Emergence Theory

[Xander]

Emergence... the study of bottom-up systems... simple, individual parts interact to form more complex order... the whole is greater than the sum of its parts... spontaneous order

Intro:
I'm attempting to summarize a science that takes volumes of books to cover, so bear with me. The basic concept is simple, so if I can just convey that and its applications, and you're then able to understand and correctly identify emergent systems, we're gold.

Using the wikipedia entry on Emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent) has a poetic quality, so I'm going to plagiarize like crazy.

Examples of emergent structures in natural phenomena:
-The shape of weather phenomena (e.g. hurricanes)
-Color, friction, temperature, water-tension, etc.
-Physics (i.e. classical, statistical, continuum mechanics, etc.)
-Chemistry
-Evolution

Examples of emergent systems in biology:
The ant colony. The queen does not give direct orders and does not tell the ants what to do. Instead, each ant reacts to stimuli in the form of chemical scent from larvae, other ants, intruders, food, etc. Here each ant is an autonomous unit that reacts depending only on its local environment and the genetically encoded rules for its variety of ant. Despite the lack of centralized decision making, ant colonies exhibit complex behavior and have even been able to demonstrate the ability to solve geometric problems. For example, colonies routinely find the maximum distance from all colony entrances to dispose of dead bodies.

A broader example of emergent properties in biology is the combination of individual atoms to form molecules like polypeptides, which in turn form organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, organisms, and communities. In turn, all the biological communities in the world form the biosphere, the current known level of emergent properties.

Examples of emergent systems in society:
The stock market. As a whole it precisely regulates the relative prices of companies across the world, yet it has no leader; there is no one entity which controls the workings of the entire market. Agents, or investors, have knowledge of only a limited number of companies within their portfolio, and must follow the regulatory rules of the market and analyze the transactions individually or in large groupings. There is a level of the stock market example that leads from Chaos Theory into Emergence Theory, but that's a topic in and of itself.

The World Wide Web. A popular example of a decentralized system exhibiting emergent properties, the WWW features no central organization rationing the number of links, yet the number of links pointing to each page follows a power law in which a few pages are linked to many times and most pages are seldom linked to (clumping, which explains why when you see one used car lot, you typically see a bunch of them in the same area). A related property of the network of links in the world wide web is that almost any pair of pages can be connected to each other through a relatively short chain of links. Although relatively well known now, this property was initially unexpected in an unregulated network. Many thought an unregulated network would lead to chaos and the "Wild West Web."

There are many other examples in the wikipedia article, or let me know if you're interested and I can recommend a few books.

Emergence in politics:
Economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek wrote about emergence in the context of law, politics, and markets. His theories are most fully developed in Law, Legislation and Liberty, which sets out the difference between cosmos or "grown order" (that is, emergence), and taxis or "made order". Hayek dismisses philosophies that do not adequately recognize the emergent nature of society, and which describe it as the conscious creation of a rational agent (be it God, the Sovereign, or any kind of personified body politic, such as Hegel's state or Hobbes's leviathan). The most important social structures, including the laws ("nomos") governing the relations between individual persons, are emergent, according to Hayek. While the idea of laws and markets as emergent phenomena comes fairly naturally to an economist, and was indeed present in the works of early economists such as Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, and Adam Smith, Hayek traces the development of ideas based on spontaneous-order throughout the history of Western thought, occasionally going as far back as the presocratics. In this, he follows Karl Popper, who blamed the idea of the state as a made order on Plato in The Open Society and its Enemies.

Conclusion:
Interaction amongst individual parts form complex (and often spontaneous) order in every facet of the natural world. This complex order is entirely void from a conscious agent (commands from "the top"). It is only in the human world that unnatural, top-down systems of The State exist, where a small group try to impose control over the whole.

Keep in mind the individual parts in emergent structures follow simple rules. Water molecules must bond by certain laws, resulting in water tension. Gravity between star systems interact within certain rules, resulting in galaxies. Individual ants must gather food if they do not encounter a certain number of food-gatherers in the colony, resulting in the entire colony being fed. Individual stock brokers sell and buy stock when they believe it to be beneficial, resulting in a precisely-regulated price market.

Along with Hayek, I conflict with philosophies that seem to disregard the emergent nature of society. The most important social structures, including the laws ("nomos") governing the relations between individual persons, are emergent. In centrally-planned economies, an individual or a select group of individuals must determine the distribution of resources, but these planners will never have enough information to carry out this allocation reliably. This carries over to other facets of individual interaction (e.g. politicians do not know how to run a school better than its teachers).

Well, so there's a crash course on Emergence Theory. As a peculiar aside, for some reason all of my political, economic, social, and philosophical perspectives happen to follow this bottom-up structure (which was interesting to discover as I learned more regarding the mathematics/science behind Emergence Theory).

Any questions? :p

[wordsmith]

You're not plagiarizing unless you claim you wrote it and take credit for same...you're simply reposting. :)

[and1grad]

Examples of emergent structures in natural phenomena:
-The shape of weather phenomena (e.g. hurricanes)
-Color, friction, temperature, water-tension, etc.
-Physics (i.e. classical, statistical, continuum mechanics, etc.)
-Chemistry
-Evolution
Why Physics? I agree with the rest.
A broader example of emergent properties in biology is the combination of individual atoms to form molecules like polypeptides, which in turn form organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, organisms, and communities. In turn, all the biological communities in the world form the biosphere, the current known level of emergent properties.
I'm not sure you can go from individual cell function to communities so linearly like this. I cant say I'm really convinced that biology is more bottom up than it is top down when it comes to something like cell function.
The World Wide Web. A popular example of a decentralized system exhibiting emergent properties, the WWW features no central organization rationing the number of links, yet the number of links pointing to each page follows a power law in which a few pages are linked to many times and most pages are seldom linked to (clumping, which explains why when you see one used car lot, you typically see a bunch of them in the same area). A related property of the network of links in the world wide web is that almost any pair of pages can be connected to each other through a relatively short chain of links. Although relatively well known now, this property was initially unexpected in an unregulated network. Many thought an unregulated network would lead to chaos and the "Wild West Web."
This is probably the best example. Would you say there isnt a "Wild West Web" right now?
Hayek dismisses philosophies that do not adequately recognize the emergent nature of society, and which describe it as the conscious creation of a rational agent (be it God, the Sovereign, or any kind of personified body politic, such as Hegel's state or Hobbes's leviathan). The most important social structures, including the laws ("nomos") governing the relations between individual persons, are emergent, according to Hayek.
I agree with that.
It is only in the human world that unnatural, top-down systems of The State exist, where a small group try to impose control over the whole.
I cant say I agree with this. Sounds like basic pack mentality, which is displayed by many animals.
Any questions? :p
What about for top down theory? :)

[Xander]

Why Physics? I agree with the rest.
Well, lets just talk about classical and continuum mechanics.

Classical mechanics describes macroscopic objects (like a car or galaxy). A car on the road has many forces in play (gravity, friction, centrifical force, etc.). All of these forces, laws, etc. emerge from rules bound by quantum mechanics, which is a can of worms I'll leave for the quantum mechanics thread. ;)

Continuum mechanics basically deals with crap made of atoms that keep moving (like pee). One of the most basic I already touched upon: water tension. And my favorite: decrease in density when water freezes (why we're alive, because oceans/lakes would freeze over otherwise). It's an incredible phenomena, but besides the point...

I'm not sure you can go from individual cell function to communities so linearly like this.
You can. Think about it in its parts. That's just how it is, even if it's a ton to take in with just a sentence or two.
I cant say I'm really convinced that biology is more bottom up than it is top down when it comes to something like cell function.
Well, there's not much I can say other than it is bottom up. No biologist would even think about denying this.

This is probably the best example. Would you say there isnt a "Wild West Web" right now?
Absolutely! Do you really see the internet falling apart in chaos and disorder?

I cant say I agree with this. Sounds like basic pack mentality, which is displayed by many animals.
I knew someone would bring up pack mentality! :p Pack mentality completely fits the bottom up structure, and is a great example of how we humans have somehow perverted this concept. We think of pack behavior as one person (or a small group) telling others exactly how to behave. That's not how it works. Wolves, for example, have "alpha" leaders, as I'm sure you know. But they're not the type of leaders people seem to think they are, because we project our top down concept of organization onto them. Being an alpha simply means they have more freedom to do whatever they want amongst the pack. (packs are a form of "clumping" or "clustering" and follow exactly with bottom up structures, like how mold clumps) Anyway, the alphas don't give orders, but just do their thing, and the rest of the group follows along for the ride.

Now, for human packs, like companies, you might think, "how can a company operate without being top down?" and that's a great question. The best companies are the ones who have a bottom up structure in that the managers (leaders) hire the smartest "subordinates." (don't think of "subordinate" as a physically lower on a structure, because it doesn't work that way.. think of them as a more basic part of the whole) Then the managers let the subordinates do their thing, and only make sure the employees are doing what they were hired for (since not everyone does what they're supposed to) since the managers can't possibly keep track of all actions of employees, and can't be smarter than a group of smart people. The worst companies have managers who hire dumber people (perhaps to not feel threatened) and micro-manage their subordinates. Instead of coming up with new innovations and such to help the company (doing their part), they try and puppet their employees and bark orders. (Bark, get it? Pack? ahem.)

So that's a basic explanation... and my coworkers are beginning to wonder what I'm doing. :rolleyes:

What about for top down theory? :)
Haha. I welcome you to start a thread on that and convince me of its merits. At the very least, I'll understand your position better. But I couldn't write it...

[Bman120]

What do you all think of the concept of psychohistory and possibly using it to try and predict future patterns and order within the chaos from the behavior of man?

I think its an interesting concept seeing as in terms of history, man today will eventuallty go towards the bottom as history progresses and he and his actions will be the precursors to future events. If we can study him today and do comparasions to the past, perhaps we can see the beginnings of some patterns that will eventually form and be able to get some insight into future events.

I doubt we'd ever have the ability to track an individual event but perhaps trends and large scale issues?

[and1grad]

Ok. I looked at the wikipedia site and the way emergence is defined, I'm not sure what wouldnt fall into that category. Seems like as long as something is made up of smaller pieces, its in some way emergent.

[and1grad]

What do you all think of the concept of psychohistory and possibly using it to try and predict future patterns and order within the chaos from the behavior of man?

I think its an interesting concept seeing as in terms of history, man today will eventuallty go towards the bottom as history progresses and he and his actions will be the precursors to future events. If we can study him today and do comparasions to the past, perhaps we can see the beginnings of some patterns that will eventually form and be able to get some insight into future events.

I doubt we'd ever have the ability to track an individual event but perhaps trends and large scale issues?
Like global warming? ;)

[Bman120]

Like global warming?

Heh maybe. :p

Though I wouldn't be surprised if it found the opposite. One thing the ice cores and other ways we measure past climate changes tell us is that the earth has had a lot of major climate changes that come from a number of factors. The earth wobbling on her axis, the stregnth and polarity of the earth's magnetic field, the activity on the sun, and major erruptions on earth.

If anything, I think an analysis like this would at least show that there are a lot of factors at work for the tempature of the globe and that human impact is just one of many.

[and1grad]

Heh maybe. :p

Though I wouldn't be surprised if it found the opposite. One thing the ice cores and other ways we measure past climate changes tell us is that the earth has had a lot of major climate changes that come from a number of factors. The earth wobbling on her axis, the stregnth and polarity of the earth's magnetic field, the activity on the sun, and major erruptions on earth.

If anything, I think an analysis like this would at least show that there are a lot of factors at work for the tempature of the globe and that human impact is just one of many.
Ya but that we already know. Its knowing the extent of our impact that seems to spark all the debate. Unfortunately, short of some disaster or major temporal switch, nobody will ever be able to decisively conclude anything.

[Bman120]

Ya but that we already know. Its knowing the extent of our impact that seems to spark all the debate. Unfortunately, short of some disaster or major temporal switch, nobody will ever be able to decisively conclude anything.

True. Maybe as we get to know Mars and the other planets better, we can get some clues as to our own planet and how it works?

[and1grad]

True. Maybe as we get to know Mars and the other planets better, we can get some clues as to our own planet and how it works?
Not sure. I think the prob global warming runs into is the lack of concrete, irrefutable data. I dont know how Earth's relationship to Mars would affect that.

[Bman120]

Not sure. I think the prob global warming runs into is the lack of concrete, irrefutable data. I dont know how Earth's relationship to Mars would affect that.

I was thinking along the lines of comparing present and past conditions on mars to conditions here on earth. The two planets are very different of course but maybe there are some clues to be had. Also, I heard that the probes we sent there detected some signs similar to those used to support global warming here on earth. And if that is true, you can't tell me its because the mars rovers are suv's :p .

[Xander]

What do you all think of the concept of psychohistory and possibly using it to try and predict future patterns and order within the chaos from the behavior of man?
That falls into the realm of Chaos Theory, which I haven't read about for years now. But there are just way too many variables to even get close to calculating something remotely near that. However, the quantum computer is a massive leap forward (see "Human Achievements" thread).

Ok. I looked at the wikipedia site and the way emergence is defined, I'm not sure what wouldnt fall into that category.
The basic concept is, well, basic. But there are exact indications of whether a system is emergent or not. The general indication is whether the whole is greater than its basic parts, how those basic parts interact, and how basic the rules that govern its interaction is. So no, this statement is incorrect:
Seems like as long as something is made up of smaller pieces, its in some way emergent.
A house is made of smaller bricks = not emergent. Government-controlled school system = not emergent. ;)

And if you don't mind, could you split posts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 from this thread? They have nothing to do with this topic, but is a worthy topic on its own. Thanks.

[Xander]

And I wanted to add:

"Hayek argues that within a centrally planned economic system the distribution and allocation of all resources and goods would devolve onto a small group which would be incapable of processing all the information pertinent to the appropriate distribution of the resources and goods at the central planners’ disposal. Disagreement about the practical implementation of any economic plan combined with the inadequacy of the central planners’ resource management would invariably necessitate coercion in order for anything to be achieved. Hayek further argued that the failure of central planning would be perceived by the public as an absence of sufficient power by the state to implement an otherwise good idea. Such a perception would lead the public to vote more power to the state, and would assist the rise to power of a 'strong man' perceived to be capable of 'getting the job done'."

A vicious cycle...

[redav]

The basic concept is, well, basic. But there are exact indications of whether a system is emergent or not. The general indication is whether the whole is greater than its basic parts, how those basic parts interact, and how basic the rules that govern its interaction is.

I think this is another way of viewing the idea:

In math, we have the operation of "combinations," or, the number of different ways items can be selected from a group. This is a factorial-type relationship with the number of different elements in the set. As such, the number of possible outcomes increases at a rate faster than exponential. However, this is just the number of ways that can potentially interact, not the consequences of such interactions.

Now, when you factor in the consequences, occasionally, two things interact in unexpected ways or in ways that facilitate other things. Such things that come to mind are geometrical proofs & computer programming--you can start off with some small, simple tools, but when they are combined, you now have much more powerful, useful tools.

The more different elements--this is key, they need to each be different--the dramatically more interactions come about, and the more probable a complex relationship emerges. Thus you see it in science--lots of things behave well in controlled settings (that's where we do our experiments), but often everything goes out the window when you introduce all the other systems of the real world. Clinical trials for drugs is a prime example. Another one that always strikes me is snow--who would have ever intuitively predicted that?

[dongle]

And I wanted to add:

"Hayek argues that within a centrally planned economic system the distribution and allocation of all resources and goods would devolve onto a small group which would be incapable of processing all the information pertinent to the appropriate distribution of the resources and goods at the central planners’ disposal. Disagreement about the practical implementation of any economic plan combined with the inadequacy of the central planners’ resource management would invariably necessitate coercion in order for anything to be achieved. Hayek further argued that the failure of central planning would be perceived by the public as an absence of sufficient power by the state to implement an otherwise good idea. Such a perception would lead the public to vote more power to the state, and would assist the rise to power of a 'strong man' perceived to be capable of 'getting the job done'."

A vicious cycle...

This is an interesting topic. I agree with everything that you've said about emergent systems. The problem though is that you dont know what they are going to be until they have already become it. That's why there is no such thing as "emergent" engineering or "emergent" societies. We know what we want or need (i.e. the "top") and we break it down into smaller and smaller pieces until we've figured out how to make it happen. This is the basic engineering design principle as well as the structure of our governments etc.

While I agree to a certain extent with your quote here, I dont think that emergent systems are really the answer. Letting things evolve as they please worked well with the internet since no one really cared at the time what became of it. But I dont think we as a society are ready to simply see what emergent system may come out of our random day to day behaviors. Remember, emergent systems are more of an exception than a rule when it comes the random interaction of small components.

[Xander]

Such things that come to mind are geometrical proofs & computer programming--you can start off with some small, simple tools, but when they are combined, you now have much more powerful, useful tools.
...Another one that always strikes me is snow--who would have ever intuitively predicted that?
Good post (as usual). There's actually a branch of mathematics concerned with emergence (or vice versa). I tried getting into it but I need more primer... or a PHD. :p

But even video games are adopting emergent structures. Think about old games, where you could only move up or down, and all the outcomes were fixed by some programmer. Now games are more fluid, and the rules more simple. A complexity that isn't built into the individual parts emerge, and we have some of the most fun games ever. (simcity comes to mind)

But when talking about snow, you get into Chaos theory, and I'm completely lost regarding chaos math. Oy... I'll have an aneurysm if I try that again.

That's why there is no such thing as "emergent" engineering or "emergent" societies.
That's not entirely true. Societies are inherently emergent, but its intrinsic nature can be a weak current with humans constantly swimming against it. For engineering, though, I can't think of anything... although the ultimate engineering products--biological species--are entirely emergent.

We know what we want or need (i.e. the "top") and we break it down into smaller and smaller pieces until we've figured out how to make it happen. This is the basic engineering design principle as well as the structure of our governments etc.
Yes, absolutely agree. That's how we think of things in the West. But that's not the correct way, necessarily, and as demonstrated time after time, throughout history, it has never been the most effective way. How would you build a house starting from the roof down to the foundation? Top-down is a man-made idea. There are zero instances (that I can think of) of this type of organizational concept in the universe (aside from mankind).

Letting things evolve as they please worked well with the internet since no one really cared at the time what became of it.
The architects cared very deeply what became of it. And the first adopters knew its potential, and luckily, those great minds were wise enough to adopt progressive concepts on how to regulate it (by not regulating it)... merely creating standards and guidelines. Open source software, Youtube, blogs, etc... all are emergent systems, and they're all replacing traditional top-down systems (and clashing with regulations, controls, etc.).

Keep in mind my first post was a cruel summary of the theory. I've read half a dozen books, from simple concept to more advanced text (with too many equations!!) and still find it hard to conceptualize its full potential. It's kind of like trying to imagine how massive the universe is. You can think, "big," but once you start to quantitate trillions upon trillions of galaxies, and the billions of stars in each one... there's only so much the mind can hold, spatially.

But I dont think we as a society are ready to simply see what emergent system may come out of our random day to day behaviors.
Hong Kong did that and it worked great. The Internet did that too. I wrote out some more examples above. Luckily for all of us, new systems that are being developed are adopting more emergent structures. We're finally deprogramming ourselves from thousands of years of backwards thinking. But I think it's a natural evolution (it was only a matter of time), since we're starting to hit the point in civilization where our growth can't support the restrictions top-down thinking necessitates, so we're finally breaking through. Go team! ;)

Remember, emergent systems are more of an exception than a rule when it comes the random interaction of small components.
But emergent systems are not viewed by its components. Emergent systems are a study of complex systems, primarily, and how its components interact.

But along with what you said, consider that there are constant, countless mutations in a biological species (cancer), but only a rare amount are actually beneficial. It doesn't mean mutations are somehow less valuable. But when a beneficial interaction occurs, it flourishes. Humans have the potential to tap into these beneficial interactions, but are bound by artificial controls which prevent the flourishing, but ironically are created to help the flourishing. But then we think the powers-that-be just don't have enough power/resources to make it flourish, so we feed them more power and resources... It's like trying to get your head out of a hole by going deeper into the hole.

It's really interesting how your thought process (and mine) switched from big picture to small picture (your engineering analogy), then to small picture to big... I wonder why that is. :?:

[dongle]

I think your post was a very good summary of emergent systems, I just struggle with the applications of it to traditional topics such as system design or government. The reason emergent system theory works so well in science for such things as biological organisms or weather is because thats how the universe has evolved. 13 billion years ago there was nothing but energy, then matter (hydrogen and helium) condensed out of the energy. Then Fusion started in stars to produce Carbon and eventually all of the other heavier elements. Then those heavier elements mixed in such a way as to produce amino acids. Then those amino acids screwed with each other and somehow created living single celled oraganisms etc. See this is the very definition of ground up with no plan.

It's hard to apply this to society because we generally need a plan. A top down approach is not like building a house starting with a roof. It's more like building a house using an architect with a blueprint that says exactly how that house should be built. I would argue that building a house with no blueprint, just a bunch of carpenters doing their own thing, is a far greater risk.

I'm not sure what happened in Hong Kong that you are referring to, but I like the example of the stock market and the internet as support for emergent theory. But again, in both of those cases, the final form and use of those systems was unknown at the time of their "emergence" and society as a whole did not care or depend on them. People didnt use the internet and depend on it until it was there and available and easy. If the internet hadn't come along, we would never have missed it (basically we'd still be doing things 1992 style).

I'd like to think you could do something similiar with governments, schools, business etc but I just dont see how since the final form of those institutions is very important to society already. But who knows, maybe there is a way. I'm always open to new and revolutionary ways of thinking of things. And I'm always weary of trying to apply a somewhat limited idea to everything under the sun.

[dongle]

But along with what you said, consider that there are constant, countless mutations in a biological species (cancer), but only a rare amount are actually beneficial. It doesn't mean mutations are somehow less valuable. But when a beneficial interaction occurs, it flourishes. Humans have the potential to tap into these beneficial interactions, but are bound by artificial controls which prevent the flourishing, but ironically are created to help the flourishing. But then we think the powers-that-be just don't have enough power/resources to make it flourish, so we feed them more power and resources... It's like trying to get your head out of a hole by going deeper into the hole.


I'm not sure what you mean here. Is this like evolution and survival of the fittest? In that case then yes, society has all sorts of artificial barriers to survival of of the fittest in social and business worlds. Welfare, anti-monopoly, all sorts of stuff, even patent and copyright law to a certain extent, well all law really is an inhibition of what people would otherwise do.

Now whether or not these are good things I dont know and its a topic for another thread. But random mutations in biology that benefit the organisms that receive them often come at the expense of all the organisms that dont right? I guess I dont understand how the biology example can be applied to society without some sort of huge upheaval of those without power.

[dongle]

Oh I almost forget! There is a Star Trek TNG episode on emergence, appropriately titled "Emergence" (7th season I believe). It's fairly accurate as a lot of star trek science is.

[Xander]

Ok, you definitely get emergence in nature, but there are still remnants of the old way of thinking when you think about humans and emergence. You're saying we need a plan to progress, right? But consider the greatest advancements in human civilization--rarely have they been top-down (I can't think of any but wont write it off as possible). Even a very supposedly top-down thing like the US space race resulting in incredible advances, but that was a result of the tiny bits of emergence breaking through (individuals having breakthroughs). But as a testament to how bad top-down is, now even NASA is conceding development to private industry.

I would argue that building a house with no blueprint, just a bunch of carpenters doing their own thing, is a far greater risk.
Great point. The architect is an individual within his firm. He does his thing, other people do their thing, and it cumulates into a blueprint. That blueprint is the "rules" for the house. The plumber knows what rules he has to follow, and he does this thing. The electrician knows his rules, etc. You don't have a construction manager telling the electrician how to wire, when to wire, etc., and at the same time order the plumber to do X and Y while extending the same attention to every individual specialty--no manager can know the amount of information his employees employ. And even if you did, he only has the attention span to address a fraction of the construction site.

The problem with top-down structure is that it's saying, in a very crude way, "give more power to the construction manager. if it still can't get done, give him more power to coerce the workers, or more money and resources. If he can't do it, have a group of managers. Give them more power," etc. etc. etc. People see the goal, and they think the answer is at the top.

Now, there has to be a disconnect somewhere because a fundamental principle of emergent systems is feedback (interface). I'm frankly not sure how that fits with this analogy.... hm...

....ok, the disconnect might be in the level of order. Lets start at the bottom. We'll call it Level 1 (or individual molecules). You hire the best concrete pourer, tile person, roofer, etc. There are rules to doing their job, and as long as they follow those rules (don't make mistakes, don't do it too slowly, follow their small portion of the blueprint, etc... to doing their job quicker, better, etc.) the project will never fall behind, and they wont even need a manager. But people make mistakes, so we introduce a manager. That's Level 2 (or single cells). In this level, the manager is there to make sure no mistakes are made. He's not there to do the job of others, and he's not there to constantly look over people's shoulders. He's there to resolve mistakes, anticipate mistakes to stop them from happening, etc. (that's his job, which has basic rules on his level). His function is the exact same as any other level (to do his assigned work given his constraints).

But if the system were much more complex (say you're building a city), think about the city as an animal. You have robosomes, mesosomes, DNA, etc. that do their level of work, following their basic rules (like carpentry), to build a cell (a building)... those small parts are regulated by blueprints (DNA) and such. A bunch of cells come together to form a subdivision (a liver). The liver does its thing, following its rules. etc. I'm sure you get it by now. :p

If not, you might be thinking, "but the blueprint is created by a person, which is given to workers, so it's a top down system" which is completely legitimate. To that, I'd say the blueprint is a byproduct of the architectural process (the architectural "organ"). Like how an organ will secret certain hormones which signal to other organs to do a certain thing... Just because more complex systems guide less-complex systems doesn't make it top-down. It's all about how each level does its work, and how communication between the levels occur (the feedback, which I didn't cover).

...the stock market and the internet as support for emergent theory. But again, in both of those cases, the final form and use of those systems was unknown at the time of their "emergence" and society as a whole did not care or depend on them. People didnt use the internet and depend on it until it was there and available and easy. If the internet hadn't come along, we would never have missed it (basically we'd still be doing things 1992 style).
If homes and cooked foods didn't come along, we wouldn't miss it either. ;) But you're thinking of the stock market and internet as a final product. Think about them a month after they started. Then a year. Then 10, 30, etc... Emergent systems are fluid and constantly evolve. The internet is still in a young stage. As long as there are only rules and guidelines, and no constricting regulations (taxing emails, taxing online purchases, limiting the type of content, etc.) it'll keep getting better. In 20 years, you wont recognize our current internet as it will have evolved past its infancy.

The main concept that should be taken from this thread is that complex order is spontaneous and infectious. It does not need a mastermind to make it go, and masterminds typically retard the process.

Emergent schools are working fantastically in foreign countries, but I'll leave that for the "Freedom to choose schools" thread. ;)

But I don't see Emergence as new and revolutionary at all. It's more like regaining the feeling in your feet after they've gone numb. They've always been there, and the sensation is uncomfortable and sometimes painful, but it's the natural order of things... To me it feels like we're going home.

And sorry if my post was a little wonky--I'm trying to write this and do a dozen things at the same time.

...In that case then yes, society has all sorts of artificial barriers to survival of of the fittest in social and business worlds.
You're right on. There's a distinct line (that's often seen as blurry) which separate rules of the system (which are good) and controls to the system (bad). The distinction lies in the very large facet of emergence called "feedback" (interface). But this is a subtle distinction that if I don't get it right and clear, it might totally screw you up... so I'll have to defer to books (the wikipedia article doesn't touch on it).

I guess I dont understand how the biology example can be applied to society without some sort of huge upheaval of those without power.
That's a similar argument that people had earlier last century, where technology and efficiency started to make traditional jobs obsolete. Farmers lost their jobs left and right, and many basic service jobs were lost... people thought it was terrible, and that capitalism would destroy the middle class. Luckily everyone only just complained and kept going along, because now our economy is mostly service, not manual labor. Other (3rd world) countries will go through the same transformation. It's only a matter of time as long as their country allows itself to grow naturally, uninhibited by unnatural regulations and such.

But another great point...

[Xander]

I just thought about it on my way home, and the disconnect is on my end. :0

An emergent system doesn't mean "sit back and let things run on it's own" as that's total chaos and just doesn't work. Emergent systems must have rules/guidelines (bond with this molecule, seek out other mold cells and clump, etc.) and even in human systems, we have people who make sure those rules and guidelines are followed.

I think to continue with this discussion, feedback has to be introduced. In a top-down organization, there is little to no feedback, while in an emergent system, feedback is at the core of the system. . . more later. Hungry. ;)

[dongle]

Can you elaborate on what "emergent schools in foreign countries" are?

I guess with the whole building a house thing, the difference is in the end product. In the top down approach, they know they want to build a house. In the emergent approach, they dont know what they are building, they are letting it come together as it may.

How do you apply emergence to a system with a specific end goal? I dont think you can. Maybe then the argument should be that society doesnt really know what end goals it wants or needs, and is better off just letting life happen as it may with some simple guidelines to follow.

So lets say we, as a country, want to change philosophies from the authoritative hierarchy to a bottom-up let the dice roll and see what emerges approach. How would we do that? I think we would need a framework of guidelines to govern the interactions of people along with feedback to naturally support those guidelines. So what is the difference between guidelines and laws? And what is the feedback to society to drive the system? Is jailtime for those who break the laws a form of feedback? See the more I think about it the more it seems like the current state of affairs in the world is an emergent system that stemmed from some simple human guidelines of right and wrong.

[redav]

How do you apply emergence to a system with a specific end goal? I dont think you can. Maybe then the argument should be that society doesnt really know what end goals it wants or needs, and is better off just letting life happen as it may with some simple guidelines to follow.

So lets say we, as a country, want to change philosophies from the authoritative hierarchy to a bottom-up let the dice roll and see what emerges approach. How would we do that? I think we would need a framework of guidelines to govern the interactions of people along with feedback to naturally support those guidelines. So what is the difference between guidelines and laws? And what is the feedback to society to drive the system? Is jailtime for those who break the laws a form of feedback? See the more I think about it the more it seems like the current state of affairs in the world is an emergent system that stemmed from some simple human guidelines of right and wrong.
Here's an approach: treat it like forced natural selection/evolution as used with development of 'engineered' bacteria. If an emergent system is due to dramatic rate of increase of interactions between elements of a system, what can be done is continue to throw various new elements into the mix, see what they do (since you can't always predict the outcome), and then select the ones that give the desired results and cultivate those by continuing the process. The ones that do not give the desired result are discarded.

In many ways, this is similar to the traditional R&D approach: try lots of things that haven't been done before, see what happens, & apply what you find to solve your current problems.


But here is a question: why is it assumed that emergence theory is opposed to top-down control systems? I do not see the two as exclusive. It may be because the view of emergent systems is one similar to math puzzles where regardless of your initial guess(es), you end up at the same result due to simple governing interactions. (Consider Fibonacci sequences. Pick any two numbers, x[1] & x[2], and create a Fibonacci sequence where x[n] = x[n-1] + x[n-2]. As n → ∞, x[n]/x[n-1] = golden ratio = 1.618...) This would be the 'uncontrolled, yet ordered' view of such systems. I don't buy that; the interactions between elements is the control. Thus, why can there not be other controls, like which interactions are used?

I conclude that if the behaviors of the interactions are understood, then elements can be placed together such that the desired end result is achieved. It is still an emergent system since the complex end result is synergistic--elements interact to give greater-than-the-whole results--but the end result is not random or chaotic.

Have you ever heard of A New Kind of Science (http://www.wolframscience.com/) by Stephen Wolfram? I think is right up this alley. It is about the complex interactions that evolve from simple geometrical programming. I believe the author claimed that this approach to science could explain all phenomenon, with the implication that such simple interactions are what really controls the physical universe.

[dongle]

I think I'm going to buy that Wolfram book, or read in online. Looks interesting, I've heard rumors about such ideas for a while now but havent gotten around to reading any texts on it.

[Xander]

Can you elaborate on what "emergent schools in foreign countries" are?
The best system that continues to work is the voucher system, but I reeeally want to avoid that topic as we've beat it to death on this forum already. :p The reason vouchers work are because they create a positive feedback system (there's that feedback again!).

Here, about $10. It's an easy primer that has no equations or anything... it's kind of dumbed down, and he could've cut it down to half the size, but if you're by a bookstore, you can probably read most of it in one sitting anyway:
http://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Connected-Brains-Cities-Software/dp/0684868768/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5926419-6616840?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177560650&sr=8-1

But I've pretty much failed at explaining Emergence especially since it seems like I haven't conveyed that an emergent structure does not mean "chuck small things into a tub, give them simple rules, and see how it turns out"... because that's not what it is. As I said before, the difference between top-down and bottom-up are how the parts interact (the feedback). Top-down structures send signals down. If it doesn't work, it tends to push harder from the top. For "bottom-up" it can be hierarchical, but the levels must compliment each other--there has to be free-flowing feedback across all levels... that's what makes it emergent.

So it's absolutely not a "let the dice roll" philosophy.


But here is a question: why is it assumed that emergence theory is opposed to top-down control systems?
If by top-down you mean hierarchical, I reference what I wrote above. It's not opposed to hierarchical--only downward-flowing communication (which is what happens in government)... ie creating new departments to "fix" an issue... which tends to always be more effective with private industry (entrepreneurship is very emergent)

Haha, somehow I knew you were a fan of the Divine Proportion.

Anyway, I seem to be confusing you guys, so I defer to books. There are more technical ones also if you prefer that...


some of you guys might enjoy this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Different-Universe-Reinventing-Physics-Bottom/dp/B000E10ETC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5926419-6616840?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177561797&sr=8-1
Laughlin is a Nobel laureate who believes we're in an "Age of Emergence"...

I haven't read A New Kind of Science but my friend liked it. But his conclusion is exactly the one I've come up with--that emergence is so common sense, and everywhere in the natural world, that it frustrates me to no ends that humans have adopted The State as the best way to maintain society.

On a related note, is anyone a fan of the Austrian School/Psychological School for economic thought? It's very emergent in nature...

[redav]

As I said before, the difference between top-down and bottom-up are how the parts interact (the feedback). Top-down structures send signals down. If it doesn't work, it tends to push harder from the top. For "bottom-up" it can be hierarchical, but the levels must compliment each other--there has to be free-flowing feedback across all levels... that's what makes it emergent.
Then here's a problem in the viewpoint: when the definition of 'emergent' contains the requirement of feedback, it is no longer a 'bottom-up' structure, it is a hybrid. I do believe that you are correct about the top-down (hierarchical) only system simply pushing harder to get results (which is bad), but a bottom-up only system (like weather) is either inherently unwieldy and chaotic (which is basically useless) or too biased to a particular outcome (like the 2nd law of thermo, which is actually a manifestation of chaos & is thus equally useless). So if the conclusion is that the key is two-way communication--the top guiding the direction of the system while the bottom actually providing the mechanics of getting there--then it's really just a matter of common sense.

Here's a thought, I wonder if some consider the synergistic effects of certain systems to be dependent on the two-way communication. Example: a jack-hammer--a small input → resonance (where the output affects the input & behavior of the system) → big output


Haha, somehow I knew you were a fan of the Divine Proportion.
Actually, I knew a guy who thought the golden ratio had special and specific spiritual importance and consequence--he was a complete dork. But it does have quite a few interesting properties, similar to e (base of natural logarithm), but mostly they are derived from the fact it is a (the) solution to x^2 + x - 1 = 0 and x^2 - x - 1 = 0


But just for fun, here's another one:
- Pick a number between 1 & 10
- Multiply it by 9
- You likely now have a number that has 2 digits
- Add the digits together
- Subtract 5
- Using the formula: 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, etc., assign your number a letter
- Think of a country that begins with your letter
- Take the last letter of that country and think of an animal that begins with that letter
- Take the last letter of that animal and think of a color

However, there is one problem:

There are no orange kangaroos in Denmark!

Ooooooweeeeeeooooooo--I am Mentok, the Mind Taker!

[Xander]

There isn't a problem with a feedback system being bottom-up, because you're supposed to view the system as a whole--as an entire complex structure. It shouldn't be viewed from an angle (top or bottom) or only have individual parts considered.

It's a bottom-up system because opposite of top-down, there's a tendency for small interactions to spontaneously create order. This tendency is an "upwards" force--as in, these small interactions yield more than its input.

Like the 2nd book I linked, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down ($6!!), he basically says we can't try to figure out tornadoes by factoring in increasingly small variables (to think downwards) but to consider the entire system as a whole--to see how the small variables interact as an overall system. Basically, to understand a forest, look at the forest while considering the photosynthesis happening with an individual cell on an individual leaf on an individual tree. Otherwise it's impossible to digest a complex system (it'll just be chaos).

It's like trying to figure out a fractal with the original iteration. Good luck! Instead, you should hold the result in your mind while considering the basic iterations.

What I find interesting is that emergence seems to (at least temporarily) go against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... maybe that's just me. But when random cosmic gasses clump into galaxies and stars and planets and random elements interact to form life... it's all natural progression basic on natural emergence. There need not be any conscious effort from "the top." ;)

But the top doesn't guide the direction of the system. The bottom guides the direction of the system. The top is just the end of the system. We might be having a little confusion because we're talking about two things at the same time.

1) An emergent system.
2) An emergent human system with top-down remnants.

In an emergent government, for example, there is no top (there is no spoon! :p). Bear with me. You just have to stop thinking of government structure (a complex system) with the traditional constraints.

Lets step outside the box for a second and consider a military application. Even though feedback between individuals in a country (a cluster) is good and all that, how can a large group of people wage war (coordinate complex tasks)? They can't. And that's not due to a shortfall in emergent systems, but because the system is not complete. You'd be viewing the complex system (a country) by its parts. We have to view it as a whole. --the problem here is I haven't been able to convey the difference between levels of order. It seems you guys still consider higher levels of order to be "top" or more complex in some way--it's not. It's just a different level of order (not "higher" in the traditional sense).

Level 1: do small job. interact with others around L1 to mine a raw material.
Level 2: do small job. interact with others around L2 to collect and melt raw materials.
Level 3: do small job. interact with others around L3 to shape/form blocks of steel.
Level 4: do small job. interact with others around L4 to assemble parts into gun.
Level 5: do small job. etc...

You're all familiar with this. L2 only has to communicate with L1 and L3 to get shit done. The problem with top-down is that L52 will try to tell L1 how to mine raw materials, force L2 to melt materials a certain way, require L4 to make certain types of guns, etc... It's one thing for L52 to communicate with other L52s (e.g. sees a threat from other countries) then convey they need a new and improved gun, and entirely a different thing for L52 to control production of said gun. Actually, that's a bad example because lower levels (L4, lets say) will produce a new and improved gun just to beat out other L4s without a request from L52.

Ok, but lower levels sometimes don't see what's happening on significantly higher levels. They don't see there's a threat from another country. Lets say L4s don't feel the need to create a better gun (this only happens in a monopoly), but the country needs one because we're being threatened. This isn't a failure of the emergent system because for one, monopolies are anti-feedback (very static), and L52's must do their very low-order task of "do small job. interact with others..."

Shit. The problem with this example is that in the real world, each level should[/i[ communicate with any other level freely. So the analogy is that L52 is an organ in your body, lets say your skin. When cut, it sends a signal to white blood cells and other necessary [i]parts of your body to fix it. It doesn't send a signal down--it just sends a signal. And white blood cells aren't a lower level process--they're just another level process.

So I probably shouldn't have designated them "Levels" but I'm too lazy to go back and change it. Lets call them "Pieces" with each piece getting larger, but all pieces dependent on those around them, and all pieces contained into one complex system.

Oy, I'm not getting any work done.... hopefully that helped a little bit. Sorry. :p

--------

But you're right that it's common sense. Unfortunately it's fairly rare, it seems. ;)

I'm not sure I follow your jackhammer idea though. I see the relatively large force of the jackhammer interacting with the small force of a concrete block... can you expand on that?

But I think your statement of synergistic effects being dependent on two-way communication equalling "equal and opposite reaction."

...and dude, you just told a math joke. :p