put this question is in terms of redundancy. If we were to go about
> describing the movements of the thunderstorms of a hurricane, would we get
> a simpler, less redundant description if we referred their movements to the
> center of the hurricane. I think the answer to this question is clearly
> YES.
>
>
>
> Yes you could model the movement in a simpler way by modeling the movement
> of the center point. And that was my second model of a hurricane as a
> random walker biased by a global wind vector and Coriolis curve term. And I
> said that was not a complex system.
>
>
>
>
>
> IS A HURRICANE COMPLEX? For me, complexity means “multi-layered” . So, a *complex
> *system is one composed of other systems. A hurricane is a system of
> thunderstorms which themselves are a system of thermals (handwaving,
> here). Thus a hurricane is at least a three-level system. So, yes. It is
> complex.
>
>
>
> I agree about complex systems as having multiple layers - a macro scale
> and a micro scale. I would say there's one system. If I was trying to model
> a hurricane in my first example of an emergent vortex dissipating
> temperature and pressure gradients, I would model the air with a
> combination of air particles and patches of air - at LANL they would
> describe these as particle in a box models or hybrid lagrangian and
> eulerian models. I would not introduce thunderstorms at the micro level.
> But there's many ways to skin a hurricane :-)
>
>
>
> Some would say the micro level air particles and air cell components which
> I would model as finite state machines (agents with a lower case "a") are
> systems in their own right and have boundaries. I don't see the benefit of
> calling them systems as their aren't multiple interacting components within
> them. But don't feel like arguing too hard here.
>
>
>
> Eric Smith?
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, where are you Eric Smith
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIFJLMyUwrg>?
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:54:21 -0600
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
> All Hurricanes are Dynamical System or Hurricanes and Dynamical Systems
> are Dynamical Systems ;-p
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophismata
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Stephen.Guerin at Simtable.com <stephen.guerin at simtable.com>
> CEO, Simtable http://www.simtable.com
> 1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505
> office: (505)995-0206 <(505)%20995-0206> mobile: (505)577-5828
> <(505)%20577-5828>
> twitter: @simtable
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:49 PM, glen ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ugh. Sorry. I often forget to use "other people's words" when I talk.
>> Sophistry is not a bad thing in my own private lexicon. We are surrounded
>> by sophismata (is that the right word?). The disambiguation of the
>> meanings of "model" is one such sophisma. It is not resolvable, at least
>> in the short term. But every conversation about such disambiguation is
>> fruitful and worthwhile. It's just not the particular sophistry we need
>> for this conversation.
>>
>> On 05/29/2017 11:45 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> > Also, I don’t one understands what philosophy can do for science if you
>> call it sophistry. If you were happily painting the floor of a room and I
>> pointed out that you had neglected to leave yourself a way out of the room,
>> you wouldn’t call that sophistry, no matter how well the painting was going
>> at the moment or how beautiful the painted floor looked. That’s the role
>> of philosophy in science.
>>
>> --
>> ☣ 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
>>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 19:01:09 +0000
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?
>
> Nick writes:
>
>
>
> “In a similar way, hearing you guys argue, I wonder if much progress has
> been made on the question of what conditions make possible the spontaneous
> progressive layering of natural systems.”
>
>
>
> You might look at the deep learning literature. Starting from the Hubel
> and Wiesel, all the way to learning of optical flow
> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.06852>. There is surely more to it than
> just one directional layering, though.
>
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Barry MacKichan <barry.mackichan at mackichan.com>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 14:32:08 -0600
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Ruminations from the M.I. S. WAS: Any
> non-biological complex systems?
> Possibly off-topic, but I’m attaching a clip from my email program
> (MailMate on the Mac) that show the current message in the context of its
> thread. Each dot is clickable.
>
> --Barry
>
>
> On 28 May 2017, at 13:17, Nick Thompson wrote:
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170529/6e3cf465/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list