Showing posts with label emergence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emergence. Show all posts
Sunday, July 03, 2005
ugh
read the rest of the wiki post. i feel stupid. (it's like i'm starting building a toy from scratch, when i know the instructions are there, but i can't figure out what those fuzzy line-drawings mean. tab a in slot b, indeed.)
Does God Play Chess With the Universe?
wikipedia's definition of emergence:
"Emergence is the process of complex pattern formation from simpler rules. This can be a dynamic process (occurring over time), such as the evolution of the human brain over thousands of successive generations; or emergence can happen over disparate size scales, such as the interactions between a macroscopic number of neurons producing a human brain capable of thought (even though the constituent neurons are not themselves conscious). For a phenomenon to be termed emergent it should generally be unexpected and unpredictable from a lower level description. Usually the phenomenon does not exist at all or only in trace amounts at the very lowest level. Thus, a straightforward phenomenon such as the probability of finding a raisin in a slice of cake growing with the portion-size does not generally require a theory of emergence to explain. It may however be profitable to consider the emergence of the texture of the cake as a relatively complex result of the baking process and the mixture of ingredients.
There is no consensus amongst scientists as to how much emergence should be relied upon as an explanation. It does not appear possible to unambiguously decide whether a phenomenon should be classified as emergent, and even in the cases where classification is agreed upon it rarely helps to explain the phenomena in any deep way. In fact, calling a phenomenon emergent is sometimes used in lieu of any better explanation."
i'm trying to pin down a definition of emergence that points to why i'm fascinated with it. more to the point, i'm struggling to come to a metaphor. ants and brains and cities are great, but they're too high-level. they're almost the wrong end of the problem.
i'm interesting in the fundamental unit of emergence. Gene, meme, rational actor, cellular automaton, etc. What are the rules that lead to emergence?
A stab at it:
1. Units (emergeons, for the sake of ridiculousness) have a limited degree of data about the world immediately surrounding them.
•Rational actors know prices, basically. And possibility local availability. (note: a value function is not actually a part of this rule.)
2. Units change in response to that data, in ways that are readable to nearby units.
•If no nearby cells (in Conway's "Life") are on, the cell turns off.
3. Units can be arrayed in complex structures, certain of which are stable, and act in predictable, semipredictible, or unpredictable ways.
•A bunch of random buying and selling crystallizes along a supply/demand curve. A bunch of ants builds into an ant hill.
4. These structures are subject to second-order forces, that cause them to function as (emergeons) themselves.
5. Similar pressures push these structures towards hyper- or in-significance.
•(this needs more explanation)
all of this seems simple. i wonder if this helps with my problem.
"Emergence is the process of complex pattern formation from simpler rules. This can be a dynamic process (occurring over time), such as the evolution of the human brain over thousands of successive generations; or emergence can happen over disparate size scales, such as the interactions between a macroscopic number of neurons producing a human brain capable of thought (even though the constituent neurons are not themselves conscious). For a phenomenon to be termed emergent it should generally be unexpected and unpredictable from a lower level description. Usually the phenomenon does not exist at all or only in trace amounts at the very lowest level. Thus, a straightforward phenomenon such as the probability of finding a raisin in a slice of cake growing with the portion-size does not generally require a theory of emergence to explain. It may however be profitable to consider the emergence of the texture of the cake as a relatively complex result of the baking process and the mixture of ingredients.
There is no consensus amongst scientists as to how much emergence should be relied upon as an explanation. It does not appear possible to unambiguously decide whether a phenomenon should be classified as emergent, and even in the cases where classification is agreed upon it rarely helps to explain the phenomena in any deep way. In fact, calling a phenomenon emergent is sometimes used in lieu of any better explanation."
i'm trying to pin down a definition of emergence that points to why i'm fascinated with it. more to the point, i'm struggling to come to a metaphor. ants and brains and cities are great, but they're too high-level. they're almost the wrong end of the problem.
i'm interesting in the fundamental unit of emergence. Gene, meme, rational actor, cellular automaton, etc. What are the rules that lead to emergence?
A stab at it:
1. Units (emergeons, for the sake of ridiculousness) have a limited degree of data about the world immediately surrounding them.
•Rational actors know prices, basically. And possibility local availability. (note: a value function is not actually a part of this rule.)
2. Units change in response to that data, in ways that are readable to nearby units.
•If no nearby cells (in Conway's "Life") are on, the cell turns off.
3. Units can be arrayed in complex structures, certain of which are stable, and act in predictable, semipredictible, or unpredictable ways.
•A bunch of random buying and selling crystallizes along a supply/demand curve. A bunch of ants builds into an ant hill.
4. These structures are subject to second-order forces, that cause them to function as (emergeons) themselves.
5. Similar pressures push these structures towards hyper- or in-significance.
•(this needs more explanation)
all of this seems simple. i wonder if this helps with my problem.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Thoughts
"80 I Believe that the ur-Subject of the Romantic was Nature, the ur-subject of the Victorian was culture, the ur-subject of modernity was urbanity, the ur-subject of post-modernity was media, and the ur-subject of digitality is emergence."
(from http://www.bopnews.com/archives/003834.html)
Emergence, eh? That's terrifically exciting. And makes sense, given what it seems like is in the air. It seems to me that various branches of knowledge are increasingly realizing that complexity comes from large numbers of simple, interrelated processes, reactions, or actions.
Just before school got out, I had a conversation with Michael about how cities and brains were alike, using Hofstadter's metaphor of the anthill (in /Godel, Escher, Bach/), to talk about the way that particular forms of complexity emerge from simple patterns:
A new coffeeshop opens; it changes the way that you and I and many others walk to work; a nearby store starts doing better business and renovates; other stores open up; rents go up; people move in and move out; the character of the neighborhood changes; different politicians are elected; different institutions prosper. Each step is the logical result of lots and lots of small independent actions, but the net result is unpredictable and complicated and interesting.
A week later, Michael saw a book on computers, brains, and cities.
I can't help but thinking that most ideas are simply mutations and recombinations of existing ideas. I suppose that's just a repeating of memetics, but I've never felt so clearly that key ideas are pre-determined by the sum of currently relevant existing knowledge. (Which is, of course, a similar process of local joke-telling and story-relating and idea-delivering made many times more complicated by webs of reading and commenting and responding.) I keep thinking of Hegel's idea of the World Spirit becoming cognizant of itself...
Of course, I've never read any Hegel.
A related idea: emergence has something to do with the relationship between analog and digital. Must think more.
(from http://www.bopnews.com/archives/003834.html)
Emergence, eh? That's terrifically exciting. And makes sense, given what it seems like is in the air. It seems to me that various branches of knowledge are increasingly realizing that complexity comes from large numbers of simple, interrelated processes, reactions, or actions.
Just before school got out, I had a conversation with Michael about how cities and brains were alike, using Hofstadter's metaphor of the anthill (in /Godel, Escher, Bach/), to talk about the way that particular forms of complexity emerge from simple patterns:
A new coffeeshop opens; it changes the way that you and I and many others walk to work; a nearby store starts doing better business and renovates; other stores open up; rents go up; people move in and move out; the character of the neighborhood changes; different politicians are elected; different institutions prosper. Each step is the logical result of lots and lots of small independent actions, but the net result is unpredictable and complicated and interesting.
A week later, Michael saw a book on computers, brains, and cities.
I can't help but thinking that most ideas are simply mutations and recombinations of existing ideas. I suppose that's just a repeating of memetics, but I've never felt so clearly that key ideas are pre-determined by the sum of currently relevant existing knowledge. (Which is, of course, a similar process of local joke-telling and story-relating and idea-delivering made many times more complicated by webs of reading and commenting and responding.) I keep thinking of Hegel's idea of the World Spirit becoming cognizant of itself...
Of course, I've never read any Hegel.
A related idea: emergence has something to do with the relationship between analog and digital. Must think more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)