<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body dir="auto"><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Emergence as a kind of “software in the natural world"? If we mean code by it, then yes, certainly. Every developer knows that each piece of code which is added makes the system more complex. Therefore we usually try to keep it simple. For biological systems it is the DNA code. For cultural systems it is the hidden code people do not want to talk about because everything related to it is sacred (at least for the group which it defines). The knights templar had their own code, the order of the cistercians, the Franciscans and the other religious orders and organizations as well. </span></p><br dir="auto"><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Cults and sects have their code ( which can be simple political slogans such as "Make Your Country Great Again", "Build the wall" and "Lock them up" or simply "Do not criticize the supreme leader"). Criminal organizations have their code. Ideologies and political parties have their code. Behind every complex organism or organization there seems to be some form of code or DNA that generates and maintains it. </span></p><br dir="auto"><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Whenever something is happening in nature it is either supper or pairing time. Obviously because the underlying "selfish" code has created bodies which have the directive to maintain and replicate themselves. If we look at cultural systems, for instance at political conventions or at religious congregations, then we notice that every time something is really happening at a larger scale is that the code becomes active. People come together to read or express laws, rules, guidelines and policies.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br></span></p><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">So I would say yes, if there is a secret then it is the code. Definitely. I</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); white-space-collapse: preserve;">s there a new math for it? IMO it is quite hard to formulate the expression of such a code in general mathematically. For example how can you describe mathematically if the speech of a president or party leader or priest has bigger consequences or not? It is at least as complicated as calculating a path integral in Quantum Field Theory. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br></span></p><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); white-space-collapse: preserve;">What might be possible is to calculate a probability how a group behavior changes depending how frequent a rule is read, remembered and expressed.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br></span></p><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">-J.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0.0pt;margin-bottom:0.0pt;" dir="ltr"><br></p><div><br></div><div align="left" dir="auto" style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Roger Critchlow <rec@elf.org> </div><div>Date: 6/12/24 8:05 PM (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <Friam@redfish.com> </div><div>Subject: [FRIAM] new math of complexity </div><div><br></div></div><div dir="ltr">Speaking of emergence, any takes on Phillip Ball's article in Quanta?<div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-new-math-of-how-large-scale-order-emerges-20240610/">https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-new-math-of-how-large-scale-order-emerges-20240610/</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>I really liked his summary of the current non-explanations for emergence, but I haven't had time to read further.</div><div><br></div><div>-- rec --</div></div>
</body></html>