Thursday, February 16, 2006
Ontology streaming as an
enabling technology
Concurrent discussion in generativeMethodology thread à [176]
On discussions about Rosen complexity
I am forwarding this
note with an invitation to join a Groove
collaborative space as part of a Taos Research Institute activity. Let me know if anyone want the invitation (a
program that downloads a Multiple User Domain (MUD) where international voice
over Internet, document management etc is enabled. This system was develop by DARPA and is now public domain.) Paul Prueitt, Taos Research Institute
The discussion on the Rosen eforum is about "measures of complexity", and started yesterday with the communication:
"Because Rosen was intensely concerned with the definition of
complexity,
I figure this list is a good place to ask this question. Distinctions
between Rosennean complexity and other people's ideas of complexity
aside, can anyone recommend any good (i.e. practical) published methods
for measuring the complexity of a thing?
Of course, I'm not looking for the typical computational complexity
measures. I can find those
easily enough (though finding good ones is
another story). I'm looking for
methods that one can apply to
real-world constructs. And that
might include choosing some arbitrary
set(s) of observables and estimating the complexity implied by
measurements on those."
<end quote>
Regarding the related question
Did Robert Rosen ever discuss 'fuzzy logic'?
Fuzzy logic was "stepped away from" by its inventor Zadeh, because it did not bring a computing with words technology. Zadeh was very clear about this, failure of fuzzy logic. Rough sets are more "categorically oriented" and might have been more interesting the Rosen, if he had been exposed to this logic. But rough sets only became part of the neural network, fuzzy logic literatures in the mid 1990s.
I am interested in what Judith Rosen might remember, but for me I feel that RR would have seen through fuzzy logic as being more of the same as Hilbert mathematics. Response from Judith à [30] (to be posted)
I felt that Ayten’s communication is on target.
<quote>
A daring response to your query: You cannot really measure the
complexity, the way you want, but you can grasp it by listening to a
story told by someone who understands it and is capable of making its
essence known to you. Gregory Bateson is good at that. RR's Relational
Modeling is the maximum you can get as a scientist.
<end quote>
He understood the essence of the notion that measurement of complexity is like asking the question
"which of my three daughters do I love the most".
The proper response is to step beyond the question and address the details related to the nature of the three individuals and their relationships to each other and to the world.
However, James Rose in his response touches an issue. This issue has to do with "as a wave collapsed".
In the language of quantum mechanics, are there a finite number of potential paths that are nominated by the interactions between the collapse and the environment. This might be "measurement" in a natural setting and sense. Is the collapse measuring both the endophysics within the quantum or string realities locally existence as well as the exophysics of what the environment is "wanting" from that location? Does this phenomenon have macro, relative to quantum, manifestations as a signal is generated within expressions along cellular metabolic pathways?
Does this phenomenon have macro manifestations in how my thoughts form? The Second School takes the position that this phenomenon has shape how my thoughts form.
The measurement is suggested in the tri-level architecture that I proposed for "anticipatory" technology.
http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/anticipatoryWeb/1.htm
I want to apologize to everyone for talking about my work and continuing the attempt to ignite the planning process for a revolution in how ontological modeling and object oriented modeling of information exchanges in the Internet. I do not feel that I have a franchise on new theory and results related to the Second School.
I wish to say that "signal induction" is the "sameAs" in three domains of investigation;
cell signal pathway induction
gene expression
social expression
In each of these domains there is tremendous work being done - but often
1) misinformed about the nature of natural system expression
2) governed by short term market driven forces
Our current efforts are to inform the business processes and the information technology community about issues that are now obscured.
This effort is attractive because we are at a point in history where the market is looking for solutions to web services negotiated between computational systems. This negotiation, when occurring between humans (or occurring as part of gene or cell metabolic repair processes) involved Rosen complexity.
The understanding that computational complexity is a shallow concept is essential to bringing enlightenment to those who are really trying to advance solutions in the web service discovery problem space. The Rosen definition of “natural complexity” is based on an understanding of natural metabolic repair processes that express in a complex way. This complexity, as Penrose points out, may not be reducible to measures that are numeric in nature.
What this observation, by Rosen and Penrose and others, implies is that Hilbert mathematics is not sufficient to model the essential natures of biological expression.
Ontological science might be developed to “extend” Hilbert type mathematics, but this new science will not use the definition of “complexity” given by the current generation of computer scientists.
I conjecture that the new science will use the definition given by Rosen.
John extended the conversation on the Rosen list with the comment:
“"Measuring"
is different from "counting". Jamie may
recall
our participation at the 1997 1st Int'l
Complexity
Symp. in Nashua when at the introductory
"Complexity
Seminar" this young MIT professor said:
"The
Complexity of a 747 is the number of blueprints
in
its design" when I asked: "How many blueprints to
the
complexity of an acorn, building an oak tree?"
(This
was the point when I decided to refrain from the
"C"
word whenever I can).
Furthermore:
it is not enough to "count". Relations
have
quite different "temperatures" (G.Kampis'
expression:
'depth') so the numbers are only
superficial
data as I communicated to L.Barabasi upon
his
book "Links". I made the similar oversight in my
paper
in the Karl Jaspers Forum (TA-62: Network of
Networks)
speaking only about 'relations' without
quality.
Intrinsicity is essential, may be more so
than the inclusion (or not) into the model we view.”