ONT Re: Differential Logic A -- Discussion
DLOG A. Discussion Note 19
HT = Hugh Trenchard
Re: DLOG A Discussion 14. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05425.html
In: Differential Logic A. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/thrd1.html#05359
HT: I do also realize that unless I can deliver the formal goods
myself on any possible overlap, there isn't much point in my
going on about it.
HT: My only purpose in raising the questions is to see if perhaps you yourself
might see some underlying common mathematical principle which remains to be
identified. I see that you do not believe there is one, nor are you about
to make finding one an objective of yours, and I certainly don't blame you.
I do not see how you see that.
HT: In terms of your last question about where does one go once he has
identified an emergent phenomenon, one might conceivably do what,
for example, Delgado and Sole have done, which is to address the
question of whether there is "a tradeoff between the individual
complexity and collective behavior in such a way that complex
emergent properties cannot appear if individuals are too
much complex", after which they proceeded by rigourous
statistical analysis to answer the question.
HT: Or, do as Per Bak did: identify the properties of emergent phenomena
(e.g. self-organized criticality), identify the patterns of order
which characterize emergent phenomena like power laws (such as
Zipf's law or Pareto's law), or fractals (as I mentioned in
a previous email).
HT: Or do as Langland, Bak, Wolfram, and others have done in simulating the
phenomena by computer analysis to show how complex phenomena does indeed
derive from very simple rules. To boot, Wolfram believes practically all
of science can be examined in terms of cellular automata (see "A New Kind
of Science"). (Maybe I should be asking Steven Wolfram this question (?)).
HT: These are simply a few examples.
Yes, those are very good examples of what one customarily does next.
But I hope you understand that nobody goes about developing rigorous
mathematical or vigorous statistical models of any phenomenal domain
if they feel compelled to sacrifice their rigor and their vigor to
the spectre of emergence every time they try to use a plus sign.
HT: In terms of power laws, as we all know, they are ubiquitous in
complex dynamic systems (this is what I am doing in my analysis
of bicycle racing -- I am trying to confirm the existence of
a power law relationship between the number and intensity of
"attacks"), and given their relative omni-presence, I don't
think it entirely unreasonble to suggest they might appear
in surprising ways in other formalisms (if such formalisms
describe in some way physical phenomena), as unlikely as
it might seem. Although again, unless I can make some
sort of intelligent connection myself, there isn't
much point in pursuing it.
All of the things that you mention here are somewhere
on my list of "How I Got Into This" (HIGIT), but the
first thing that I discovered when I first got into
this, so many blue moons ago, is that a whole lot
of the spadework for building those castles in
the air just hadn't been done yet, so the next
thing for me to do was just to get down tuit.
And "There You Were" as Wayne & Schuster say.
HT: Having said all that, from this point forward I'll stay inside
the Peircean box, unless we jump to a completely separate box
should we wish, but never the twain shall meet.
Ok, if you view it as a box you should be very careful about getting intuit.
I sure know I would. But from our station outside the box, we may reach in
and find a few tools or toys that have the goods that tools and toys may do.
And if it's a vehicle that can take you somewhere you want to go and cannot
get there as quickly on your own power, then sometimes you have to overcome
your fear of flying and make what use of it you can.
HT: p.s. famous last words?
Zoom, Zoom, Zoom