JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SIMSOC Archives


SIMSOC Archives

SIMSOC Archives


SIMSOC@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SIMSOC Home

SIMSOC Home

SIMSOC  2003

SIMSOC 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: computability ... Re: Bit-flipping model of culture

From:

Carl Henning Reschke <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Carl Henning Reschke <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 10 Apr 2003 03:01:59 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (270 lines)

Hi

as i see it the problem of increasing complexity
through exponentially increasing reltions - that might
or might not matter - is not the real problem in
social simulation.

The real problem is that of getting qualitative change
into the model, and qualitative change in a fashion
that goes beyond the phase transition type of change.

This week there is short interview with Frank
Schweitzer in c't a german computer magazine.
He implicitly argues that one could get from
quantitaive changes - the collective state a la pahse
transition which emerged form the interactions  among
agents - via co-evolution to qualitative change, i.e.
"second-order emergence" (I am not quite sure whether
he really means the same as von Foerster).
He concludes - as far as he knows - that nobody has
managed to reach self-organisation models of
hierarchical social structures.

a) Is he right?
b) why?

And now comes some marketing ;) theres an article of
mine in JASSS 4/4/8 from 2001 that touches upon some
of the problems.

There is also the work of R.A. Watson at Brandeis how
is working on a computational implementation.

The basic problem is that of emergence and how it is
possibly brought about by compartmentalization - that
is actually sth that Herber Spencer - despite other
misgivings - got right in his trial to identify
evolutionary principles in/from biology and sociology.

Similarly Margulis theory of increasing complexity in
cell-evolution works with fusion and
compartmentalization.
Szathmary and Maynard Smith also present some
mechanisms to overcome this problem in their 1995
article (Nature it was I think).

Therefore the way to succes might be to defocus from
interaction and get the fusion/compartmentalization
into the model since it could deliver the system
transition that seems necessary for qualitative change
/ emergence. This is not necessarily a problem of
computing power and computability, but of model /
system structure.

Comments? Am I right or did i oversee sth?

Best,
Carl Henning Reschke

--- "Bayer, Steffen" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as far as I can see Loet's argument about the
> enormous increase in the
> computational space for social systems is even
> stronger than he makes it.
>
> If we allowed persons to have multiple relations,
> there could be many more
> than 10^10 configurations of relations between 10
> persons.
>
> If I am not mistaken there would be (2^9)^10 = 2^90
> configurations if
> relations could be uni-directional and (2^9 + 2^8 +
> 2^7 + 2^6 + 2^5 + 2^4 +
> 2^3 + 2^2 + 2^1 = 2^45) if relations were
> bi-directional.
>
> Steffen
>
>
> Dr Steffen Bayer
> Innovation Studies Centre
> The Business School
> Imperial College London
> South Kensington Campus
> London, SW7 2AZ, UK
>
> ph.: +44-(0)20 759 45935
> fax: +44-(0)20 7823 7685
> office: Rm 101, Civil Engineering bldg
> http://www.imperial.ac.uk/business/innovation
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loet Leydesdorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 08 April 2003 18:37
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: computability ... Re: Bit-flipping
> model of culture
>
> Dear Andreas and colleagues,
>
> I thought that non-computability is particularly
> relevant to social
> systems because the N of cases is part of the
> exponent. The
> computational space then rapidly explodes.
>
> For example, if one throws two dice there are 6^2
> possibilities. If one
> throws three dice, there are 6^3 possibilities, etc.
> In general: 6^N,
> where N is the number of dice.
>
> Analogously: If we have a group of 10 persons who
> can all maintain
> relations with each other, this system has 10^10
> possible states if each
> configuration of relations is counted as one
> possible state. The
> specification of mechanisms (hypotheses) selects on
> this phase space and
> makes the system computable.
>
> With kind regards,
>
>
> Loet
>   _____
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
> Science & Technology Dynamics, University of
> Amsterdam
> [log in to unmask] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: News and discussion about computer
> simulation in the
> > social sciences [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of
> > Andreas Schamanek
> > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 12:31 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: computability ... Re: Bit-flipping model
> of culture
> >
> >
> > Hi SIMSOC,
> >
> > On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Alan Penn wrote:
> >
> > > This brings a question to mind: are there any
> qualitative
> > properties
> > > of systems that are provably _not_ representable
> in terms of bits?
> > >
> > > The theory of computation says that anything
> computable can be
> > > computed using a finite state machine (if I
> understand it
> > right) so I
> > > suppose such properties - if they exist - must
> not be
> > computable. If
> > > so what are they, and are they socially
> interesting?
> >
> > From a social sciences' point of view (and quite
> some more),
> > I'd say that I do not like the notion of
> 'computability'. Is
> > there a property that is not represented in any
> way? Is there
> > a property that cannot be represented in some way?
> Every
> > computation is some form of representation (that
> we generally
> > call model). It depends solely on yourself (and
> your
> > colleagues) whether a property is computable or
> not.
> >
> > Of course, the notion of 'representation' is also
> a
> > representation. But, that's a different story.
> >
> > Another story, since we have already discussed
> lots of chaos
> > theory, here, goes like this: As most of you know,
> one of the
> > properties of a deterministic chaotic time series
> is the fact
> > that values do not repeat. No matter how often you
> iterate,
> > e.g., the logistic equation
> >
> >   X(n+1) = 4 * X(n) * ( 1- X(n) ) ;  X(0) out of [
> 0 ... 1 ]
> >
> > there will never be a value of X(n) that equals
> any other
> > X(m) except for m = n.
> >
> > A computer is only a finite state machine. It can
> compute
> > everything, but only given enough time and enough
> finite
> > states :) Our everyday computers are _very_ finite
> state
> > machines. So, if you compute the logistic equation
> with a
> > computer (using some computer language, say
> FORTRAN or C),
> > you will observe that already after only a few
> iterations of
> > the logistic equation you will get a X(n) that you
> have seen
> > before. Once you have found this X(n), say after p
> > iterations, every X(m+p) will equal X(m) for m =
> n, n+1, n+2,
> > ... You have found a cycle, a period of length p.
> (p, by the
> > way, is astonishingly small: often only a few
> thousand
> > iterations if you declare/define X as a single
> precision variable).
> >
> > So, here is a property that is (generally) not
> computable:
> > Deterministic chaos.
> >
> > Besides non-periodicity there is also the Lyapunov
> exponent
> > which shall be above 1 for chaotic time series.
> The Lyapunov
> > exponent, by the way, is a measure for how much or
> how fast 2
> > time series that describe the same system will
> nevertheless
> > diverge if computed with slightly different
> values.
> >
> > The strange part of this story is that when you
> compute the
> > Lyapunov exponent for a time series generated by a
> > computation of the logistic equation, i.e, a
> periodic time
> > series, you still get values above 1.
> >
> > Does that mean that when we look at computed
> non-computable
> > properties by means of computation that we see the
> world just
> > like it is?
> >
> >
> >
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager