Re: Dynamical Hierarchies

[Jerry Zhu <***>]

Dynamical system with hierachy levels implies living
systems.  Complex systems may not be living systems
therefore may not have hierarchical structures.  No
simple systems such as a mechanical system have a
structure of levels of hierarchy.  Discussions of
living systems without explicitly addressing levels of
hierarchy is like talking about Solar system without
talking about planets.  Or like religious talk that is
too abstract.  Or is no different from talking about
simple systems. Does an automoble anticipate? The
formation of hierarchies are the means of serires of
symmetry breakings of time and spece as ways of
simultaneously increase of order and and complexity.

Jerry

--- David Macy <***> wrote:

> Hey Judith,
> 
>     Yeah, I thought that the introduction was pretty
> interesting too.  I feel like most of the guys at
> Artificial Life (AL) are what I call
> builder/establishers, so if it's a living dynamic
> (prosaiclly speaking) that they wish to establish
> and understand, then my guess is that they will
> arrive at a similar if not identical place that
> Robert Rosen arrived at.
> 
> It is unclear to me from the context of the
> introduction what is intended by their use of
> "dynamical".  That is, whether it is dynamics in
> state spaces or dynamics in the more prosaic sense. 
> AL has a "big tent" policy, so maybe they meant it
> both ways.  Later in the introduction however there
> is the following sentence...
> 
> "A complete synthetic framework for dynamical
> hierarchies will not only provide an understanding
> for the organization and origin of the complexity in
> biological systems, but also influence all fields
> that have adopted biological theories or appeal to
> some form of emergence to create complexity out of
> simplicty."
> 
> ...which strikes me as needing some rewording to be
> in agreement with Robert Rosen's perspective or
> usage.  Do you think I'm wrong?  Also my guess is
> that "a formal framework for synthesizing dynamical
> hierarchies at all scales" is in fact (M,R)-systems.
>  I mean don't these "succesive triplets" that Robert
> spoke of address this issue of dynamical hierarchies
> at all scales?
> 
> What confounds all these communications I think is a
> simultaneous effort to define terminology (like
> dynamical hierarchies) while at the same time using
> words like complexity, organization, simplicity,
> emergence, dynamical, etc. which may have a
> different semantic referents for each who uses them.
>  What's that old chinese proverb?  "A word is a
> finger that points to the moon.  The finger is not
> itself the moon."  So you've got the same finger
> pointing at different moons simultaneously. 
> Emergence, for instance, I mainly understand as the
> non-living (organization) to living (organization)
> transition.  But emergence for some apparently means
> something like the active site of a protein/enzyme
> emerging from it's folded shape.
> 
> What's clear is that there are a circle of ideas
> here that are interelated in some specific manner.
> 
> Oh, apparently Steen Rassmusen is a defender or
> advocate of what he also calls dynamical
> hierarchies.
> 
> David 
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Judith Rosen 
>   To: *** 
>   Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 11:32 AM
>   Subject: Re: Dynamical Hierarchies
> 
> 
>   Hi David,
> 
>   Interesting post!
> 
>   I wonder how they mean it when they use the word
> "dynamical"? In my father's usage, dynamical has a
> particular, very specific meaning. Dynamical systems
> are simple systems; fully computable (reducible to
> syntax). They can be addressed via physics, using
> state descriptions, etc. The more prosaic meaning
> for "dynamical" tends to mean "constantly
> interactive and interacting, and therefore
> undergoing constant change" which is a completely
> different animal. That usage, and the further
> description in the clip David posted, seem more to
> be describing complex system behavior.
> 
>   But I think the situation is even more difficult
> than they apparently perceive. In the quote:
> 
>   "A typical example in this context is the
> functional differences between proteins and their
> building blocks, amino acids.  The functionality of
> proteins is not directly the result of the
> properties of the individual amino acids. "
> 
>   The functionality (of proteins) is equally not the
> result of the entire protein, either. The protein is
> not capable of functional activity until it assumes
> its folded shape. Even then, it is further true that
> the protein's functionality is not just because of
> the folded shape. Instead, the protein's
> functionality is a result of the interactions
> between the folded shape and other aspects of the
> organism and environment. So all of the previous
> development of the protein is part of the context
> for this eventual interaction... Stated another way:
> The future interactivity (functional capability) of
> the protein is what drives all of the previous
> development. That's anticipation, which must be part
> of the model they seek to build. 
> 
>   But they have achieved a lot here. They clearly
> perceive that relations between components are of
> critical interest in modeling organismal behavior,
> as well as the further fact that direct relations
> are not the only critical ones in organisms. This
> represents some much needed, really important
> progress in science. 
> 
>   Do they, however, recognize the significance of
> it, with regards to the machine metaphor and the
> accompanying state-based model of the universe? 
> 
>   Judith
> 
> 
>   Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
>   BioTheory: An electronic journal of general
> science based on the Relational (Rosennean)
> Complexity Paradigm
>   On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:20 AM, David Macy wrote:
> 
> 
>     Hey Guys,
> 
>      
>         I have here in front of me a copy of
> Artificial Life, volume 11, number 4.  The issue is
> devoted to dynamical hierarchies.  I thought that I
> would type in a part of the guest editors'
> introduction to see what (if anything) you guys
> might have to say about it.  I generally like these
> guys at Artificial Life.  They are an eclectic and
> very cross-disciplinary crowd.
> 
>      
>     The guest editors are as follows:  Tom Lenearts,
> Dominique Chu, and Richard Watson.
> 
>      
>     The first paragraph of the introduction is as
> follows...
> 
>      
>     In "Open Problems in Artificial Life",
> Artificial Life, volume 6 (number 4), pgs. 363-376,
> Mark Bedau et al. proposed a set of fourteen open
> problems in artificial life.  The content of this
> special issue specifically addresses one of those
> suggested problems: How can we create a formal
> framework for synthesizing dynamical hierarchies at
> all scales?  The dynamical hierarchy concept refers
> to a system that consists of multiple levels of
> organization having dynamics within and between the
> entities described at each of the differing levels. 
> An important aspect of this concept is the fact that
> entities at different levels can have different
> functionalities that emerge from the interactions of
> the lower-level units.  In other words, dynamical
> hierarchies define a system that is structured by
> part-whole relationships between objects, where each
> whole can exhibit properties and can interact in
> ways different from its parts.   As a consequence,
> the complete system needs to be modeled as
> structures relating different description levels of
> dynamical systems and their interconnectedness.  A
> typical example in this context is the functional
> differences between proteins and their building
> blocks, amino acids.  The functionality of proteins
> is not directly the result of the properties of the
> individual amino acids.  The overall protein
> structure plays a crucial role here.  As a
> consequence, properties that amino acids do not
> exhibit in their solitary state can be exhibited
> collectively.  The same observations can be made
> when moving from solitary proteins to the level of
> protein-protein interactions.  New functionalities
> emerge as a result of the different complexes
> produced by these interactions.  It is the
> combination of all these dynamical levels from amino
> acids to multicellular organisms that makes it a
> dynamical hierarchy and not merely some simple
> single-level emergent phenomenon.
> 
>      
>     Well there it is.  I hope that you all are doing
> well.
> 
>      
>     David



        
                
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com