Tom,

I found an article in WIRED that summarizes the New England Institute study specifically re: Switzerland.

CH isn't a good example to counterpose to Israel-Palestine and Northern Ireland. Ethnic conflict in those two locales carries a history of invasion in the Ulster case and an internationally-sanctioned ingathering (against the wishes of many indigines) in the other. In both instances conflict was inevitable because one ethnic group had the power. Switzerland's history is one of successful resistance to foreign incursions in which all the language groups and both religious groupings were involved.

What would have happened in Switzerland without the cantonal system? Impossible to say. Linguistically there might have been issues but religiously not necessarily. Take the Netherlands which is close to evenly-balanced between Protestant and Catholic but where all citizens speak the same language. A monument to national stability. Take neighboring Belgium, in which almost everyone is Catholic but the country is linguistically and ethnically divided between Flemish and French. And effectively cantonized as well. The nation's barely hanging together.

My real problem with the general systems and complexity theory approach to just about everything is that it tries to smooth away distinctions in the quest for common patterns. Everything becomes isomorphic. Quote from Bar-Yam: "The propensity to violence is not that different between Switzerland and Yugoslavia." Actually, yes, it is, very much so. The Ottoman invasion (remember the Field of Blackbirds) and creation of an Islamic South Slav population in Bosnia made a hell of a difference for the fate of the future Yugoslavia. So did invasions from the West which created a Catholic population using the Latin alphabet in Croatia and Slovenia in opposition to the Orthodox/Cyrillic culture of Serbia. Historical memory matters. In Switzerland it's unifying across ethnicities and in the NL it's at least benign. In many other places not so much.

Cantonization in Switzerland supposedly promotes local cantonal identity at the expense of ethnic (German, French, Italian) identity and makes Swiss-ness possible. But if you tell that to the Swiss they smile. The cantons were simply there before the country was, they say. There are other reasons Switzerland works. Thoughts of being governed from Berlin, Vienna, Paris or Rome for instance.

Nick, even were I to agree that you have a counterexample in some particular node of a linked network, it wouldn't matter to the complex system (CX) model. You write:

"My real problem with the general systems and complexity theory approach to just about everything is that it tries to smooth away distinctions in the quest for common patterns. Everything becomes isomorphic."

Network self similarity is not identical to isomorphism. I think you underline here a common misunderstanding of the model -- the power in Bar-Yam's solution to the problem of bounded rationality is the feature I repeatedly quote: "In considering the requirements of multi-scale variety more generally, we can state that for a system to be effective, it must be able to coordinate the right number of components to serve each task, while allowing the independence of other sets of components to perform their respective tasks without binding the actions of one such set to another." That's lateral over hierarchical, cooperative over competitive, and the self similarity of connected maps is continuous at multiple scales of observation.

A self organized system is everywhere both self similar and self limiting. Point is, that network connections over multiple scales are locally time limited and globally continuous. So saying something about time limited local events (your examples) in isolation doesn't say anything about how the events are network-connected. I tried to get this across in my ICCS2007 PowerPoint.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #34

I understand that network systems are individually self-similar in approximately the same sense that a Mandelbrot pattern is self-similar and unlike others ... but still they're all Mandelbrot sets and there are meta-rules defining what those are and governing their emergence. (Sidebar: do you see merit in Tegmark's belief that the actual information content of the universe is minimal?)

Anyway, I'm judging here entirely by the results of the NECSI approach. I have the 2007 Science article now as well as the 2011 "Good Fences" piece from the ArXiv. My beef is that the authors take some extraordinarily complicated socio-cultural situations (in South Asia, Former Yugoslavia, Switzerland) with deep, complex, individual histories and evaluate them essentially in terms of physical, including topological, boundaries between communities (as described using a certain one-size-fits-all set of standards) and the presence or absence of local autonomy as they define local autonomy. As though geographical and political boundaries were the essential or only contributing factor to communal violence wherever it arises and if you can just manipulate those factors in an appropriate manner violence will diminish. I just feel something's missing.

Nick, the Mandelbrot construction is a set. A complex network is a system of independent sets.

You write, "My beef is that the authors take some extraordinarily complicated socio-cultural situations (in South Asia, Former Yugoslavia, Switzerland) with deep, complex, individual histories and evaluate them essentially in terms of physical, including topological, boundaries between communities (as described using a certain one-size-fits-all set of standards) and the presence or absence of local autonomy as they define local autonomy."

One must understand that the system model is indifferent to local histories. That feature is exactly why I characterize Lim's conclusion ("Peaceful coexistence need not require complete integration") as counterintuitive. We are concerned with the (shifting) boundaries of nodal interactions, not with psycho-social characteristics. It's not that one size fits all -- Bar-Yam is careful to say that multi-scale variety, with lateral application of communication and distribution modes, allows " ... the independence of other sets of components to perform their respective tasks without binding the actions of one such set to another" -- it's that the local system has the choice to adapt or not to adapt to the global trajectory. That choice feeds back into the global trajectory and affects the range of choices in other sets of system of components.

The problem as I have defined it in the essay, is that of how to assure a continuous trajectory toward equilibrium, without reaching equilibrium; i.e., cooperative adaptation globally, by guaranteed autonomy locally.

"(Sidebar: do you see merit in Tegmark's belief that the actual information content of the universe is minimal?)"

Absolutely. It's a restatement of the principle of least action.

I meant global conflict dampened by local self-determination.

Tom,

Hierarchical certainly has not worked through the ages. Many models of the future do point to decentralization, but these are doomsday -- more primitive without trade and networking.

Capitalism seems to give lip-service to individualism but the model tends to work toward subjugation of the individual for the purpose of control and profit. The self-interest at the top and its control of government oppresses all else. Certainly your reference to 85 controlling half the world's wealth indications the distortions of the current systems - I cite the same example.

Your model seems to bring light and breath into the levels where genius and self-determination can flourish. The problem is that current power structures won't melt to allow this transition.

Jim

    • [deleted]

    • Post #39

    "Nick, the Mandelbrot construction is a set. A complex network is a system of independent sets."

    The point is, in relation to self-similarity, that the slightest alteration of the set's algorithm changes everything. In the case of a network the disappearance of one component set alters the interaction of the remaining component sets and the network's configuration. The question then becomes one of how this global change is expressed in terms of the individual component sets. How much separate freedom do they possess? And if that varies between them, why and how? And to what extent is this approach relevant to human affairs?

    Remember Ned Block and the China Brain. Ought to be required reading in all systems theory classes.

    Re: Tegmark. The question is of interest only if universes are algorithms because AIT is the context in which he frames the issue. The belief that they are is a belief. It's interesting that Tegmark is a quasi-acolyte of Chaitin's while still believing in the possibility of a ToE, which of course official Chaitinism says just ain't gonna happen.

      "Capitalism seems to give lip-service to individualism but the model tends to work toward subjugation of the individual for the purpose of control and profit. The self-interest at the top and its control of government oppresses all else. Certainly your reference to 85 controlling half the world's wealth indications the distortions of the current systems - I cite the same example."

      We need to distinguish between capitalism as a system of regulated entrepreneurialism (the social democratic model) and capitalism as a system that permits accelerating accumulation of individual wealth resulting in increased inequality and denial of opportunity. The latter is political and social, the former economic. Command economies didn't work and not simply because many of the people in charge weren't too bright. A lot of them were pretty bright (look at Gorbachev). Those economies didn't work because stuff was manufactured that people didn't want to buy and there was no feedback system to explain this to the apparatchiki.

      "The point is, in relation to self-similarity, that the slightest alteration of the set's algorithm changes everything."

      That's why multiscale complex systems of sufficient variety are robust, and self similar algorithmic sets (Mandelbrot, Julia, Koch, Sierpinski, etc.) aren't.

      The difference is the same as that between linearly dependent mathematics and nonlinearly independent mathematical systems or models -- two entirely different dynamics. Most natural phenomena are nonlinear, including human interactions both at individuals and societal scales. And while variety in the nonlinear constructions of algorithmic complex sets is guaranteed to run out, not so in a system that is flexible on multiple scales; evolutionary growth shifts to the hubs promising greatest variety. As I made the point in my essay: waste and redundancy are assets to creativity, no matter the scale or the system.

      It was Chaitin (and Kolmogorov independently) who recognized that algorithmic complexity has a defined limit in general. The generalization of algorithmic complexity, in turn, might be seen in Ashby's law of requisite variety extended to complex systems on every scale, and that's the research path that Bar-Yam took.

      "Re: Tegmark. The question (is the universe's information content minimal?) is of interest only if universes are algorithms because AIT is the context in which he frames the issue. The belief that they are is a belief. It's interesting that Tegmark is a quasi-acolyte of Chaitin's while still believing in the possibility of a ToE, which of course official Chaitinism says just ain't gonna happen."

      Tegmark's program depends on algorithmic compressibility; Chaitin's program does not. I agree with Tegmark in the sense that in any arbitrarily chosen interval, the principle of least action compels the least information content at any scale. I agree with Chaitin (and I am not aware of any "official Chaitinism") that algorithmic information is only a subset of computability; the Chaitin Omega is algorithmically compressible and yet uncomputable.

      Jim, I'll have to agree with Nick on the distinction between capitalist idealism (Adam Smith, John Locke, et al) and political reality. The Nazis couldn't have gotten as far as they did without the cooperation and participation of capitalist "royalty." The whole Nazi blood-and-iron philosophy is driven by feudal ideals. (Indeed, oligarchs of our own generation harbor the same beliefs.)

      I also agree with Nick on the dynamics of the self-defeating Soviet system. Hierarchies eventually fall of their own weight.

      And I most heartily agree with you, that the least element of any system (in the system of human societies, an individual) is the most creative asset, given sufficient variety of resources. That is the theme of my essay.

      Best,

      Tom

      Hi Thomas,

      Thanks for writing this essay. Your ideas are interesting and writing is very good, but like others have commented the essay takes a while to get going. In particular I felt like the first four pages at least were essentially a political manifesto which is not a bad thing, but felt a tiny bit out of place for me (I realise it gave context to your ideas). Of course 'steering' is a partly political task (my entry has a tiny bit of politics here and there) but I would have loved the 'future' part to be a larger part of the essay. None-the-less thanks for your essay and your creative ideas!

      Ross

        Thanks, Ross. I was not unaware of what I was doing in setting up the problem. I struggled with whether I should do it at all, and how strongly it should come across.

        It isn't usual for me to put my beliefs before the science. To the extent that my beliefs don't conflict with the science, however, I'm glad I got it off my chest, and hope that readers can appreciate the scientific solution.

        Best,

        Tom

        Tom

        Your essay is wide in scope and creative in its proposals. It reflects your justified pride and concern with what I like to think of as the good side of the global phenomena that comprised the American Century. You propose your country somehow steer the world into an ideal future. Alas your love of country may have blinded you to the 'bad side': the amount of havoc US policies and those of its partners, Israel for example, have wreaked in key portions of the globe, disqualifying it in most ways as a global role model. Do not get me wrong I recognise the wonderful achievements of individual Americans, universities and other institutions working within the democratic system, but that has not translated at all well beyond its borders when it came to squashing the natives who stood in the way of U.S. 'interests'.

        I am not sure how the theoretical recommendations of your report "Applying Complex Adaptive Systems Research to Countering Terrorism, Insurgency, Regional and Ethnic Violence" will translate into policies on the ground. But if the history of the Middle East with its history of oil-hungry US state terrorism in Iraq, for example, or the ongoing U.S. sponsored Israeli State terrorism and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, is any measure, I for one would say, thanks but no thanks.

        As to US leadership in resource management, have you seriously considered what the American Association for the Advancement of Science has reported about America, with its small fraction of the world population:

        "For many resources, the United States of America is the world's largest consumer in absolute terms. For a list of 20 major traded commodities, it takes the greatest share of 11 of them: corn, coffee, copper, lead, zinc, tin, aluminum, rubber, oil seeds, oil and natural gas. For many more it is the largest per-capita consumer"

        Of course, considering its technical prowess, creativity and willingness to 'do something', I hope that policy leaders in the U.S. and also others in Israel and the Arab World etc.learn from the tragic mistakes of the past that have led to the present mess.

        Sincere best wishes

        Vladimir

          • [deleted]

          • Post #47

          Thank you, Vladimir. No question, I love my country -- I am an idealist, though, and not of the "my country, right or wrong" stripe. I spent so much time in the essay setting up the American ideal -- which admittedly the population and the government have never done a great job of fulfilling -- to make the point that a government of "laws, not men" is the only rational way to assure fairness and freedom. The job of the Enlightenment is not finished.

          I accept all the criticism you can hurl at 21st century American foreign policy. As the saying goes, we can choose our friends but not our family -- it applies to some extent to the 'family' of a sovereign nation.

          The Israel-Palestine conflict is not so simple as you make it out to be, and I think you know that. "Ethnic cleansing" is a particularly ugly term to Jews, for obvious historical reasons; one has to remember that Jewish immigration to Palestine did not occur in a vacuum -- Jews have continuously inhabited the land for thousands of years, subjugated to the rule of Greek, Roman and Muslim authorities, having minimal rights and few liberties. And even today, I don't know of a single Jew who serves in the legislature or cabinet of an Islamic government, while dozens of Arab Israelis do serve in the Israeli Parliament. One can hardly defend a charge of ethnic cleansing against that fact.

          That being said, minority Palestinian Arabs under the majority Israeli government who choose to reject Israel's right to exist can and perhaps already have forced a 2-state solution to the conflict. One can only hope that the pangs of birth are worth the outcome of a liberal and secular rule of law over the region to follow -- because unless that outcome does guarantee full enfranchisement of all its citizens, with freedom of religion along with all the other benefits of citizenship -- I see no end to the turmoil. To your other point:

          I don't understand the fascination of some economists with statistics on American consumerism. We consume for only one reason -- because we can. The main reason that we can, is that we have had until recently, a huge middle class able to afford the luxuries, and a birthrate low enough to enjoy them. I believe that all rational people, not just Americans, wish the same thing -- the model I have explored in my essay aims to make a start at it. Wealth creation by rational distribution of resources, low birthrate, suppression of violence -- who would argue and why?

          I am looking forward to reading your essay, not for the least reason to enjoy your wonderful art!

          All best,

          Tom

          Thank you Tom

          I am relieved that you took my remarks as well as you could, although you may not have agreed with everything. I grew up in Palestine in the 1940's till the 1960's when all my generation simply loved Americans for their enthusiasm, creativity and cheerful pop culture, and we still do. This was tainted of course by knowing the role of the US government in the creation of Israel and hence the dispossession of the Palestinians. After the 1967 war US policy vetoed every single UN resolution that the rest of the nations of the world approved of, that were meant as a way to support a just and peaceful resolution to the conflict.

          The Palestinians had no role whatsoever in what the Jews suffered in Europe, but we had to pay the price. What makes it worse is that the victim has now become the persecutor. I myself cannot return to my homeland and Jerusalem, the city of my birth, while any Jew anywhere, even one who had converted yesterday has the 'Right of Ruturn' backed by US policy and military nuclear might shared between the US and Israel. This is not the place to go into detail to answer each of the points you raised about Arabs and Jews. Too many complicated interlocking facts have to be separated from the overwhelming Zionist-dominated propaganda in the mass media that has made the situation difficult to discuss. Watch some videos of MIT's Naom Chomsky (who is Jewish) explaining the conflict on YouTube.

          Anyway we have vented our feelings on the subject and hope to continue our friendly discussions on physics.

          With best wishes

          Vladimir

            Nick made good points but I disagrre with some. "We need to distinguish between capitalism as a system of regulated entrepreneurialism (the social democratic model) and capitalism as a system that permits accelerating accumulation of individual wealth resulting in increased inequality and denial of opportunity. The latter is political and social, the former economic. Command economies"

            I disagree with Nick regarding the social democratic model being "economic". Both, I believe are social and political in operation but perhaps economic in intent. Regulation is obviously vital for shared opportunity but for the US seems to be confined to the period after WWII, cut short by a resurgence of conservative forces which with relentless focus took control of government, media, and the economy. Most other periods of our history have seen capitalism mostly unrestrained.

            Certainly the individual is the most creative asset, especially in contrast to the exploitive sterility of those in control: the financial sector is especially sterile and executive leadership (CEOs) obscenely rewarded due to power over boards not productivity.

            The implementation of your system, Tom, will be a herculean task.

            Jim