[FRIAM] new math of complexity

[Roger Critchlow]

In a similar vein:

https://xkcd.com/2945/

-- rec --

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:49 AM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

> Simulate from first principles:  https://www.vasp.at/
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Prof David West <
> profwest at fastmail.fm>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2024 6:11 AM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] new math of complexity
>
> Naive, but honest question:
>
> Can a computer program be "complex?"  Jochen seems to assert so, *"Every
> developer knows that each piece of code which is added makes the system
> more complex."* I would say no, it only makes it more complicated.
>
> My answer is partially based on the fact that code must execute on a
> deterministic machine and the code itself (at least its compiled self) is
> nothing more than a virtual machine, still a deterministic system. Even the
> source code is a context free grammar, so none of the things that make
> natural language complex (context sensitivity, metaphor, interpolation)
> prevail. Otherwise the code would not work?
>
> A secondary motivation for asking, I am working on an extended
> monograph/book on how to intentionally 'evolve' complex systems like a
> business and the software that supports it,or ULS (
> https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/library/ultra-large-scale-systems-the-software-challenge-of-the-future/ ),
> i.e., systems that *cannot* be "engineered."
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, at 5:30 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> So I would say yes, if there is a secret then it is the code. Definitely.
> Is 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.
>
>
> What might be possible is to calculate a probability how a group behavior
> changes depending how frequent a rule is read, remembered and expressed.
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Roger Critchlow <rec at elf.org>
> Date: 6/12/24 8:05 PM (GMT+01:00)
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <Friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: [FRIAM] new math of complexity
>
> Speaking of emergence, any takes on Phillip Ball's article in Quanta?
>
>
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-new-math-of-how-large-scale-order-emerges-20240610/
>
> I really liked his summary of the current non-explanations for emergence,
> but I haven't had time to read further.
>
> -- rec --
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20240613/ba1256b8/attachment.html>