emergence/What rank on Amazon do you target?
Richard Gordon
Dear Evgenii,
Okay, I see that you are a bit of a philosopher of science, at the
same time trading a value system of publish or perish for one of
popularity ratings and cash. Both have their disparate, sometimes
intersecting ways of seeking truth. My 1999 book on embryogenesis sold
500 copies (Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,417,710), and a few of its
readers are in the Embryo Physics Course. This is better than I
expected, since my good ideas usually take 30 years to be noticed and
castigated, appreciated, or ignored and rediscovered.
I hope that we will hear from you soon in your own Embryo Physics
Course talk, and that Liz Stillwaggon Swan, who gets paid to be a
philosopher of science, will be there.
As for Amazon ratings, why not aim for #1? The top 100 are kept at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books
and seem to indicate the counterintuitive notion that political
conservatives read more than political liberals, so thanks for
indirectly providing me with that insight. :)
The problem with:
Laughlin, R.B. (2005). A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from
the Bottom Down. New York, Basic Books.
is not his ideas, which are tantalizing, but the fact that he dumbed
down his book, left out the evidence, and left those of us who want to
evaluate what he says hanging. Unfortunately there is no exegesis of
Laughlin in:
Fromm, J. (2004). The Emergence of Complexity. Kassel, Kassel University Press.
I have, indeed, been collecting papers by Jochen Fromm, and will get
to them after I finish reading Holland’s book on complex adaptive
systems. In the meantime, I’ll invite him to speak in our Embryo
Physics Course. If you know him personally, please encourage him to do
so.
Thanks for your spirited and informed discussion.
Yours, -Dick Gordon
--
Haiti Earthquake Kids’ Education:
http://www.freeplayfoundation.org/haitiearthquakefund.html
Dr. Richard Gordon, Professor, Radiology, University of Manitoba
GA216, HSC, 820 Sherbrook Street, Winnipeg R3A 1R9 Canada
E-mail: gor...@cc.umanitoba.ca, Skype: DickGordonCan, Second Life:
Paleo Darwin, Cell: 1-(204) 995-7125
Embryo Physics Course: http://embryophysics.org/;
http://bookswithwings.ca; Adjunct Scientist: TRLabs, http://www.win.trlabs.ca/
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/medicine/radiology/stafflist/rgordon.html
Affiliate, Institute of Industrial Mathematical Sciences (IIMS),
http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/iims/
Principal Scientific Advisor, EvoGrid: http://www.evogrid.org
Iavor Kostov
previously you wrote:
"My latest thought, which may be novel(?), is that there are two kinds of emergence: passive and active. The latter involves change of the units in response to global properties of the whole. [...] Active emergence might strictly be a property of living systems, always involving perception of some sort, and thus a distinguishing property of life. Maybe you could provide counterexamples?"
How about star formation? As a molecular cloud becomes denser and collapses onto itself, the gravitational force becomes sufficiently strong to overcome the electrostatic forces of repulsion between atomic nuclei and to allow the process of nuclear fusion to begin. Then I believe we have an example of "active" emergence in a non-living system – the units (atomic nuclei) change (fuse into heavier nuclei) in response to the global properties of the whole (the gravitational field). In fact, this active emergence allows the whole to exist – the pressure from the process of nuclear fusion keeps the star in a hydrostatic equilibrium and prevents it from collapsing under its own gravitational field. Thus, in star formation we have a process of emergence where the part/whole mutually "support" each other:
1) The global properties of the whole (the gravitational field) cause a transformation of the parts of the whole (the nuclei);
2) This transformation in turn keeps the global property (the gravitational field) in check and allows the continuing existence of the whole (the star) – at least for a while.
Iavor
Evgenii Rudnyi
> Okay, I see that you are a bit of a philosopher of science, at the
> same time trading a value system of publish or perish for one of
> popularity ratings and cash. Both have their disparate, sometimes
Publish or perish is must for academics but I now is working for a
company. I guess, in this case it is of some advantage.
> intersecting ways of seeking truth. My 1999 book on embryogenesis sold
> 500 copies (Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,417,710), and a few of its
> readers are in the Embryo Physics Course. This is better than I
Our book of 2006 (Fast Simulation of Electro-Thermal MEMS) has the rank
#2,710,122, so I think I understand what money it brings.
> expected, since my good ideas usually take 30 years to be noticed and
> castigated, appreciated, or ignored and rediscovered.
>
> I hope that we will hear from you soon in your own Embryo Physics
> Course talk, and that Liz Stillwaggon Swan, who gets paid to be a
> philosopher of science, will be there.
>
> As for Amazon ratings, why not aim for #1? The top 100 are kept at:
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books
> and seem to indicate the counterintuitive notion that political
> conservatives read more than political liberals, so thanks for
> indirectly providing me with that insight. :)
It would be definitely good to target the rank #1 but one should be
realistic. First it would be good to reach the level of the Laughlin's
book.
By the way, Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species: 150th Anniversary
Edition keeps the rank #3,441 on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065/
This shows that science actually can make it!
Best wishes,
Evgenii
> The problem with:
>
> Laughlin, R.B. (2005). A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from
> the Bottom Down. New York, Basic Books.
>
> is not his ideas, which are tantalizing, but the fact that he dumbed
> down his book, left out the evidence, and left those of us who want to
> evaluate what he says hanging. Unfortunately there is no exegesis of
> Laughlin in:
>
> Fromm, J. (2004). The Emergence of Complexity. Kassel, Kassel University Press.
>
> I have, indeed, been collecting papers by Jochen Fromm, and will get
> to them after I finish reading Holland�s book on complex adaptive
> systems. In the meantime, I�ll invite him to speak in our Embryo
Evgenii Rudnyi
> I had been loosely following the discussion on emergence and chaos and such, but think I lost the
> thread. Evgenii, are you engaged in moving over to the dark side, philosophy of
science, or in
> writing a book on the topic?
No, no. Right now I am just enjoying the life.
> Dick's right, I do get paid, but it's adjunct pay (below-poverty-income) for a full teaching load,
>so if you're considering going my way, let's talk first. A best-selling book, whatever you have planned,
>might be better....
By the way, Paul Feyerabend, Against Method keeps the rank #77,218 on
Amazon.
It could be that using ranks on Amazon is better than the citation index
in the Web of Science. It is actually even more objective for here the
decision is made directly by taxpayers.
Evgenii
> Dick - this week I'll be in Utah on vacation so won't be at the Embryo Physics class, but plan to
>return soon. Also, Lou Goldberg was the one at the door last time, and will try to be there this week.
>
> Best,
>
> Liz
>
>
> Liz Stillwaggon Swan, PhD
>
> Philosophy Instructor
> Boulder Evening Program
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> http://lizswan.com
> ________________________________________
> From: Richard Gordon [dickgo...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 6:50 AM
> To: embryo...@googlegroups.com
> Cc: Dr. Evgenii Rudnyi; Swan, Liz
> Subject: emergence/What rank on Amazon do you target?
> to them after I finish reading Holland�s book on complex adaptive
> systems. In the meantime, I�ll invite him to speak in our Embryo
> Physics Course. If you know him personally, please encourage him to do
> so.
>
> Thanks for your spirited and informed discussion.
> Yours, -Dick Gordon
>
> --
> Haiti Earthquake Kids� Education: