Complexity theory, ecology, and real science

[RSNorman]

One amongst us (gee, I wonder who) has bombarded us for years with how
great is the new revolution, new world view, new paradigm in science
called "complexity theory." Unfortunately all this comes with no
information on just how this Great New Thing actually applies to
anything in particular. An announcement from the U Michigan Center
for the Study of Complex Systems about a seminar relating to ecology
and evolution drew my attention as being a nice example to illustrate
just how real scientists who claim expertise in complex systems do
their work.

The seminar by Dr. Allison Shaw is on "Causes and consequences of
long-distance movement" about migration and dispersal. Her abstract
reads:

"Movement is a fundamental characteristic of organisms: individuals
move to locate resources and to avoid unfavorable conditions. The
resulting patterns can span a range of spatial and temporal scales,
and have consequences not only for the spatial distribution of a
population but also for its demographic, social and genetic structure.
In this talk, I will present my research on two of the longer forms of
organismal movement: round-trip migration and one-way dispersal. In
particular I consider what ultimate factors drive long-distance
movement, and what consequences movement has for both individuals and
populations."

Gee, it sounds like standard ecology. But it concludes:
"In my work I use primarily theoretical approaches (a combination of
analytic models, and numerical and individual-based simulations),
although always driven by the goal of gaining a deeper insight into
the underlying biology."

It turns out that those "primarily theoretical approaches" do heavily
involve mathematical ideas related to complexity theory but the real
key is that last phrase which I repeat for emphasis: " always driven
by the goal of gaining a deeper insight into the underlying biology."

Dr. Shaw's personal website lists Complex Systems as her first area of
expertise.
http://cbs.umn.edu/contacts/allison-shaw

Her statement about her research has more about using complex systems
theory to do real science:
"Theory is only as robust as its underlying assumptions, which can
include both explicitly-stated and implicitly-presumed ones. In
biology, implicit assumptions often sneak into theory based on the
particular systems (e.g., ecosystem type, taxonomic group) the
theorist is most familiar with. In my work I aim to construct theory
that can span taxonomic and ecosystem barriers, often initially
motivated by biological examples that do not fit well with assumptions
of existing theory."

She goes on to repeat that phrase about about the real purpose of the
theory:
"In my work I use primarily theoretical approaches (a combination of
analytic models, and numerical and individual based simulations),
although always driven by the goal of gaining a deeper insight into
the underlying biology."

An analysis of some of her publications is similarly revealing. Here
is one purely complex-system in nature, published in the journal
"Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - Series B"
OPTIMAL MIGRATORY BEHAVIOR IN SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT
SEASONAL ENVIRONMENTS
Full text free at https://www.math.psu.edu/treluga/Reluga14DCDS.pdf

Here is a paper published with a heavy complex theory basis published
in a more biological journal, "Theoretical Ecology"
Resource distribution drives the adoption of migratory, partially
migratory, or residential strategies
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-015-0263-y
Full text free at http://reluga.org/Reluga2014B.pdf

Here is a paper in a more traditional biology journal, "Americal
Naturalist"
Dispersal Evolution in the Presence of Allee Effects Can Speed Up or
Slow Down Invasions
full text free at
http://www.kokkonuts.org/wp-content/uploads/Shaw15_dispersal-evolution.pdf

I don't claim these to be the prime or the best examples of complexity
theory in biology. Only that they really do illustrate how real
scientists do real science using ideas based on complex system theory
models and derivations but always focused on the science, not the
complexity theory.

[Jonathan]

On 11/28/2016 6:00 PM, RSNorman wrote:

> One amongst us (gee, I wonder who) has bombarded us for years with how
> great is the new revolution, new world view, new paradigm in science
> called "complexity theory." Unfortunately all this comes with no
> information on just how this Great New Thing actually applies to
> anything in particular.

You're such a blockhead. You keep insisting on applications
but can't seem to fathom the notion that one must
understand theory...first.

YOU DON'T!

Your attempt to define complexity by merely citing a couple
examples of complex behavior is akin to defining gravity
by dropping something to the ground, and say..."see, I
defined gravity"!


Your attempt to define complexity wouldn't even rank a
flunking grade as it was wholly unresponsive to the
question.

For instance, if one doesn't have the first idea of the
mathematical relationship F = MA, it would be pretty
foolish to run off trying to solve all matter of
specific problems in physics. Would you agree?


IN ADDITION, please read the following....


Abstract structure
From Wikipedia

"An abstract structure in mathematics is a formal object
that is defined by a set of laws, properties, and
relationships in a way that is logically if not always
historically independent of the structure of contingent
experiences, for example, those involving physical
objects."


Please take note of the key statement....

"in a way that is logically if not /always/ historically
/independent/ of the structure of contingent experiences..."


Can't you understand that means that the underlying concept
COMES FIRST and without in any way being associated to
any specific discipline or physical example???

THE CONCEPT OF COMPLEXITY MUST BE STATED IN A WAY
ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF ANY FLIPPIN' DISCIPLINE.

You can't do that, won't even try as abstract is
a term foreign to you. You need someone to lead
you by the hand from start to finish. You want
to understand nature like painting by numbers.


TELL ME, to which specific discipline is complexity
science applied?????????????????????????????????



Once you've mastered the underlying concept then you
can apply it TO ANY DISCIPLINE WHATSOEVER. Not just
to migration, but to cosmology and psychology and
anything you're heart desires.

Can't you see the usefulness of that?

You've clearly demonstrated the concept of complexity is
beyond you.

There are a million applications for complexity science
but for those that don't understand the underlying concept
you won't have the first clue why or how the conclusions
of the research CAME TO PASS.

Let alone learn how to apply the concepts to other
fields.

From your cite, this is the crux of the matter...




Allison K. Shaw
U of Minnesota

Evelyn Strombom (Graduate Student)

"I am excited by the rules underlying collective behaviors,..."
http://allisonkshaw.weebly.com/people.html




Tell me Mr Clueless, what are the rules underlying
collective behaviors??????????????

And in a way that is not associated or dependent upon
ANY SPECIFIC DISCIPLINE OR PHYSICAL EXAMPLE....
.....i.e. abstract.

Can you do that? If not don't even pretend to be a poseur
anymore.


I won't be holding my breath.



s

[Burkhard]

Jonathan wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 6:00 PM, RSNorman wrote:
>
>> One amongst us (gee, I wonder who) has bombarded us for years with how
>> great is the new revolution, new world view, new paradigm in science
>> called "complexity theory." Unfortunately all this comes with no
>> information on just how this Great New Thing actually applies to
>> anything in particular.
>
>
>
> You're such a blockhead. You keep insisting on applications
> but can't seem to fathom the notion that one must
> understand theory...first.

Oh look, Jonathan posts a content free post again, and ignores all the
actual points being made, as this would require a true understanding of
how complexity theory works. Colour me surprised.

[RSNorman]

I rest my case.

The good stuff is still represented below.

[Jonathan]

On 11/28/2016 8:23 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>> On 11/28/2016 6:00 PM, RSNorman wrote:
>>
>>> One amongst us (gee, I wonder who) has bombarded us for years with how
>>> great is the new revolution, new world view, new paradigm in science
>>> called "complexity theory." Unfortunately all this comes with no
>>> information on just how this Great New Thing actually applies to
>>> anything in particular.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're such a blockhead. You keep insisting on applications
>> but can't seem to fathom the notion that one must
>> understand theory...first.
>
>
> Oh look, Jonathan posts a content free post again, and ignores all the
> actual points being made, as this would require a true understanding of
> how complexity theory works. Colour me surprised.

So you have that understanding then? Otherwise how would
you know if I don't

SO ASSHOLE show us you have an understanding of complexity
science.

I'm waiting? Or admit you're full of shit.



s

[Jonathan]

I didn't think you could answer my questions.

The rules underlying collective behavior is
what it's all about, even your cites.

And you don't know them.

[RSNorman]

The good stuff has now been snipped.

You really don't get it, do you? And it seems you never will.

You quote from a grad student in Dr. Shaw's Theory Group, "an informal
theory and modeling lab group meeting" as described in the web cite
you give. You quote "I am excited by the rules underlying collective
behaviors,..." but leave out what those three little dots mean. What
they say is:
"... how they affect and are affected by the environments in which
they operate. As an undergraduate at Swarthmore College, I studied
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning and Behavioral Endocrinology.
My interests since then have grown increasingly applied, with recent
projects including the landscape of forest landholder decision-making
(Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute) and cooperative
strategies for sustainable fisheries management (Beijer Institute of
Ecological Economics)."

In other words, the excitement is the realization that the ideas are
directly applicable to applied projects including ecological
management.

What all these people are doing is _using_ complexity theory to
actually do science.

You insist, as you do above "the underlying concept COMES FIRST". What
you totally ignore is what comes SECOND and THIRD and ...
You demand from us a definition of complexity but you demonstrate that
you have no idea what it really means or why it is important other
than the facile meaningless notion that "it explains everything and
anything."

[Burkhard]

Jonathan wrote:
> On 11/28/2016 8:23 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2016 6:00 PM, RSNorman wrote:
>>>
>>>> One amongst us (gee, I wonder who) has bombarded us for years with how
>>>> great is the new revolution, new world view, new paradigm in science
>>>> called "complexity theory." Unfortunately all this comes with no
>>>> information on just how this Great New Thing actually applies to
>>>> anything in particular.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You're such a blockhead. You keep insisting on applications
>>> but can't seem to fathom the notion that one must
>>> understand theory...first.
>>
>>
>> Oh look, Jonathan posts a content free post again, and ignores all the
>> actual points being made, as this would require a true understanding of
>> how complexity theory works. Colour me surprised.
>
>
>
> So you have that understanding then? Otherwise how would
> you know if I don't

I simply judge by your posts how else? None of them displays even a
modicum of understanding, simply by the form they have. To use your own
preferred analogy, you need not have to have a profound understanding of
the theory of gravity to realize that someone who posts never ending
variations of

"and you know something else that's great? Gravity! I mean, it is
literally EVERWHERE. And and you know that not just stones fall to the
ground, houses, cellos, polar bears and bishops do too, so it really
unifies all sciences, architecture, music, biology and theology"

has no effing clue what he is talking about.

>
> SO ASSHOLE show us you have an understanding of complexity
> science.
>
> I'm waiting? Or admit you're full of shit.

Well, when you asked e for a definition and I gave a rather long one,
you ignored the post.
>
>
>
> s
>
>
>

[Rolf]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:76op3c18uqprgi42a...@4ax.com...

To me it looks like Jonathan is very excited about complexity theory.
I'd like to know what books on complexity he's read?

[Jonathan]

On 11/29/2016 3:40 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>> On 11/28/2016 8:23 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>> Jonathan wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/2016 6:00 PM, RSNorman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One amongst us (gee, I wonder who) has bombarded us for years with how
>>>>> great is the new revolution, new world view, new paradigm in science
>>>>> called "complexity theory." Unfortunately all this comes with no
>>>>> information on just how this Great New Thing actually applies to
>>>>> anything in particular.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're such a blockhead. You keep insisting on applications
>>>> but can't seem to fathom the notion that one must
>>>> understand theory...first.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh look, Jonathan posts a content free post again, and ignores all the
>>> actual points being made, as this would require a true understanding of
>>> how complexity theory works. Colour me surprised.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you have that understanding then? Otherwise how would
>> you know if I don't
>
> I simply judge by your posts how else?

Ah huh! Unless you have a working understanding of the
concepts how in the world are you to judge anyone's
explanation of the concepts?

Are you really that big of a fool to think you can
pass judgement over subjects you haven't the first
idea about?

Put up or shut up, point out my errors in detail and
explain the correct explanation. Else you're nothing
but hot-air.

> None of them displays even a
> modicum of understanding, simply by the form they have.

By the form they have? Thanks for the laugh, that's
the most idiotic thing I've heard since the last
Norman post I read.

You're argument from ignorance tactic is rather
refreshing, haven't seen anyone try it since
fifth grade.

To use your own
> preferred analogy, you need not have to have a profound understanding of
> the theory of gravity to realize that someone who posts never ending
> variations of
>
> "and you know something else that's great? Gravity! I mean, it is
> literally EVERWHERE. And and you know that not just stones fall to the
> ground, houses, cellos, polar bears and bishops do too, so it really
> unifies all sciences, architecture, music, biology and theology"
>

Those are all emergent properties. So by knowing the properties
of one concept, emergence, you learn the basic properties of
all those examples, in abstract form of course.

But you haven't the first idea about the concept of
emergence either, so you wouldn't know that.

And I've been saying gravity is an emergent property for
some time here, years perhaps. Please read the paper below
and NOTICE THE DATE the research was released.

Please take note of this sentence in particular
from the link....


"'Many theoretical physicists like me are working on a revision
of the theory, and some major advancements have been made.
We might be standing on the brink of a new scientific
revolution that will radically change our views on the
very nature of space, time and gravity'."





New theory of gravity might explain dark matter
8 November 2016

A new theory of gravity might explain the curious motions of
stars in galaxies. Emergent gravity, as the new theory is
called, predicts the exact same deviation of motions that
is usually explained by inserting dark matter in the theory.
Prof. Erik Verlinde, renowned expert in string theory at
the University of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute for
Theoretical Physics, just published a new research paper
in which he expands his groundbreaking views on the
nature of gravity.
http://www.uva.nl/en/news-events/news/uva-news/content/press-releases/2016/11/new-theory-of-gravity-might-explain-dark-matter.html


Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269

> has no effing clue what he is talking about.
>
>
>>
>> SO ASSHOLE show us you have an understanding of complexity
>> science.
>>
>> I'm waiting? Or admit you're full of shit.
>
> Well, when you asked e for a definition and I gave a rather long one,
> you ignored the post.

Oh please repost it, I missed it. Can't wait to hear it.
But of course you'll come up with some lame excuse
like every other post and stick with just calling
everything bullshit without any reason, oh wait
....form, I forgot.


Form!




s



>>
>>
>>
>> s
>>
>>
>>
>

[Jonathan]

The excitement is that the rules of collective behavior apply
TO ALMOST EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE.

She's excited it applies to her little chunk of it.
But so is everyone else in all the other disciplines.

God you're a fool, the properties of collective behavior apply
TO EVERYTHING IN THE F'ing UNIVERSE THAT IS COMPLEX.

please name ONE THING THAT ISN'T COMPLEX?
Can you do that?

Oh wait, you would need to know how to define complex, you've
yet to master THE TITLE of the science. Yet pass yourself off
as Mr Complexity.

You're a poseur, a fraud.

There are a million applications for complexity science, how many
do you want me to post for you?

Just Google "complexity science and ______" Placing in the space
just about any subject your little brain desires. You don't need
me to do that.

You just want the answers, you want to be...handed...how many times,
how far, how long is it and so on. But you're too lazy to do the science
behind those answers and see how they came to those
conclusions.

That's not science, it's called painting by numbers, any idiot
could do that.

> What all these people are doing is _using_ complexity theory to
> actually do science.
>

You seem to miss the point again and again that in order
to do science with complexity theory YOU NEED TO KNOW
ABOUT COMPLEXITY THEORY.

You don't, so what's the point of discussing applications
with someone that can't even define the TITLE OF THE SCIENCE?

But I will if it makes you happy? Go ahead name what subject etc
you want a paper for using complexity theory.


But you have to promise to read the first paragraph of each
of them. Why? Because regardless of how different the
subjects, the first paragraphs will all sound pretty
much the same.

They lay out the basics of collective behavior and how
it's provided the underlying model for THEM ALL.

ONE MODEL FOR ALL OF EXISTENCE, whether living, physical
or in between.

Anyone with a hint of curiosity should want to know
what those rules are.


Except for you....



Jonathan



s

[RSNorman]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:00:30 -0700, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>One amongst us (gee, I wonder who) has bombarded us for years with how
>great is the new revolution, new world view, new paradigm in science
>called "complexity theory." Unfortunately all this comes with no
>information on just how this Great New Thing actually applies to
>anything in particular. An announcement from the U Michigan Center
>for the Study of Complex Systems about a seminar relating to ecology
>and evolution drew my attention as being a nice example to illustrate
>just how real scientists who claim expertise in complex systems do
>their work.
>
>The seminar by Dr. Allison Shaw is on "Causes and consequences of
>long-distance movement" about migration and dispersal.

<snip remaining>

The U. Mich. Center for the Study of Complex Systems has another
session.

Fernanda Valdovinos
Elucidating ecological complexity with multilayer networks

Abstract:
The vast complexity of ecological systems has long challenged the
ability of ecologists to understand and predict ecosystem behavior.
Fortunately, the emerging field of network science including
ecological networks is providing evermore powerful tools to meet these
challenges. Such tools, including insights into ‘multilayer’ networks
comprised of different types of interactions, help rigorously
synthesize more traditional ecological theories and massive amounts of
data describing the great diversity of species and interactions
encompassing ecological systems. My work pushes this frontier forward
in order to better explain and predict the structure and dynamics of
ecological systems, especially their responses to anthropogenic
change. I do this by 1) integrating different types of interactions
among species into ecological networks, 2) scaling up key mechanisms
at lower scales concerning organisms and populations to larger scales
concerning communities and ecosystems, and 3) testing theory resulting
from 1) and 2) against empirical data. This strategy has enabled me to
develop a novel consumer-resource approach to plant-pollinator
networks that integrates two types of interactions essential to the
dynamics of those complex systems; feeding relationships and
reproductive services. My approach incorporates key mechanisms such as
the adaptive foraging of pollinators within plant communities, the
dynamic production and depletion of floral rewards, and the dilution
of conspecific pollen by heterospecific pollen. My results suggest
that these mechanisms stabilize plant-pollinator communities and
resolve a prominent debate about how network architecture affects the
dynamics of mutualistic systems. We tested a central prediction
emerging from this theory and found it to be strongly corroborated by
intensive field observations of bee foraging within an alpine plant
community. My current research on mechanistic approaches to multilayer
networks integrates additional types of interactions involving
life-history, evolution, and even economics. Such work continues the
tradition of ecological network scientists learning from, and
substantially contributing to, exciting frontiers of complexity
research spanning natural, social, and technological sciences.

Again, another scientist claiming complex system theory background but
does real ecology for a living.

[Jonathan]

On 11/30/2016 3:56 PM, RSNorman wrote:



> Elucidating ecological complexity with multilayer networks

You cite these articles and claim this is real science
using complexity science. And that is quite correct, the
problem I have is you pretend to understand what you're
reading.

You do not.

And pretend you're also capable of characterizing
the significance of the sciene... used to make
the conclusions.

They use complexity science, I've asked you and
others here repeatedly to show you have a
working knowledge of the science and you
can't, don't even try yet somehow feel
qualified to criticize from a position
of ignorance.


I'll use YOUR CITE, the title of the paper
you just offered is....

Elucidating ecological complexity with multilayer networks

DEFINE...'MULTILAYER NETWORKS'....and characterize
that concept's significance to science in general?



You can't, and as a result don't understand how
the paper you cited came to their conclusion
concerning the extremely uninteresting subject
of....." plant-pollinator communities."

It's how multilayer networks, or complexity science
finally solved the relationship in this specific
community is what is interesting and significant.

But since the math they used to solve this long
standing problem is beyond you, you wouldn't
know or appreciate that fact.

Do you homework like I have, and stop being a poseur.



Answer this poseur....


What's a multilayer network and how many 'communities'
can one analyze with that concept???

This is an /open book/ question, btw. If you can't
answer, you can't call yourself educated.
I'll even give you the link to the answer
and I bet you still can't answer the
question.


ANSWER >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_network



Jonathan



s

[jillery]

Your line of reasoning above reminds me of the following anecdote:

<https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-great-stories-about-Richard-Feynman>

By analogy, as the young boy above used the names of birds as proxy
for knowing about birds, you use the definitions of concepts as proxy
for knowing about those concepts. It's arguable that knowing a
definition is necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient. Your line
of reasoning above is just a fancied-up spelling flame.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[RSNorman]

On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 09:41:58 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

You might have figured out by now that I don't intend to play your
game. Many people, myself included, have already referred you to the
book "Complexity: A Guided Tour" by Melanie Mitchell. Given that the
first chapter is titled "What is complexity?" and on page 13 she
writes "Now I can propose a definition of the term complex system..."
I see no reason to comply with your demands. I can crib from far
better documents than you know about.

I am happy to see, though, that you have finally stopped trying to
teach us utter nonsense about your false notions of what linear vs.
non-linear really means. You also have abandoned your earlier
favorite example of Y = k X vs X = k X as supposedly illustrating this
difference.

By the way, here is the next seminar from the U Mich Center for the
Study of Complex Systems, this one in biophysics: "Ion Channels,
Critical Points and Emergent Phenomena in Biology" by Benjamin Machta.

Here is Dr. Machta's web site showing publications in biophysics as
well as more theoretical papers published in Physical Review Letters.
http://www.princeton.edu/~bmachta/index.html

Of particular interest is "Parameter Space Compression Underlies
Emergent Theories and Predictive Models"
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/604.abstract

The abstract starts out "The microscopically complicated real world
exhibits behavior that often yields to simple yet quantitatively
accurate descriptions. Predictions are possible despite large
uncertainties in microscopic parameters, both in physics and in
multiparameter models in other areas of science."

This puts the lie to Jonathan's claim that it is useless to build
predictive models of behavior in the real world. Machta argues, from
complexity theory type ideas, how this can come about.

Jonathan, if you had any sense whatsoever, you would have already
thrown all these examples of real science with complex system
theoretical foundations in our faces as examples of just how important
complex system theory is to the study of real science. Instead you
blather on and on about generalities. Read Melanie Mitchell's book
and get to the last chapter where she tries to evade the criticism of
"complexity theory" as being a "fact-free" science and failing to
uncover any real general and universal laws about nature. She writes
"what we might call modern complex system science is, like its
forebears, still not a unified whole but rather a collection of
disparate parts... There has been much debate about what, if anything,
modern complex systems science is contributing that was lacking in
previous efforts." The final page of the books includes "it's still
unclear whether there even exists such a theory; it may be that
complexity arises and operates by very different processes in
different systems."

The application of ideas treated by complex system theory has proved
indeed to be useful to doing real science in a wide diversity of
fields. That is what I am trying to point out through the series of
seminar announcements: real work in real science. That is the subject
matter for our news group.

[Jonathan]

It's an attempt to steer the conversation towards a detailed
discussion of those concepts. You, Norman and most others
here won't touch such a conversation, instead choosing to
wave your hands wildly in the air and just say it's all hooey
without giving any science or fact based reasons at all.

Norman just responds with links to how complexity science
has figured out why ant testicles are so itchy and other
such boorish minutia.

The definition of complexity, self organized criticality
or complex adaptive systems, collective behavior, or
multiagent systems are CENTRAL TO UNDERSTANDING HOW
NATURE WORKS.

I've spent plenty of time studying them and insist
others do if they wish to SEE THE SIMPLICITY OF NATURE
....at long last.

As those concepts show how nature works, and how simple,
how inevitable and how...relentless the processes
of creation and evolution are.

I'm daring anyone to start discussing the concepts
and any takers will find a long fact filled discussion
follows. But it's a waste of time to discuss
science with an empty room.

These concepts create a belief in evolution so strong
that onecan see Darwin in everything, not just life, but
in the universe and everything else. You folks are
content to limit the concepts to biology, the
big discovery is Darwin explains the universe
not just life, once placed in abstract terms
that fact becomes clear.


But there are no takers in this ng, only empty flamers.

I always try to bring the conversation back to science
and evolution in any way I can think of.

I've tried nice, tried rude, now I'm trying shaming
this ng's collective ignorance and down right laziness.

The grand answers are there, and no one here wants
to know them.

That's just pathetic.


I'm following the advice of perhaps the
greatest thinker about nature of all time.
This advice...



Tell all the Truth but tell it slant --
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise

As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind --



And I won't be deterred from...preaching these
ideas until the day I die.

Such is my conviction of the importance
of these new ideas wrt understanding
not just nature, but reality.

If you're not going to talk science please
don't bother to respond.


Jonathan


s

[Jonathan]

You mean you won't discuss scientific concepts, how
convenient?

> Many people, myself included, have already referred you to the
> book "Complexity: A Guided Tour" by Melanie Mitchell. Given that the
> first chapter is titled "What is complexity?" and on page 13 she
> writes "Now I can propose a definition of the term complex system..."
> I see no reason to comply with your demands. I can crib from far
> better documents than you know about.
>

I just should take your word for it? Boy that's an example
of fact based discussion eh? What a coward.

> I am happy to see, though, that you have finally stopped trying to
> teach us utter nonsense about your false notions of what linear vs.
> non-linear really means. You also have abandoned your earlier
> favorite example of Y = k X vs X = k X as supposedly illustrating this
> difference.
>

I'm correct about that, show me I'm not? You haven't done
any such thing. You don't know what non-linear means.
You think it's a form of an equation.

It's a relationship between input and output that can
be explained in about ten words. Show me you understand
even that most basic of all concepts?

OH wait, you don't play that game, I forgot. What a bullshit
artist you've becomed.

> By the way, here is the next seminar from the U Mich Center for the
> Study of Complex Systems, this one in biophysics: "Ion Channels,
> Critical Points and Emergent Phenomena in Biology" by Benjamin Machta.
>
> Here is Dr. Machta's web site showing publications in biophysics as
> well as more theoretical papers published in Physical Review Letters.
> http://www.princeton.edu/~bmachta/index.html
>
> Of particular interest is "Parameter Space Compression Underlies
> Emergent Theories and Predictive Models"
> http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/604.abstract
>

There's a thousand papers out there using complexity science
and citing a few does NOT mean one understands the concepts
or can characterize their importance.

You don't understand ANY of the basic concepts, and use
the excuse that talking science or math is a 'game'
you won't play.

That's right, you won't play the science game.

> The abstract starts out "The microscopically complicated real world
> exhibits behavior that often yields to simple yet quantitatively
> accurate descriptions. Predictions are possible despite large
> uncertainties in microscopic parameters, both in physics and in
> multiparameter models in other areas of science."
>
> This puts the lie to Jonathan's claim that it is useless to build
> predictive models of behavior in the real world.

I've never said that, I've said repeatedly that these concepts
provide a theoretical model FOR FLIPPIN' EVERYTHING YOU MORON.

The minute one applies it to a specific problem, or
fact based, is the minute the abstract concepts
become lost in the noisy real world.

Machta argues, from
> complexity theory type ideas, how this can come about.
>
> Jonathan, if you had any sense whatsoever, you would have already
> thrown all these examples of real science with complex system
> theoretical foundations in our faces as examples of just how important
> complex system theory is to the study of real science.

I've cited dozens. They have all fallen on your deaf ears.

But if you want a nice paper on this subject, here's one.
Once you've read it, a discussion can follow, but you
won't. It's not real science to you since it's not
about figuring out how long some migration route is
or why ant testicles itch.

It's about the core concepts which you aren't intelligent
enough to grasp.


Emergent Taxonomy
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf

> Instead you
> blather on and on about generalities.

Oh my god, complexity science is an abstract science
it's entirely explained in terms of generalities.

You don't even know that, an astonishing level of
ignorance parading as knowing. I'm embarrassed
for you.

Read Melanie Mitchell's book
> and get to the last chapter where she tries to evade the criticism of
> "complexity theory" as being a "fact-free" science

All abstract concepts are 'fact free' idiot.

and failing to
> uncover any real general and universal laws about nature. She writes
> "what we might call modern complex system science is, like its
> forebears, still not a unified whole but rather a collection of
> disparate parts... There has been much debate about what, if anything,
> modern complex systems science is contributing that was lacking in
> previous efforts." The final page of the books includes "it's still
> unclear whether there even exists such a theory; it may be that
> complexity arises and operates by very different processes in
> different systems."
>
> The application of ideas treated by complex system theory has proved
> indeed to be useful to doing real science in a wide diversity of
> fields.

Important to ALL OF THEM, which is the entire point as to their
importance, it applies Darwinian processes to the
entire universe. But your lack of comprehension
prevents you from seeing that.

> That is what I am trying to point out through the series of
> seminar announcements: real work in real science. That is the subject
> matter for our news group.
>

Citing papers isn't discussing science, it's parroting.

I've repeatedly attempted to get you to discuss
the science in the papers you cite, you won't
since you can't.

It doesn't get any simpler than this question, I've
dumbed it down as far as I can for you.

Define the abstract relationship between cause and effect
as explained by the butterfly effect, or by non-linear
behavior.

Anyone with the shit simplest understanding of these
concepts could in five seconds, and from there
a real discussion concerning science can begin
as the implications of that relationship are
profound to the way science must be done post
complexity science.

OH wait, you don't play that game.

Funny about that.



Jonathan



S

[Bill Rogers]

On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 7:40:01 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
<snip>

>
> Can you do that? If not don't even pretend to be a poseur
> anymore.

I like that: "Don't even pretend to be a poseur anymore." Very meta.

[jillery]

To the contrary, what I and others say is that your particular spin
about these concepts is hooey. It is you who shouts out "Complexity"
when and where it's not even wrong. Complexity is your hammer, and
everything else is your nail.

>Norman just responds with links to how complexity science
>has figured out why ant testicles are so itchy and other
>such boorish minutia.
>
>The definition of complexity, self organized criticality
>or complex adaptive systems, collective behavior, or
>multiagent systems are CENTRAL TO UNDERSTANDING HOW
>NATURE WORKS.
>
>I've spent plenty of time studying them and insist
>others do if they wish to SEE THE SIMPLICITY OF NATURE
>....at long last.
>
>As those concepts show how nature works, and how simple,
>how inevitable and how...relentless the processes
>of creation and evolution are.
>
>I'm daring anyone to start discussing the concepts
>and any takers will find a long fact filled discussion
>follows. But it's a waste of time to discuss
>science with an empty room.

If you really believed that, you would quit yer bitchin' and find more
fertile soil elsewhere. Instead, all you do here is hijack one topic
after another with your spam.

>These concepts create a belief in evolution so strong
>that onecan see Darwin in everything, not just life, but
>in the universe and everything else. You folks are
>content to limit the concepts to biology, the
>big discovery is Darwin explains the universe
>not just life, once placed in abstract terms
>that fact becomes clear.

Even you recognize there are multiple levels of complexity. The
language of Evolution is a valid description of one of those levels.
The language of a lower level is too detailed to focus on emergent
properties. The vocabulary of a higher level is too coarse to
describe fundamental details. This doesn't mean that any of those
languages are invalid, but only that they have their place.

>But there are no takers in this ng, only empty flamers.

As long as you dismiss others' replies as flames, you will continue to
shout to an empty room. A definition of insanity is doing the same
thing over and over while expecting different results.

>I always try to bring the conversation back to science
>and evolution in any way I can think of.

No matter how many times you stomp your feet and shout otherwise,
there's more to science and evolution than Complexity.

>I've tried nice, tried rude, now I'm trying shaming
>this ng's collective ignorance and down right laziness.
>
>The grand answers are there, and no one here wants
>to know them.
>
>That's just pathetic.

To be the only one who knows anything must be a terrible cross to
bear.

>I'm following the advice of perhaps the
>greatest thinker about nature of all time.
>This advice...
>
>
>
>Tell all the Truth but tell it slant --
>Success in Circuit lies
>Too bright for our infirm Delight
>The Truth's superb surprise
>
>As Lightning to the Children eased
>With explanation kind
>The Truth must dazzle gradually
>Or every man be blind --
>
>
>
>And I won't be deterred from...preaching these
>ideas until the day I die.
>
>Such is my conviction of the importance
>of these new ideas wrt understanding
>not just nature, but reality.
>
>If you're not going to talk science please
>don't bother to respond.
>
>
>Jonathan

Follow your own advice.

[Jonathan]

On 12/4/2016 11:55 AM, jillery wrote:

>>>
>>> Your line of reasoning above reminds me of the following anecdote:
>>>
>>> <https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-great-stories-about-Richard-Feynman>
>>>
>>> By analogy, as the young boy above used the names of birds as proxy
>>> for knowing about birds, you use the definitions of concepts as proxy
>>> for knowing about those concepts. It's arguable that knowing a
>>> definition is necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient. Your line
>>> of reasoning above is just a fancied-up spelling flame.
>>
>>
>> It's an attempt to steer the conversation towards a detailed
>> discussion of those concepts. You, Norman and most others
>> here won't touch such a conversation, instead choosing to
>> wave your hands wildly in the air and just say it's all hooey
>> without giving any science or fact based reasons at all.


>
>
> To the contrary, what I and others say is that your particular spin
> about these concepts is hooey.

If you don't know the correct definition, your criticism
is entirely out of ignorance. Why should I listen to
anyone criticize me about complexity science that can't
even define the most basic or core concepts at all???

Are you nuts or something?

OK, let me ask you the most basic of all questions that
exists, the ultimate of 101 questions which ANYONE with
even a cursory understanding can answer in FIVE SECONDS
FLAT.

You won't cause you can't.

Define the relationship between input and output as
defined by the butterfly effect?

And once you have, it becomes glaringly obvious
science as you know it is no longer valid, a
new way forward is obviously needed.


I'm waiting for your all too predictable dodge.
As Norman says he doesn't play the science game
trust him that he knows all about it.

He, like you, believes ignorance is qualifies you
to pass judgement.



s

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:23:07 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/4/2016 11:55 AM, jillery wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Your line of reasoning above reminds me of the following anecdote:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-great-stories-about-Richard-Feynman>
>>>>
>>>> By analogy, as the young boy above used the names of birds as proxy
>>>> for knowing about birds, you use the definitions of concepts as proxy
>>>> for knowing about those concepts. It's arguable that knowing a
>>>> definition is necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient. Your line
>>>> of reasoning above is just a fancied-up spelling flame.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's an attempt to steer the conversation towards a detailed
>>> discussion of those concepts. You, Norman and most others
>>> here won't touch such a conversation, instead choosing to
>>> wave your hands wildly in the air and just say it's all hooey
>>> without giving any science or fact based reasons at all.
>
>
>>To the contrary, what I and others say is that your particular spin

>>about these concepts is hooey. It is you who shouts out "Complexity"
>>when and where it's not even wrong. Complexity is your hammer, and
>>everything else is your nail.
>
>

>If you don't know the correct definition, your criticism
>is entirely out of ignorance. Why should I listen to
>anyone criticize me about complexity science that can't
>even define the most basic or core concepts at all???

The correct definition has nothing whatever to do with my crticism.
You're just another ego inflated with self-importance.

>>>If you're not going to talk science please
>>>don't bother to respond.
>>
>>

[jonathan]

On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:23:07 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2016 11:55 AM, jillery wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your line of reasoning above reminds me of the following anecdote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-great-stories-about-Richard-Feynman>
>>>>>
>>>>> By analogy, as the young boy above used the names of birds as proxy
>>>>> for knowing about birds, you use the definitions of concepts as proxy
>>>>> for knowing about those concepts. It's arguable that knowing a
>>>>> definition is necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient. Your line
>>>>> of reasoning above is just a fancied-up spelling flame.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's an attempt to steer the conversation towards a detailed
>>>> discussion of those concepts. You, Norman and most others
>>>> here won't touch such a conversation, instead choosing to
>>>> wave your hands wildly in the air and just say it's all hooey
>>>> without giving any science or fact based reasons at all.
>>
>>
>>> To the contrary, what I and others say is that your particular spin
>>> about these concepts is hooey. It is you who shouts out "Complexity"
>>> when and where it's not even wrong. Complexity is your hammer, and
>>> everything else is your nail.
>>
>>
>> If you don't know the correct definition, your criticism
>> is entirely out of ignorance. Why should I listen to
>> anyone criticize me about complexity science that can't
>> even define the most basic or core concepts at all???
>
>
> The correct definition has nothing whatever to do with my crticism.

You mean the facts have nothing to do with your
criticism.


s
s

[jonathan]

On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:

Funny how you removed my challenge from your reply.

If you can't answer this then you, like
Norman, are like the fool that waxes eloquent
about say calculus, but NEVER HEARD OF THE
INTEGRAL.

Your the fool that criticizes relativity
then asks what's this thing called space-time.

Please show me I'm not talking to such an idiot.

I repeat my simple and the most basic question
possible about my hobby....

OK, let me ask you the most basic of all questions that
exists, the ultimate of 101 questions which ANYONE with
even a cursory understanding can answer in FIVE SECONDS
FLAT.

You won't cause you can't.


Define the relationship between input and output as
defined by the butterfly effect?

And once you have, it becomes glaringly obvious
science as you know it is no longer valid, a
new way forward is obviously needed.


I'm waiting for your all too predictable dodge.
As Norman says he doesn't play the science game
trust him that he knows all about it.

He, like you, believes ignorance is qualifies you
to pass judgement.


s






>

[jonathan]

On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:

Funny how you removed my challenge from your reply.

If you can't answer this then you, like
Norman, are like the fool that waxes eloquent
about say calculus, but NEVER HEARD OF THE
INTEGRAL.

Your the fool that criticizes relativity

then asks what's this thing called space-time?

Please show me I'm not talking to someone
like that?

I repeat my simple and the most basic question
possible about my hobby....

[jonathan]

You're...

[The Masked Lapavenger]

What does sensitive dependence on initial conditions have to do with anything? Where are you going with this?

[Steven Carlip]

On 12/4/16 12:36 PM, jonathan wrote:

[...]

> Define the relationship between input and output as
> defined by the butterfly effect?

You mean the grasshopper effect? (The first known mention, by
W.S. Franklin in 1898, talked about a "grasshopper in Montana"
rather than a "butterfly in Brazil.")

Well, let's take this one step further. In a chaotic system,
the final state (what you're calling the "output") changes
exponentially with changes in the initial state (what you're
calling the "input.") But the *amount* the "output" changes
depends on just how the "input" is changed. What is the name
of the numbers that characterize this sensitivity? (For extra
credit, how are these numbers calculated.)

Steve Carlip

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 15:29:57 -0500, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Part II:

>Funny how you removed my challenge from your reply.

I suppose it's about as funny as how you removed most of my reply to
your challenge.

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 15:22:44 -0500, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>You mean the facts have nothing to do with your
>criticism.

You mean the facts have nothing to do with your posts.

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 15:36:23 -0500, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Funny how you removed my challenge from your reply.

I suppose it's about as funny as how you removed most of my reply to
your challenge.

[Jonathan]

On 12/4/2016 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:


> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 15:29:57 -0500, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Part II:
>
>> Funny how you removed my challenge from your reply.

I didn't see anything worth responding to, but
if I missed a question of yours, please feel free
to restate it and I'll respond.

>
>
> I suppose it's about as funny as how you removed most of my reply to
> your challenge.

You're the one claiming I'm all wrong, so show me you
have an introductory knowledge of the subject at hand.
Or at least correct my mistake~

So I restate my question to you, a question that
is as basic as it gets.

Define the relationship between input and output as
defined by the butterfly effect?

And once you have, it becomes glaringly obvious
science as you know it is no longer valid, a
new way forward is obviously needed.

You can't answer! I'm certain of it.

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:38:17 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/4/2016 6:18 PM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 15:29:57 -0500, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Part II:
>>
>>> Funny how you removed my challenge from your reply.
>
>
>
>I didn't see anything worth responding to,

And yet you did anyway. Do you think that counts as funny?

>> I suppose it's about as funny as how you removed most of my reply to
>> your challenge.
>
>
>
>
>You're the one claiming I'm all wrong,

Of course, I made no such claim, which you would know if you actually
comprehended what you deleted.

[Jonathan]

On 12/4/2016 6:19 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 15:36:23 -0500, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Funny how you removed my challenge from your reply.
>
>
> I suppose it's about as funny as how you removed most of my reply to
> your challenge.

Nice dodge, as usual.

[Jonathan]

On 12/4/2016 2:43 PM, jillery wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 13:23:07 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2016 11:55 AM, jillery wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your line of reasoning above reminds me of the following anecdote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-great-stories-about-Richard-Feynman>
>>>>>
>>>>> By analogy, as the young boy above used the names of birds as proxy
>>>>> for knowing about birds, you use the definitions of concepts as proxy
>>>>> for knowing about those concepts. It's arguable that knowing a
>>>>> definition is necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient. Your line
>>>>> of reasoning above is just a fancied-up spelling flame.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's an attempt to steer the conversation towards a detailed
>>>> discussion of those concepts. You, Norman and most others
>>>> here won't touch such a conversation, instead choosing to
>>>> wave your hands wildly in the air and just say it's all hooey
>>>> without giving any science or fact based reasons at all.
>>
>>
>>> To the contrary, what I and others say is that your particular spin
>>> about these concepts is hooey. It is you who shouts out "Complexity"
>>> when and where it's not even wrong. Complexity is your hammer, and
>>> everything else is your nail.
>>
>>
>> If you don't know the correct definition, your criticism
>> is entirely out of ignorance. Why should I listen to
>> anyone criticize me about complexity science that can't
>> even define the most basic or core concepts at all???
>
>
> The correct definition has nothing whatever to do with my crticism.

You mean facts have nothing to do with your criticism.

> You're just another ego inflated with self-importance.
>
>
>>>> I'm daring anyone to start discussing the concepts
>>>> and any takers will find a long fact filled discussion
>>>> follows. But it's a waste of time to discuss
>>>> science with an empty room.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you really believed that, you would quit yer bitchin' and find more
>>> fertile soil elsewhere. Instead, all you do here is hijack one topic
>>> after another with your spam.
>>>
>>>
>>>> These concepts create a belief in evolution so strong
>>>> that onecan see Darwin in everything, not just life, but
>>>> in the universe and everything else. You folks are
>>>> content to limit the concepts to biology, the
>>>> big discovery is Darwin explains the universe
>>>> not just life, once placed in abstract terms
>>>> that fact becomes clear.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even you recognize there are multiple levels of complexity. The
>>> language of Evolution is a valid description of one of those levels.
>>> The language of a lower level is too detailed to focus on emergent
>>> properties.

That's not true at all. There are different levels of
complexity but all levels share the same underlying
conceptual model, and the same complexity based
solutions.

> The vocabulary of a higher level is too coarse to
>>> describe fundamental details.

Again that's wrong, the ideas of complexity holds better
for the higher level systems. But the idea holds for
all levels.

> This doesn't mean that any of those
>>> languages are invalid, but only that they have their place.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But there are no takers in this ng, only empty flamers.
>>>
>>>
>>> As long as you dismiss others' replies as flames, you will continue to
>>> shout to an empty room.

But if the response is either as empty or wrong as yours
the conversation is a waste of time.

>>> A definition of insanity is doing the same
>>> thing over and over while expecting different results.
>>>

A definition of ignorance is the refusal to learn
new science.

>>>
>>>> I always try to bring the conversation back to science
>>>> and evolution in any way I can think of.
>>>
>>>
>>> No matter how many times you stomp your feet and shout otherwise,
>>> there's more to science and evolution than Complexity.
>>>

Complexity provides the underlying model for all that
exists, without that understanding all science that
follows is either irrelevant to nature or in error.

>>>
>>>> I've tried nice, tried rude, now I'm trying shaming
>>>> this ng's collective ignorance and down right laziness.
>>>>
>>>> The grand answers are there, and no one here wants
>>>> to know them.
>>>>
>>>> That's just pathetic.
>>>
>>>
>>> To be the only one who knows anything must be a terrible cross to
>>> bear.

You're proving I AM the only one in this ng that has a working
knowledge. I didn't remove or ignore anything from your reply.

Now it's your turn, answer my basic question or admit
you haven't the first clue about what you're talking
about.

Define the relationship between input and output as
defined by the butterfly effect?

And once you have, it becomes glaringly obvious
science as you know it is no longer valid, a
new way forward is obviously needed.




>>>
>>>

>>>> If you're not going to talk science please
>>>> don't bother to respond.
>>>
>>>
>>> Follow your own advice.

I'd answer the question, yet again, but you'd just
wave your hands and say it's wrong without having
the slightest idea of the correct answer.


How can you do that with a straight face????

[Jonathan]

The butterfly effect shows the output (effect) diverges
/exponentially fast/ from the input (cause).

Meaning in takes but a few step from initial conditions or
'cause' before a direct relationship with 'effect'
becomes impossible to draw.

That means the assumption all effects have an
identifiable cause is erroneous and a fools
assumption.

That means an equation of the form y = F (x) is useless
for modeling the real live non-linear world of evolving
systems. That is unless one reduces the problem to such
an extent it no longer represents a valid model of
reality. For buildings etc it's fine, but not for
open evolutionary systems.

That means objective methods, or seeking the initial cause
is a waste of time when it comes to first life, speciation
and so on, rendering the entirety of objective science
so backwards as to resemble a 'flat earth' frame of reference
so wrong as to be laughable.

Complexity science repairs the gross mistake of objective
methods, which is to say the assumption of cause and effect
by reversing that and using a frame of reference
of ....effect then cause.

Or emergence.

Complexity science, through the concept of emergence, begins
with the output first, the effects, as the primary source
of knowledge about the input side. That is what the concept
of emergence is all about, looking at the system properties
first in order to understand what the parts are doing.

After all, is one observes emergent properties, we can
say with definitive certainty the parts are critically
interacting, and as a result any attempt to reduce to parts
or objectively defining the parts are useless.

Just as any attempt to objectively determine whether the
critically interacting system called light is a
particle or a wave.

Just as any attempt to objectively determine whether
the critically interacting system called the
Mona Lisa smile is happy or sad.

This is the foundation and assumption upon which
all of nature is now based, the futility of
reducing to part details, and using the output
or emergence as the primary source of knowledge
about nature.

But unless understands what the butterfly effect
means in terms of cause and effect, none of that
historic change in scientific methods will
register one little bit.


Jonathan



s

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:50:12 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>You mean facts have nothing to do with your criticism.

You mean the facts have nothing to do with your posts.

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:50:54 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/4/2016 6:19 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 15:36:23 -0500, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Funny how you removed my challenge from your reply.
>>
>>
>> I suppose it's about as funny as how you removed most of my reply to
>> your challenge.
>
>
>
>Nice dodge, as usual.

I suppose, if by "dodge" you mean the truth.

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 07:38:23 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/3/2016 12:13 PM, RSNorman wrote:

...
<snip an awful lot in the hope of preserving some sense of sanity>
...

>
>> Many people, myself included, have already referred you to the
>> book "Complexity: A Guided Tour" by Melanie Mitchell. Given that the
>> first chapter is titled "What is complexity?" and on page 13 she
>> writes "Now I can propose a definition of the term complex system..."
>> I see no reason to comply with your demands. I can crib from far
>> better documents than you know about.
>>
>
>
>I just should take your word for it? Boy that's an example
>of fact based discussion eh? What a coward.
>

You demand a definition and I gave you a very nice book on the subject
and deliberately stopped just short of copying out the definition.

>
>> I am happy to see, though, that you have finally stopped trying to
>> teach us utter nonsense about your false notions of what linear vs.
>> non-linear really means. You also have abandoned your earlier
>> favorite example of Y = k X vs X = k X as supposedly illustrating this
>> difference.
>>
>
>
>
>I'm correct about that, show me I'm not? You haven't done
>any such thing. You don't know what non-linear means.
>You think it's a form of an equation.
>
>It's a relationship between input and output that can
>be explained in about ten words. Show me you understand
>even that most basic of all concepts?
>
>OH wait, you don't play that game, I forgot. What a bullshit
>artist you've becomed.
>

A linear system obeys superposition, a non-linear one does not. That
is ten words.

>
>You don't understand ANY of the basic concepts, and use
>the excuse that talking science or math is a 'game'
>you won't play.
>
>That's right, you won't play the science game.
>

Strange how I interject actual science in the form of published papers
into the discussion but you reject that totally as irrelevant, yet say
I won't talk science. Many here including myself have tried to get you
to understand the difference between doing pure mathematics and doing
science that uses mathematics. Exactly the same applies to complex
systems theory which is really just a branch of mathematics. Here we
choose to discuss science. That seems to be a concept you will never
understand.

>I've never said that, I've said repeatedly that these concepts
>provide a theoretical model FOR FLIPPIN' EVERYTHING YOU MORON.
>
>The minute one applies it to a specific problem, or
>fact based, is the minute the abstract concepts
>become lost in the noisy real world.
>

You do the equivalent by explaining everything by saying "well that
happens because entropy increases. If your system is open you then
take into consideration the dissipative coupling of energy. Everything
in the universe happens that way. There is nothing more to be said.
Science is now complete. End of story."

>
>But if you want a nice paper on this subject, here's one.
>Once you've read it, a discussion can follow, but you
>won't. It's not real science to you since it's not
>about figuring out how long some migration route is
>or why ant testicles itch.
>
>It's about the core concepts which you aren't intelligent
>enough to grasp.
>
>
>Emergent Taxonomy
>https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf
>

This is a suitable subject for a separate post.

>
>
>Citing papers isn't discussing science, it's parroting.

Citing papers is providing evidence to support my claim. It is the
way science is done.

>I've repeatedly attempted to get you to discuss
>the science in the papers you cite, you won't
>since you can't.

This is a complete lie that even exceeds Trump's statements. It is I
who have repeatedly cited papers that you have ignored. I remember
you listing research programs from highy respected research
institutions dealing with complexity theory to try to prove some point
or other. So I cited publications listed on the web site of yours
programs and challenged you to discuss any of them except for a
cursory and totally invalid attempt to discuss pink noise power
spectra.

>It doesn't get any simpler than this question, I've
>dumbed it down as far as I can for you.
>
>Define the abstract relationship between cause and effect
>as explained by the butterfly effect, or by non-linear
>behavior.
>
>Anyone with the shit simplest understanding of these
>concepts could in five seconds, and from there
>a real discussion concerning science can begin
>as the implications of that relationship are
>profound to the way science must be done post
>complexity science.

You fail to understand that chaotic behavior is completely
deterministic in nature and that there are linear systems that
illustrate chaotic behavior. You completely fail to understand that
the trajectory of planets in the solar system is chaotic in theory but
that does not prevent us from making exceedingly accurate projections
of those trajectories. You have learned some common buzz words and
magic phrases about complexity theory that you love to toss around but
you demonstrate repeatedly that you have absolutely no idea how these
apply to life, the universe, or anything.

[Steven Carlip]

On 12/4/16 4:05 PM, Jonathan wrote:

[...]

> The butterfly effect shows the output (effect) diverges
> /exponentially fast/ from the input (cause).

Roughly. In a chaotic system, *changes* in the final
state diverge exponentially fast in response to *changes*
in the initial state.

> Meaning in takes but a few step from initial conditions or
> 'cause' before a direct relationship with 'effect'
> becomes impossible to draw.

Sometimes. It depends on the actual value of the exponent.
Planetary motion in the Solar System is chaotic, for example
-- we can only accurately predict the locations of the planets
for the next hundred million years or so. (You might consider
a hundred million years "a few steps," but I think most people
wouldn't.)

Details matter.

> That means the assumption all effects have an
> identifiable cause is erroneous and a fools
> assumption.

Not necessarily, though it might. It depends on what you
count as an "identifiable cause." If you mean *precisely*
identifiable, then you're right. If you mean *approximately*
identifiable, then it depends on the particular system.
Learn about basins of attraction.

> That means an equation of the form y = F (x) is useless
> for modeling the real live non-linear world of evolving
> systems.

Why? Do you think y = F(x) is necessarily linear?

One of the simplest standard examples of a chaotic system is
the logistics map,

x_{n+1} = r x_n (1-x_n)

Steve Carlip

[Burkhard]

Jonathan wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 3:40 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2016 8:23 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>>> Jonathan wrote:
>>>>> On 11/28/2016 6:00 PM, RSNorman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One amongst us (gee, I wonder who) has bombarded us for years with
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> great is the new revolution, new world view, new paradigm in science
>>>>>> called "complexity theory." Unfortunately all this comes with no
>>>>>> information on just how this Great New Thing actually applies to
>>>>>> anything in particular.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're such a blockhead. You keep insisting on applications
>>>>> but can't seem to fathom the notion that one must
>>>>> understand theory...first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh look, Jonathan posts a content free post again, and ignores all the
>>>> actual points being made, as this would require a true understanding of
>>>> how complexity theory works. Colour me surprised.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you have that understanding then? Otherwise how would
>>> you know if I don't
>>
>> I simply judge by your posts how else?
>
>
>
> Ah huh! Unless you have a working understanding of the
> concepts how in the world are you to judge anyone's
> explanation of the concepts?

I have a working understanding of mathematics, and also a working
understanding of the theory of science underpinning modern physics -
well, enough of an understanding at least to teach it on occasions at
university level.

>
> Are you really that big of a fool to think you can
> pass judgement over subjects you haven't the first
> idea about?
>
> Put up or shut up, point out my errors in detail and
> explain the correct explanation. Else you're nothing
> but hot-air.

I and several others have done this pretty persistently - the problem is
not that what you say is wrong, the problem is that it is empty - or
"not even wrong". That is, you take some sound scientific concepts and
put them into a string of words tha make them sound like woo.

>
>
>
>
>
>> None of them displays even a
>> modicum of understanding, simply by the form they have.
>
>
>
> By the form they have? Thanks for the laugh, that's
> the most idiotic thing I've heard since the last
> Norman post I read.

So you never head for formal logic? The general theory of inferences
that allows you to see if a conclusion follows form a set of premises
(even f you disagree with the premises, or if you do not fully
understand them)? Well colour me surprised.

Of of the way in which set theoretical structuralism analyses abstractly
the form of scientific theories (or claims that something is a theory)
to display if they have any empirical content, by making explicit the
constraints they impose on the set of possible models of the theory?

>
> You're argument from ignorance tactic is rather
> refreshing, haven't seen anyone try it since
> fifth grade.
>
>
>
>
> To use your own
>> preferred analogy, you need not have to have a profound understanding of
>> the theory of gravity to realize that someone who posts never ending
>> variations of
>>
>> "and you know something else that's great? Gravity! I mean, it is
>> literally EVERWHERE. And and you know that not just stones fall to the
>> ground, houses, cellos, polar bears and bishops do too, so it really
>> unifies all sciences, architecture, music, biology and theology"
>>
>
>
>
> Those are all emergent properties. So by knowing the properties
> of one concept, emergence, you learn the basic properties of
> all those examples, in abstract form of course.

wooooosh

But again unsurprising,

>
> But you haven't the first idea about the concept of
> emergence either, so you wouldn't know that.

I quite like the concept of emergence - if it is not abused as a cheap
excuse for intellectual laziness, which regrettably
happens a lot.
>
> And I've been saying gravity is an emergent property for
> some time here, years perhaps. Please read the paper below
> and NOTICE THE DATE the research was released.

and again, wooosh

>
> Please take note of this sentence in particular
> from the link....
>
>
> "'Many theoretical physicists like me are working on a revision
> of the theory, and some major advancements have been made.
> We might be standing on the brink of a new scientific
> revolution that will radically change our views on the
> very nature of space, time and gravity'."
>
>

and that has to do with my post exactly what?

>
>
> New theory of gravity might explain dark matter
> 8 November 2016
>
> A new theory of gravity might explain the curious motions of
> stars in galaxies. Emergent gravity, as the new theory is
> called, predicts the exact same deviation of motions that
> is usually explained by inserting dark matter in the theory.
> Prof. Erik Verlinde, renowned expert in string theory at
> the University of Amsterdam and the Delta Institute for
> Theoretical Physics, just published a new research paper
> in which he expands his groundbreaking views on the
> nature of gravity.
> http://www.uva.nl/en/news-events/news/uva-news/content/press-releases/2016/11/new-theory-of-gravity-might-explain-dark-matter.html
>
>
>
> Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269
>
>
>
>
>> has no effing clue what he is talking about.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> SO ASSHOLE show us you have an understanding of complexity
>>> science.
>>>
>>> I'm waiting? Or admit you're full of shit.
>>
>> Well, when you asked e for a definition and I gave a rather long one,
>> you ignored the post.
>
>
>
>
> Oh please repost it, I missed it.

your you did Jonathan, sure you did

here it is again

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/9Egv1-q0FwI/0gGjTKWZBAAJ

Can't wait to hear it.
> But of course you'll come up with some lame excuse
> like every other post and stick with just calling
> everything bullshit without any reason, oh wait
> ....form, I forgot.
>
>
> Form!
>
>
>
>
> s
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> s
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Jonathan]

On 12/4/2016 7:20 PM, RSNorman wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 07:38:23 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/3/2016 12:13 PM, RSNorman wrote:
>
> ...
> <snip an awful lot in the hope of preserving some sense of sanity>
> ...
>
>>
>>> Many people, myself included, have already referred you to the
>>> book "Complexity: A Guided Tour" by Melanie Mitchell. Given that the
>>> first chapter is titled "What is complexity?" and on page 13 she
>>> writes "Now I can propose a definition of the term complex system..."
>>> I see no reason to comply with your demands. I can crib from far
>>> better documents than you know about.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I just should take your word for it? Boy that's an example
>> of fact based discussion eh? What a coward.
>>
>
> You demand a definition and I gave you a very nice book on the subject
> and deliberately stopped just short of copying out the definition.
>

Well here's a book on quantum physics...

https://www-thphys.physics.ox.ac.uk/people/JamesBinney/qb.pdf

So that makes me well versed on every aspect of quantum physics
.....by your logic.

>>
>>> I am happy to see, though, that you have finally stopped trying to
>>> teach us utter nonsense about your false notions of what linear vs.
>>> non-linear really means. You also have abandoned your earlier
>>> favorite example of Y = k X vs X = k X as supposedly illustrating this
>>> difference.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm correct about that, show me I'm not? You haven't done
>> any such thing. You don't know what non-linear means.
>> You think it's a form of an equation.
>>
>> It's a relationship between input and output that can
>> be explained in about ten words. Show me you understand
>> even that most basic of all concepts?
>>
>> OH wait, you don't play that game, I forgot. What a bullshit
>> artist you've becomed.
>>
>
> A linear system obeys superposition, a non-linear one does not. That
> is ten words.
>

The Earth obeys the law of gravity, so I've just defined the Earth.

This is embarrassing to witness~

>>
>> You don't understand ANY of the basic concepts, and use
>> the excuse that talking science or math is a 'game'
>> you won't play.
>>
>> That's right, you won't play the science game.
>>
>
> Strange how I interject actual science in the form of published papers
> into the discussion but you reject that totally as irrelevant,

It's totally irrelevant to whether you understand the first thing
about complexity science, you're the one running around like
you're an expert on the subject and calling everything I say
is hooey.

You've shown you're not qualified to make such statements
over and over again.

> yet say
> I won't talk science. Many here including myself have tried to get you
> to understand the difference between doing pure mathematics and doing
> science that uses mathematics. Exactly the same applies to complex
> systems theory which is really just a branch of mathematics.

....just a branch of mathematics? Complexity Science provides
the theoretical model for all of existence.

Before these ideas each-and-every discipline had a unique
model for each-and-every type of system, most of them
so different they couldn't compare findings in any
meaningful way.

Now there is one common universal model for all of the universe
including life and everything in between. And better yet
it's based on pretty much the same Darwinian evolution
we all know and love. And better yet it's been placed
in entirely abstract form so each-and-every discipline
can compare notes to each-and-every-other discipline
and see WHAT THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON.

And WHAT THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON is the secret to
nature and reality.

And here's one perfectly good paper that explains
WHAT EVERYTHING HAS IN COMMON.

Emergent Taxonomy
https://arxiv.org/ftp/nlin/papers/0506/0506028.pdf


To characterize that as just another mathematical tool
is about as ignorant as it gets. You obviously fail
to understand what the new way is all about.

But it doesn't announce how long zebra stripe are
so to you it isn't science and you won't read it.

You just want someone to tell you the answer and
skip all the rest. That's called ignorance.
Worse, since you are deliberately remaining
ignorant.

What's the term for that? I can't even think of one.

Science is done by first understanding the concepts
then applying them. You haven't reached first base yet.

You can't even explain the butterfly effect, that's
like a mathematician admitting they can't add or
subtract, as the butterfly effect is the core
introductory concept for these ideas.

And it says there can be no direct relationship
between cause-and-effect.

What are the ramifications for that conclusion
on modern science, which is almost ENTIRELY BASED
on the notion that we should begin with the
....causes in order to understand...effects?


....just another branch of mathematics (lol)

Oh my God, an orbit is an exceedingly simple system
compared to nature. And you totally fail to grasp
that once a stable orbit forms, it's starting point
(it's INITIAL CONDITION) is forever erased.


Tell me precisely when and where the orbit of the
Earth began? You can't, once cylic behavior
emerges the starting point is erased, same
goes for creation and speciation.


Poof! Gone. Yet you still attempt to reduce to
the initial conditions like a fool.

> You have learned some common buzz words and
> magic phrases about complexity theory that you love to toss around but
> you demonstrate repeatedly that you have absolutely no idea how these
> apply to life, the universe, or anything.
>

When you've mastered 101 complexity science, you'll
understand what nonsense you've been spewing.
Citing papers is what people that can't think
for themselves do to cover up their ignorance
on the subject.

I claim there is one abstract model for all systems
and that is true, you don't have enough curiosity
to even consider what a stunning discovery that
turns out to be.




s

[Jonathan]

On 12/4/2016 7:59 PM, Steven Carlip wrote:
> On 12/4/16 4:05 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>
> [...]
>> The butterfly effect shows the output (effect) diverges
>> /exponentially fast/ from the input (cause).

>
> Roughly. In a chaotic system, *changes* in the final
> state diverge exponentially fast in response to *changes*
> in the initial state.
>
>> Meaning in takes but a few step from initial conditions or
>> 'cause' before a direct relationship with 'effect'
>> becomes impossible to draw.
>
> Sometimes. It depends on the actual value of the exponent.
> Planetary motion in the Solar System is chaotic, for example
> -- we can only accurately predict the locations of the planets
> for the next hundred million years or so. (You might consider
> a hundred million years "a few steps," but I think most people
> wouldn't.)

But several things, orbits are exceedingly simple
systems.

And once an orbit reaches a critical point
which is rare, it's future can no longer be
predicted.

In nature virtually every step is a critical point.

Also once a stable orbit forms, the starting point
is erased. For instance where and when did the orbit
of Earth begin??? That can't be answered once
the orbit becomes stable.

Cyclic behavior erases the initial condition.
To extrapolate an already stable orbit into
the future is not the same thing as starting
at the ultimate initial condition and
extrapolating to the present.

>
> Details matter.
>
>> That means the assumption all effects have an
>> identifiable cause is erroneous and a fools
>> assumption.
>
> Not necessarily, though it might. It depends on what you
> count as an "identifiable cause." If you mean *precisely*
> identifiable, then you're right. If you mean *approximately*
> identifiable, then it depends on the particular system.
> Learn about basins of attraction.
>

An attractor is future behavior, not initial as
the attractor shows what behavior the system
is attracted to...in the future.

It's important to keep clear where complexity science
applies, and where classical or quantum like
methods apply.

If a system has a few easily definable variables
then it can be solved in classical Newtonian
like methods. Using the deterministic equations

we all know and love.

If a system has countless variables that can't
be precisely defined, then statistical or
quantum like methods need to be applied.


Complexity science applies at the boundary...between
those two opposites.


Complexity Science applies to where there are
too few variables for a statistical method
and
too many variables for a classical method.


The 'messy middle' as the Cambridge mathematician
Neil Turok says.

That middle ground, or transition space between
classical and statistical methods is generically
called the 'complex realm' and defines the
concept of complexity.

Complexity = neither classical or quantum.

But both at the same time, entangled.

And remember this is about behavior or the
output side. Not part details, but system
behavior.

The next question is, where does the 'complex realm'
apply? The short answer is to everything that
evolves up to and including the universe itself.

The classical and quantum realms are merely
simplifications that are made so that we can
apply the math...we have.

We've been simplifying reality down to the
point it can fit existing math

That's not the same thing as finding a math
that...properly models reality.

Complexity science is the math that works
without simplifying nature, the math of the
transition /between/ classical and quantum
behavior.

As it's that transition realm that is the
/source and cause/ of all visible order
in the universe.

Not classical or quantum behavior.

Nature is the result of the /critical interaction/
between /classical and quantum behavior/.

When simplifying to either classical or quantum
you're only seeing half of he 'equation' of
reality, and as a result seeing only half
the picture.

For instance, if evolution is the result of
the critical interaction between genetics (rules)
and natural selection (random interactions)
then anyone that only looks at one or the other
will see a grossly incomplete picture
chock full of brick walls.

>> That means an equation of the form y = F (x) is useless
>> for modeling the real live non-linear world of evolving
>> systems.
>
> Why? Do you think y = F(x) is necessarily linear?
>

No, but when any deterministic equation is iterated
back into itself, as all cyclic or complex behavior
does, then it creates non-linear behavior.

Behavior which can diverge or converge exponentially fast
away from the starting point depending upon
the mere flap of a butterfly's wings.

Or an infinitely small error can cause the iterated
deterministic equation to create wholly unpredictable
future behavior.

That's why people keep saying complexity is inherently
deterministic, it is, it follows very simple deterministic
equations. But when those same equations are endlessly
iterated back into itself, the output can't be...determined.

> One of the simplest standard examples of a chaotic system is
> the logistics map,
>
> x_{n+1} = r x_n (1-x_n)
>

Right, but click here and look at the graph on the right
to see what happens when such an equation is iterated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory#Topological_mixing


Simple predictable equations become unpredictable when
iterated as in just about any real world complex system.

As a result to understand what the parts are doing
only the output, or emergence, is useful. Since
the /ultimate starting point/ can't be used to
extrapolate into the future and construct the
present reality.

If we see emergence, we know the ultimate
starting point is useless, as cyclic iterations
dominate. As with life, which is HIGHLY
cyclic in character


s




> Steve Carlip
>

[RSNorman]

Steve, good luck with this guy. I have tried for years to get him to
understand some of the math he so abuses. For example his blather
about iterated linear systems being non-linear or that only non-linear
systems can create exponential growth. Or his failure to distinguish
"deterministic" from "numerically computable given finite
computational resources."

Jonathan does have some valid points underlying the nonsense. His
raising of Laughlin's "Middle Way" for mesoscopic organization is one
although he no doubt has ever heard of Laughlin. For those interested,
see "The Middle Way" at
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/1/32.long
a reference I have often cited here in ages past.

It is quite true that between macroscopic systems and the behavior of
individual particles there lies a chaotic heat sink, hence entropy and
all that messy stuff. However Jonathan seems to believe that because
chaos has reared its ugly head there is no value in studying
quantitative laws that dissipative systems observe. Not just life but
also steam engines and electric circuits containing a resistor must
remain forever inscrutable.

[Jonathan]

What has that got to do with the concepts concerning
Complexity Science?

>>
>> Are you really that big of a fool to think you can
>> pass judgement over subjects you haven't the first
>> idea about?
>>
>> Put up or shut up, point out my errors in detail and
>> explain the correct explanation. Else you're nothing
>> but hot-air.
>
> I and several others have done this pretty persistently

No they haven't, not once has anyone pointed to a
specific claim or sentence and tried to point
out the error with anything more than
....'that's bullshit'.

Citing some paper having nothing to do with the
concepts is not a responsive reply, it's called
dodging.

- the problem is
> not that what you say is wrong, the problem is that it is empty - or
> "not even wrong". That is, you take some sound scientific concepts and
> put them into a string of words tha make them sound like woo.
>

Sounding like woo? Or you're unable to comprehend what
I say? Every word I use is carefully written and
has specific meanings.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> None of them displays even a
>>> modicum of understanding, simply by the form they have.

You see, statements like above is all that I get
from people like you. It's a totally worthless
statement devoid of any content whatsoever.
It's just the long way of saying 'that's bullshit'.

Is that all you can do is mutter 'bullshit'?
If you don't even know how to debate a subject
why should I take anything seriously from you
at all?

>>
>>
>>
>> By the form they have? Thanks for the laugh, that's
>> the most idiotic thing I've heard since the last
>> Norman post I read.
>
> So you never head for formal logic? The general theory of inferences
> that allows you to see if a conclusion follows form a set of premises
> (even f you disagree with the premises, or if you do not fully
> understand them)? Well colour me surprised.
>

Again, point our where my logic failed? Which sentence
or train of thought are you talking about? Your
statement above is worthless and just the ramblings
of someone that can't argue the concepts.

> Of of the way in which set theoretical structuralism analyses abstractly
> the form of scientific theories (or claims that something is a theory)
> to display if they have any empirical content, by making explicit the
> constraints they impose on the set of possible models of the theory?
>

Another empty statement, nothing in your post
addresses anything I've said in any way, shape
or form. Just more spewing about nothing at all.

Again, which statement of mine are you claiming
to be faulty?

Let me repost this train of thought below, can you
intelligently criticize it? First, you have
to understand it, which I seriously doubt you
do, but everything below is mainstream science
that I can defend with all the cites you like.

Go ahead, I dare you, offer something more than
.....'it's all bullshit'.

I fully expect to get nothing more from you
than...'no it isn't'... or other such childish
and ignorant replies. IF you claim something
is in error you need to state why in detail
and accept when you're shown to be wrong.

Put up or shut up~


.................

too few variables for a statistical method...

/and/

too many variables for a classical method.



The 'messy middle' as the Cambridge mathematician
Neil Turok says.

That middle ground, or transition space between
classical and statistical methods is generically
called the 'complex realm' and defines the
concept of complexity.

Complexity = neither classical or quantum behavior.

chock full of open mysteries and brick walls.

For instance the long-running open questions
of creation and speciation. The solution
to those questions can't be seen in the
parts, only the wholes, in the properties
of emergence.

And anyone that remains ignorant over the
properties of emergence, and ignorant on
it's centrality, can never solve the last
great questions.

It requires both, reductionist science and
emergent science at the same time.

>> That means an equation of the form y = F (x) is useless
>> for modeling the real live non-linear world of evolving
>> systems.
>
> Why? Do you think y = F(x) is necessarily linear?
>


No, but when any deterministic equation is iterated
back into itself, as all cyclic or complex behavior

does, then it usually creates non-linear behavior.

Which is behavior which can diverge or converge

exponentially fast away from the starting point
depending upon the mere flap of a butterfly's wings.

Or an infinitely small error can cause the iterated
deterministic equation to create wholly unpredictable
future behavior.

That's why people keep saying complexity is inherently
deterministic, it is, it follows very simple deterministic
equations. But when those same equations are endlessly
iterated back into itself, the output can't be...determined.

Cause and effect is no longer valid.

> One of the simplest standard examples of a chaotic system is
> the logistics map,
>
> x_{n+1} = r x_n (1-x_n)
>


Right, but click here and look at the graph on the right
to see what happens when such an equation is iterated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory#Topological_mixing


Simple predictable equations become unpredictable when
iterated as in just about any real world complex system.

As a result to understand what the parts are doing
only the output, or emergence, is useful. Since
the /ultimate starting point/ can't be used to
extrapolate into the future and construct the
present reality.

If we see emergence, we know the ultimate
starting point is useless, as cyclic iterations
dominate. As with life, which is HIGHLY
cyclic in character

s

[Jonathan]

What? Am I seeing correctly? A real question on
the subject? A genuine response?

I'm about to fall over~


The Lyapunov exponent describes the rate of separation
of infinitesimally close trajectories of a dynamical
system.

> (For extra
> credit, how are these numbers calculated.)
>

The maximal Lyapunov exponent can be defined as follows:

https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/9afb9ce57257ee44b88f963e3933b4cef33f3c6e


A positive MLE generally refers to a chaotic system.
Of course there are many other vector separation
orientations.



> Steve Carlip
>

[Jonathan]

You've yet to refute a single thing I've said.
You don't even understand what the terms
criticality, complexity or butterfly effect
mean.

All you do is cite some entirely irrelevant
paper about...ant testicles with the term
complexity science somewhere inside and
say 'voila' this is how real science is
done.

You still think when I refer to non-linear
behavior I'm referring to a non-linear
equation. Just because the words are
similar, but you haven't the first clue
what non-linear behavior is.

For example his blather
> about iterated linear systems being non-linear

Iterated linear systems display non-linear behavior
you twit. Do you know what the word behavior means.

> or that only non-linear
> systems can create exponential growth.

You are so confused.

> Or his failure to distinguish
> "deterministic" from "numerically computable given finite
> computational resources."
>
> Jonathan does have some valid points underlying the nonsense. His
> raising of Laughlin's "Middle Way" for mesoscopic organization is one
> although he no doubt has ever heard of Laughlin. For those interested,
> see "The Middle Way" at
> http://www.pnas.org/content/97/1/32.long
> a reference I have often cited here in ages past.
>
> It is quite true that between macroscopic systems and the behavior of
> individual particles there lies a chaotic heat sink, hence entropy and
> all that messy stuff.

So messy!

> However Jonathan seems to believe that because
> chaos has reared its ugly head there is no value in studying
> quantitative laws that dissipative systems observe. Not just life but
> also steam engines and electric circuits containing a resistor must
> remain forever inscrutable.
>

What you fail to grasp is that when emergence is observed
that means the parts are interacting chaotically.

So tell me, how are you to reduce to the parts and
quantify the initial conditions, to understand
how the whole came to be if the parts are
......BEHAVING CHAOTICALLY?

You old fool, answer that question, how do you
precisely detail a part that is critically
interacting with another part?

The question is akin to asking how one can
fully describe an animal without also
fully describing it's environment with which
it's critically interacting.

Answer, the output contains both, emergence
is the path to understanding the parts.

This isn't just another mathematical technique
but an entirely new and inversed scientific
frame of reference.

One must start with the whole (effects) in
order to understand the parts (cause).

Effect then cause, instead of cause and effect.

You're still lost in the old cause and effect
mindset, which is like clinging to a flat earth
perspective while standing next to a globe.


Wake up, it's not 1990 anymore, the scientific
revolution of all time upon us and you're
missing it.

I feel sorry for you.

[Jonathan]

On 12/4/2016 7:09 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:50:12 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You mean facts have nothing to do with your criticism.
>
>
> You mean the facts have nothing to do with your posts.
> --

Prove it! Isn't this an ng devoted to science?
So show your statement is correct with facts
not just the usual dodges and empty replies.

[jillery]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 21:08:43 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/4/2016 7:09 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:50:12 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You mean facts have nothing to do with your criticism.
>>
>>
>> You mean the facts have nothing to do with your posts.
>> --
>
>
>
>Prove it! Isn't this an ng devoted to science?
>So show your statement is correct with facts
>not just the usual dodges and empty replies.

OK. The following is the ID to my first post to this thread:

<ujo54cdmad3mk4gp1...@4ax.com>

The totality of which is as follows:

********************************************

Your line of reasoning above reminds me of the following anecdote:

<https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-great-stories-about-Richard-Feynman>

By analogy, as the young boy above used the names of birds as proxy
for knowing about birds, you use the definitions of concepts as proxy
for knowing about those concepts. It's arguable that knowing a
definition is necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient. Your line
of reasoning above is just a fancied-up spelling flame.

*******************************************

The above is an analogy. Do you deny that fact?

The above describes specific events as fact. Do you deny those
specific events?

Your posting behavior reminds me of that anecdote. Do you deny that
fact?

My post was a reply to your post, which was a reply to rnorman's post,
which described an example of how complexity theory is applied to real
science by real scientists. You objected to his description, claiming
that rnorman and the scientists to which he referred didn't understand
complexity theory sufficient to apply it. Apparently to show
rnorman's lack of understanding, you challenged him to identify the
meaning of specific terms relating to complexity theory. Do you deny
these facts?

In this topic, you and rnorman challenged each other wrt to the
meaning of "complex system". Do you deny that fact?

In this and several other and recent topics, you challenged others to
identify the meaning of complexity science. Do you deny that fact?

In my opinion, all of the above are facts which support my stated
opinion, that you use knowledge of the meaning of specific terms as
proxies for correctly applying complexity science. Do you deny that
is my expressed opinion?

You explicitly claimed, "You mean facts have nothing to do with your
criticism". Do you deny that fact?

Do you deny that my expressed opinion is factual? If so, what is the
purpose of your many and varied challenges to identify the meaning of
those specific terms?
--

[Jonathan]

I didn't think you could offer an intelligent
reply. Now we all know.

[Jonathan]

On 12/8/2016 11:31 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 21:08:43 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2016 7:09 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 18:50:12 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You mean facts have nothing to do with your criticism.
>>>
>>>
>>> You mean the facts have nothing to do with your posts.
>>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Prove it! Isn't this an ng devoted to science?
>> So show your statement is correct with facts
>> not just the usual dodges and empty replies.
>
>
> OK. The following is the ID to my first post to this thread:
>
> <ujo54cdmad3mk4gp1...@4ax.com>
>
> The totality of which is as follows:
>
> ********************************************
> Your line of reasoning above reminds me of the following anecdote:
>
> <https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-great-stories-about-Richard-Feynman>
>
> By analogy, as the young boy above used the names of birds as proxy
> for knowing about birds, you use the definitions of concepts as proxy
> for knowing about those concepts. It's arguable that knowing a
> definition is necessary, but it's certainly not sufficient. Your line
> of reasoning above is just a fancied-up spelling flame.
> *******************************************
>
> The above is an analogy. Do you deny that fact?
>

I understand the concepts, being called wrong by
those that do not understand them is in no way
reflects on the accuracy of my posts.

[satire alert] But maybe you're correct and
critics need not know anything about what
they're criticizing.

> The above describes specific events as fact. Do you deny those
> specific events?
>
> Your posting behavior reminds me of that anecdote. Do you deny that
> fact?
>
> My post was a reply to your post, which was a reply to rnorman's post,
> which described an example of how complexity theory is applied to real
> science by real scientists.

But one must first understand the concepts before
being able to apply them. I'm saying both you
and Norman do not have the first clue about
the concepts. And I would be correct, neither
of you have even attempted to demonstrate you
have any basic understanding at all.

Because you don't. Yet both of you feel qualified
to enter into a discussion about those concepts.
That's just idiotic.

> You objected to his description, claiming
> that rnorman and the scientists to which he referred didn't understand
> complexity theory sufficient to apply it.

I NEVER said the scientists he cited do not understand
the concepts, only that he didn't. He doesn't.
..And neither do you.

> Apparently to show
> rnorman's lack of understanding, you challenged him to identify the
> meaning of specific terms relating to complexity theory. Do you deny
> these facts?
>

What's wrong with that? Norman or you can't add or subtract
wrt complexity science, yet claim I'm somehow wrong.
That makes no sense at all. Why should I listen to
such ignorant criticism?

> In this topic, you and rnorman challenged each other wrt to the
> meaning of "complex system". Do you deny that fact?
>

Normal cited a couple examples of complex behavior
as his proof he understands the concepts.

That's like dropping a rock and saying...'I just
defined the concept of gravity'.

A child could do better.

> In this and several other and recent topics, you challenged others to
> identify the meaning of complexity science. Do you deny that fact?
>

And no one did, not one person. Funny about that.

> In my opinion, all of the above are facts which support my stated
> opinion, that you use knowledge of the meaning of specific terms as
> proxies for correctly applying complexity science. Do you deny that
> is my expressed opinion?
>

That's not correct at all, I've said dozens of times
and posted dozens of papers on the application
of complexity science. Usually to demonstrate
the incredible range of it's application.

And it's all real science just like the papers
Norman cites. As usual you deliberately miss
the point.

THE POINT is that once one understands the concepts
one can APPLY THEM to almost every discipline under
the sun. ONE CAN use them to provide the underlying
theoretical model FOR ALL DISCIPLINES.

/One concept for everything/ in the universe, including
life, and guess what? The concepts are based on
Darwinian evolution.

Such a profound discovery that A SINGLE DARWINIAN BASED
CONCEPT can define all that exists should be a source
of curiosity to any thinking person that cares about
science or nature.

YET neither of you care the least bit to explore
those concepts, merely settling to post papers
about some tiny aspect of the universe those
concepts are now defining.

And the two of you haven't the slightest idea how
those researchers made their conclusions, you
just skip down to the last paragraph and look
for the part that says 'how far', 'how much'
or 'where it came from'.

NOT how did they figure it out.

Do you want to be told, or do you want to
understand?

Don't you think a single abstract model for
all of the universe is a rather big deal?

DON'T YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THAT NEW MODEL?

If the answer is yes you need to know how to
define the concepts I go on and on about.

But you dodge in every way you can think of.
What are you afraid of?

> You explicitly claimed, "You mean facts have nothing to do with your
> criticism". Do you deny that fact?
>

Tell me what 'facts' have to do when discussing an
....abstract concept? Are you that unintelligent?

Is the following statement something you can't
understand? Complexity Science is an abstract
science so that the concepts can be applied
universally. One model for everything.



"An abstract structure in mathematics is a formal object
that is defined by a set of laws, properties, and
relationships in a way that is logically if not always
historically independent of the structure of contingent
experiences, for example, those involving physical
objects."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_structure

> Do you deny that my expressed opinion is factual? If so, what is the
> purpose of your many and varied challenges to identify the meaning of
> those specific terms?

The purpose is to learn them.

But learning new ideas do not compute for you and Norman, you'd
rather light your hair on fire first.

[Jonathan]

I forgot to ask.

WHEN WILL YOU BE READY TO DISCUSS THE CONCEPTS?

Instead of just bickering about who said what
and how.

WHEN WILL YOU BE READY TO DISCUSS THE CONCEPTS?

Which are things like the butterfly effect and
it's logical implications to cause and effect
based science.

Which are things like the concept of criticality
and it's implications to reductionist methods.

Or the concept of complexity and it's implications
to objective methods.

Or what are the definitions of static, dynamic and chaotic
wrt attractor theory.

OR what is a Complex Adaptive System.

Or what is emergence, and it's different types.
Or what is self organization, and it's different
levels?

Do you want to know ANYTHING about these concepts?

If not, stop wasting my time and put your head
back firmly into the sand from which it came.
And stop pretending you can criticize me
about any of those ideas.


Jonathan

[jillery]

Once again, you misrepresent the point I made. I did not say those
concepts are incorrect. I didn't even say your understanding of those
concepts is incorrect. Instead, I did say, and do say, that your
understanding of those concepts aren't even wrong, ie you're talking
about a subject different than those to whom you reply. Your failure
to even acknowledge that fundamental distinction, nevermind agree with
it, makes your reply here just as irrelevant as your other replies.

>> The above describes specific events as fact. Do you deny those
>> specific events?
>>
>> Your posting behavior reminds me of that anecdote. Do you deny that
>> fact?
>>
>> My post was a reply to your post, which was a reply to rnorman's post,
>> which described an example of how complexity theory is applied to real
>> science by real scientists.
>
>
>
>But one must first understand the concepts before
>being able to apply them. I'm saying both you
>and Norman do not have the first clue about
>the concepts. And I would be correct, neither
>of you have even attempted to demonstrate you
>have any basic understanding at all.
>
>Because you don't. Yet both of you feel qualified
>to enter into a discussion about those concepts.
>That's just idiotic.

So that's a "no" to both my questions above. Moving on...

>> You objected to his description, claiming
>> that rnorman and the scientists to which he referred didn't understand
>> complexity theory sufficient to apply it.
>
>
>
>
>I NEVER said the scientists he cited do not understand
>the concepts, only that he didn't. He doesn't.
>..And neither do you.

I acknowledge your technical distinction, and note its lack of
relevance.

>> Apparently to show
>> rnorman's lack of understanding, you challenged him to identify the
>> meaning of specific terms relating to complexity theory. Do you deny
>> these facts?
>>
>
>
>
>What's wrong with that? Norman or you can't add or subtract
>wrt complexity science, yet claim I'm somehow wrong.
>That makes no sense at all. Why should I listen to
>such ignorant criticism?
>
>
>
>> In this topic, you and rnorman challenged each other wrt to the
>> meaning of "complex system". Do you deny that fact?
>>
>
>
>Normal cited a couple examples of complex behavior
>as his proof he understands the concepts.
>
>That's like dropping a rock and saying...'I just
>defined the concept of gravity'.
>
>A child could do better.

So that's a "no" to my question above. Moving on...

>> In this and several other and recent topics, you challenged others to
>> identify the meaning of complexity science. Do you deny that fact?
>>
>
>
>And no one did, not one person. Funny about that.

So that's a "no" to my question above. Moving on...

So that's a "no" to my question above. Moving on...

>> You explicitly claimed, "You mean facts have nothing to do with your
>> criticism". Do you deny that fact?
>>
>
>
>
>Tell me what 'facts' have to do when discussing an
>....abstract concept? Are you that unintelligent?
>
>Is the following statement something you can't
>understand? Complexity Science is an abstract
>science so that the concepts can be applied
>universally. One model for everything.
>
>
>
>"An abstract structure in mathematics is a formal object
>that is defined by a set of laws, properties, and
>relationships in a way that is logically if not always
>historically independent of the structure of contingent
>experiences, for example, those involving physical
>objects."
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_structure

So that's a "no" to my question above. Moving on...

>> Do you deny that my expressed opinion is factual? If so, what is the
>> purpose of your many and varied challenges to identify the meaning of
>> those specific terms?
>
>
>
>The purpose is to learn them.
>
>But learning new ideas do not compute for you and Norman, you'd
>rather light your hair on fire first.

Since you claim rnorman I are so unteachable, the purpose you claim is
futile. One or both of your claims is necessarily false. The problem
here is you don't admit it.

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:09:22 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I forgot to ask.
>
>WHEN WILL YOU BE READY TO DISCUSS THE CONCEPTS?

Since you asked, when the concepts are applied to the topic under
discussion.

You're welcome.

[Jonathan]

On 12/10/2016 12:49 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:09:22 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I forgot to ask.
>>
>> WHEN WILL YOU BE READY TO DISCUSS THE CONCEPTS?
>
>
> Since you asked, when the concepts are applied to the topic under
> discussion.
>

What a load of bullshit. You're an ignorant person.

[Burkhard]

You think I have nothing better to do than to arrange my life according
to your timetable? Have another thought coming, sonny

And you still haven't posted anything of any interest that would merit a
reply, not for the past 2 years or so

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:05:59 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What a load of bullshit. You're an ignorant person.

Actually, if your first sentence was metaphorically valid, that would
mean I'm a stupid person. Since your first sentence is just more
retard spam, both statements are trivially dismissed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 14:33:46 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:05:59 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What a load of bullshit. You're an ignorant person.
>
>
>Actually, if your first sentence was metaphorically valid, that would
>mean I'm a stupid person. Since your first sentence is just more
>retard spam, both statements are trivially dismissed.

But they're essentially all he has; either you agree with
him in all respects or you're stupid, ignorant and incapable
of entertaining an abstract thought.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov