#philosophy of complexity

[frank-olivier]

Emergence: A Multidisciplinary Journey towards Understanding Complex Systems

Emergence, a concept central to our understanding of complex systems, has long captivated scientists, philosophers, and computer scientists. Despite its ubiquity, emergence remains enigmatic, with its multifaceted nature necessitating a multidisciplinary approach to grasp its full implications.

Emergent properties, which arise from the interactions of simpler components, often exhibit features that are irreducible to their constituent parts. This challenges scientific inquiry, as traditional reductionist methods may fail to capture the essence of emergent phenomena. To tackle this complexity, a holistic, multidisciplinary perspective is required, drawing insights from physics, biology, sociology, and computer science. The predictability of emergence remains a contentious issue. Some argue that it is a predictable outcome of complex systems, while others view it as an unpredictable, 'magical' aspect. This dichotomy highlights the need for further exploration and nuanced understanding of emergent properties.

Philosophers have long grappled with emergence, with debates centering around its implications for our understanding of reality. From a philosophical perspective, emergence raises profound questions: Do emergent properties cause changes at the micro level, or do changes in the micro components give rise to emergent properties? This question challenges our understanding of causality and its directionality. If emergent properties determine system behavior and are not directly controlled by the components, how does this relate to free will? This question forces us to reevaluate our understanding of agency and autonomy. How do the micro and macro levels of reality relate to each other? Emergence challenges the notion of a straightforward, bottom-up relationship, suggesting a more complex, bidirectional interplay.

Computer science has significantly contributed to the study of emergence, particularly in the realms of artificial intelligence and complex systems. The role of software in emergence is pivotal, but under-explored. A clearer definition of 'software' in this context is needed, as well as an understanding of its implications for our comprehension of complex systems. The concept of 'primitive software' in complex systems is intriguing. By studying simple software systems that give rise to complex behaviors, we can gain insights into the mechanisms underlying emergence. However, further exploration is required to fully understand this relationship.

A comprehensive understanding of emergence necessitates a multidisciplinary approach that integrates scientific, philosophical, and computational perspectives. By developing an integrated framework, analyzing case studies, modeling and simulating emergent phenomena, and exploring the ethical and social implications, we can advance our understanding of this fascinating concept. Moreover, fostering communication and collaboration between scientists, philosophers, and computer scientists is crucial. By learning from each other's disciplines, we can refine our theories, improve our methods, and ultimately, unravel the mysteries of emergence.

Fernando Rosas, Hardik Rajpal: Towards a formal understanding of emergence in biological systems (Michael Levin, November 2024)

Wednesday, November 6, 2024

[valenteal]

Just binged The Acolyte and I am heartbroken that it’s cancelled. Like I know I am late to the party but I had kinda given up on Disney Star Wars halfway through Bad Batch s1 because it just felt like they were milking the cash cow to death by then. And the general consensus on the show appeared to be bad. APPEARED being the keyword. Because really the media was just amplifying the hate because it’s a lot more surprising than “oh ANOTHER really good show that expands on the Star Wars universe is out!” Like, I wasn’t hugely invested in what they had going on with The Mandalorian, just because post Empire stuff isn’t super appealing to me. I’m an Old Republic girl, have been since I was like 10. High Republic is different but it really allows for exploration of who the Jedi are, independent of their war against the Sith, which will always skew the narrative.

The Acolyte allows us to see the Jedi as they are instead being in a consistently high pressure environment that forces quick action and therefore decisions that can be easily defended. The show exposes the Jedi for what they are, people, who make choices, who make mistakes, who don’t always agree, who are flawed. The enemies they fight are not pure evil. They don’t seek domination or control over others. They don’t torture innocents. They simply are, and they are in a way that caused the Jedi to deem them a threat. The Jedi started the conflict, Mae, and later Osha, and to an unverified degree maybe Qimir, just respond. Maybe Mae went looking for the conflict again after it had passed, but in a way that was more akin to hunting escaped criminals to make them account for their crimes than just senseless rage. She wanted them to atone, to face what they had done rather than hide from it. Yes she was violent but she only went looking for people she saw as responsible, people who chose to be involved, who chose violence and deception.

The Jedi in The Acolyte are a religious institution with government ties and presumably funding who have unchecked power that they attempt to keep only for themselves. They falsely believe that the only way to use the Force safely is their own and they never question whether or not that’s true, or those that do are expelled or killed for questioning it. In actuality there are many ways to access the Force, just as many as there are minds connected to it. There are numerous examples of different ways to channel it, different disciplines and mindsets, the Je’daii, the Dai Bendu, the Voss, Witches, even the Knights of Zakkul, all used the Force in ways that aligned with neither Light nor Dark philosophies. The Jedi’s refusal to acknowledge that their way isn’t the only way is what led to their downfall. They made enemies where there were none and pushed all the Force sensitives who didn’t become Jedi into the arms of the Sith.

Not to mention the cult tactics that keep their own members reliant on being part of the Order, which The Acolyte was able to subtly showcase with Osha. After leaving the Order she had no transferable skills or money and was forced to take on a job that was both dangerous and illegal. That illustrates the situation all Jedi are in very well. Follow the religious teachings of the Order and the actual orders and assignments given by the Masters or strike out completely on your own, with no money or close friends or marketable skills to help support you, oh and don’t use become a rouge Force User or you’ll end up in prison or dead.

Yes the Jedi mean well, but at the end of the day they are just a collection of people. Powerful people, yes, but still people. They feel and think and have individual personalities and limitations and desires and values. They are people. People. Nothing more and nothing less.

And The Acolyte is the first canon story that truly explores all that means. I think it’s a wonderful story that allows its characters to be, rather than constantly fight for the ability to be. The intensity and the stakes being lower allows for a clearer understanding that I really appreciated.

[cyborgized]

*laughs*

[philosophybits]

He who divides the world into two parts moves in the sphere of abstractions... The world as it is, and not as people dream it to be, is not divided into two camps: it is infinitely more complex and diverse.

Nikolai Berdyaev, "Political Testament"

[royalthorned]

bartylily law school rivals save me... moot and mock trial enemies bartylily save me... law ball sex bartylily save me...

[flowercrowncrip]

6. Is there something regarding disability that people told you you were wrong about but you were right actually?

(wording might not be exact but should still be basically the same question - copy/paste wasn’t working)

When I was applying for uni/ doing my degree, I was told by several people including multiple medical professionals that I shouldn’t be at uni, that I’d never complete the course and I’d never get employed so what’s the point?

And not only did I graduate from my philosophy degree in 2022, but I also got a first and an award for being among the top achieving students. It took a hell of a lot out of me, and I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone (or even most people tbh), but it’s something I’m deeply proud of and that no one can take away from me.

[hope-ur-ok]

Ok but ending a life doesn’t change anything. There will be another ceo the companies still exist… and nothing will change

I don't think you should dismiss the undead lives of all the ghosts like that, I think they found Luigi removing them from the hotel to be very impactful, even if more ghosts could move in later and run it again

[princessofghosts-posts]

Gotta hate teachers who think that students know nothing beyond what they explain.

My italian (and history) teacher is currently explaining Nietzsche,a famous german philosopher of 1800-1900,in her lessons. Some of the guy theories and beliefs are based on religions or his hate for some of it (he doesn't vibe well with Christianity) and there are a couple of references to greek mythology too. (Really,most poets,artists and philosophers are still inspired by the greek times,it makes us understand how much impact they had on our history). And usually,when there is greek mythology involved,I'm all in (I've been obsessed with it ever since I was a child) but the way she explain things makes her seem like she knows everything and the others don't. In my class I'm the only one that is interested in mythology,but that doesn't mean anything or give her the right to act like she is above us.

No miss,it's not thanks to you that I know who Apollo or Dionysus are,I've learned that when I was 4 years old. And I'm perfectly aware of what greek mythology is,you don't need to act like a superior individual to make us understand it.

It's crazy how some teachers don't understand that maybe their students are actually acculturate on what they are explaining,and I'm kinda sick of it. Yes you know,but I also know and you aren't above me for that. My acknowledge of it isn't limited to your lessons only,I can learn or know more than the things you explained,you don't need to scream "Those aren't the thing I said last time! Where did you get all of those information!? You used AI didn't you?!" like a madwoman only because I wrote something more in my notes. I write myselft my notes and I don't even like AI,so why would I use it????

But no,act like a student can't learn or know more than you and use it as advantage. Really hate people like that :")

[cyborgized]

We create ourselves out of what we consume.

[boudicca]

I hasten to add my belief that no poem entirely makes sense: There is always something that Freud would have called ‘uncanny,’ some part of the poem that goes beyond making sense.  Poems can never to be reduced to paraphrase, not only because their rhythm adds ‘more,’ but because our understanding is never fully capable of being expressed in and through the rational.

Huck Gutman, "Emily Dickinson, 'As Imperceptibly as Grief'"

[mythicmemex]

The Emergent Behavior of Hobie Brown

Spider-Punk (aka Hobie Brown) feels like a living example of how systems shift and adapt, a reminder that even the smallest acts of rebellion can spark ripples that echo far beyond their origin. He’s not just resisting for himself...he’s connecting worlds, spanning boundaries, making space for ideas to collide and evolve. There’s something deeply human about the way he navigates the Spider-Verse, like he’s proof that change doesn’t come from one big move but from constant disruption, a refusal to settle. Hobie isn’t just part of the system...he’s a force that reshapes it, challenging everything it tries to hold steady.

[life-deep]

Complexity and Complexes

in my head i want to be angry,

snuff out the small ember of you and me

this semblance of we ever becoming indistinctive

indistinguishable from torment, at least we have that in common

you were so much like me,

your mind so similarly but so inspiring

unique in your perspective, it’s funny how that the problem was the lack

couldn’t get passed your own torment, came to agonize me so often

made me the antagonist unfairly

benefit of the doubt always given mercy

becomes so tiring, slip, pull the string holding us together

how many events we had weathered just for another to set us back

our lives began to torment us, so many problems can i solve them?

your value more infinite than the extremity

maybe if i could take the weight of your suffering

then you’d finally be free, finally look at me and see

me in the light i see you in, undying passion waiting to be ignited, held back

patience like torment, haunting, doubts eerie in the back of the head

yet my soul knew i was yours completely

dedication never lacking, isn’t that funny

always questioning if you could trust me

if you only knew what i saw in you, you wouldn’t believe that

but yourself is the torment, maybe i could bring you back

convinced i wasn’t trying to fix it utterly

just convinced this was love entirely

the light of another whether brilliant or hidden covered

i see yours, all of you so clearly the greatest man id ever see

but he’s buried in the torment, cemented to the grief of life shadowed black

now my lips hold steadfast silently

distance made the heart grow fonder but the bond grow softer

into the vague you wander, will you ever return or recover?

this journey to find you will it meet its end?

will you finally see at the end of your humanity lay only futility in the pointless dream of hoping to fix it

instead of going with it to live it, to breathe

take a moment, don’t try to control it

it’s going to happen, choices belong in the word mine

but i gave myself to you - i convinced myself yours were fine

but it’s only you and i and the undermine

and the mechanic i tried to be to be with all of your parts

i see the summation, a glorious creation

but your life is not mine to decide

i just wish you’d choose to live

so you could see, you’re so blind

always thought if the love was enough

you’d finally be mine

[elysiumwhispers]

"I would have felt deeply guilt withouth knowing why. Then with every moment that passes, I'd have made more blunders, I'd have plunged deeper into my guilt . . ." - Sartre, Nausea

[fox-stuck]

Really feel like there’s a thousand and one essays to be written about Data and his/the shows perception of his personhood

[frank-olivier]

The Battle for the Truth: Science, Rhetoric, and the Public Sphere

Reality is nothing but a collective hunch. — Lily Tomlin

The pursuit of knowledge is marked by a paradoxical dynamic where systems embodying the principles of scientific inquiry, acknowledging their own incompleteness and embracing the provisional nature of truth, are frequently attacked by counterparts that proclaim absolute certainty yet often lack a foundation in empirical evidence. This phenomenon raises a profound question about why rigorously scientific systems, aware of their limitations, incur criticism from unscientific systems that claim completeness. The underlying reasons for this critique are rooted in epistemological, psychological, and sociological factors that drive this seemingly counterintuitive conflict.

At the heart of scientific systems lies an inherent humility, an acknowledgment of the complexity of the subject matter, and a willingness to revise or even overturn existing theories based on new evidence. This openness is not a sign of weakness but a hallmark of the scientific method, which thrives on skepticism, peer review, and empirical validation. However, this selfsame openness can be misconstrued by critics from closed systems as indecisiveness or uncertainty, providing a perceived foothold for attack. In contrast, closed systems often present themselves as comprehensive and definitive, eschewing the nuanced uncertainties of scientific inquiry for the comforting simplicity of absolute truths. This appeal to certainty resonates deeply with a public frequently overwhelmed by the intricacies of modern life, seeking clear, uncomplicated answers to complex questions.

A significant portion of the critique stems from a fundamental misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific process. The iterative nature of scientific inquiry, where theories are refined or revised based on new evidence, is often portrayed as flip-flopping or lack of conviction. Critics from closed systems may fail to grasp or choose to obscure the distinction between the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and the method's robustness in approaching truth. Beneath the surface of these critiques often lie power dynamics and ideological differences. Closed systems may perceive scientific findings as a threat to their influence, audience, or worldview, prompting a defensive stance that manifests as attacks on the scientific system's legitimacy. Philosophical disagreements over the nature of truth, the role of empiricism, or the balance between consensus and dissent also fuel these conflicts, highlighting the deeply entrenched nature of these disputes.

To address this paradox, education and awareness are crucial. Enhancing public understanding of the scientific method can foster a broader appreciation for its strengths and the inherent value of acknowledging complexity. Scientists and science communicators must effectively convey the provisional nature of scientific knowledge, highlighting its adaptive and refining aspects as strengths rather than weaknesses. Encouraging respectful, open dialogue between proponents of different systems, while challenging, can facilitate mutual understanding and, in some instances, reconciliation of viewpoints. Strengthening science education and promoting clear communication are key strategies to navigate this paradox, ultimately fostering a more informed, critically thinking society.

The critique of scientific systems by unscientific counterparts underscores a profound misunderstanding of the scientific endeavor. Rather than a vulnerability, the acknowledgment of incompleteness is a badge of honor, reflecting the scientific community's unwavering commitment to the pursuit of truth, no matter how complex or provisional. Embracing education, clear communication, and engaged dialogue becomes paramount, not only for the integrity of scientific knowledge but for the fostering of a society that values critical thinking and the pursuit of knowledge. By navigating this paradox with awareness and strategies aimed at enhancing public understanding and dialogue, we can work towards a future where the scientific method is valued for its strengths, and the provisional nature of truth is seen as a catalyst for continuous learning and improvement.

Marjorie Shapiro: Supersymmetry, Extra Dimensions and the Origin of Mass - Exploring the Nature of the Universe Using PetaScale Data Analysis (Google Tech Talks, June 2007)

String Theory isn‘t Dead (Sabine Hossenfelder, December 2024)

The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder (Professor Dave Explains, October 2024)

No, Sabine, Science is Not Failing (Professor Dave Explains, November 2024)

Lawrence Krauss: God, String Theory, and the State of Physics (Robinson Erhardt, March 2024)

Sabine Hossenfelder Can’t Stop Acting Like a Complete Fraud (Professor Dave Explains, February 2025)

Wednesday, February 26, 2025

[noosphe-re]

The end of the world : the wholesale internal introversion upon itself of the noosphere, which has simultaneously reached the uttermost limit of its complexity and its centrality. The end of the world : the overthrow of equilibrium, detaching the mind, fulfilled at last, from its material matrix, so that it will henceforth rest with all its weight on God-Omega. The end of the world : critical point simultaneously of emergence and emersion, of maturation and escape.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man