seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Netherlands
seen from Germany
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Portugal
seen from China
seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from Netherlands
seen from Netherlands
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
Edgar Morin (1921-2026)
♥
Gender #2
Once the illusion of a stable and universally valid definition of gender has fractured, the discussion enters a far more difficult territory in which contradictory frameworks continue operating simultaneously despite their mutual incompatibility, creating a condition of conceptual overload where biological models, psychological realities, cultural traditions, religious doctrines, legal systems,…
Complexity Theory in Les Misérables
Algebra is applied to the clouds; the radiation of the star profits the rose; no thinker would venture to affirm that the perfume of the hawthorn is useless to the constellations. Who, then, can calculate the course of a molecule? How do we know that the creation of worlds is not determined by the fall of grains of sand? Who knows the reciprocal ebb and flow of the infinitely great and the infinitely little, the reverberations of causes in the precipices of being, and the avalanches of creation? The tiniest worm is of importance; the great is little, the little is great; everything is balanced in necessity; alarming vision for the mind. There are marvellous relations between beings and things; in that inexhaustible whole, from the sun to the grub, nothing despises the other; all have need of each other. The light does not bear away terrestrial perfumes into the azure depths, without knowing what it is doing; the night distributes stellar essences to the sleeping flowers. All birds that fly have round their leg the thread of the infinite. Germination is complicated with the bursting forth of a meteor and with the peck of a swallow cracking its egg, and it places on one level the birth of an earthworm and the advent of Socrates. Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two possesses the larger field of vision? Choose. A bit of mould is a pleiad of flowers; a nebula is an ant-hill of stars. The same promiscuousness, and yet more unprecedented, exists between the things of the intelligence and the facts of substance. Elements and principles mingle, combine, wed, multiply with each other, to such a point that the material and the moral world are brought eventually to the same clearness. The phenomenon is perpetually returning upon itself. In the vast cosmic exchanges the universal life goes and comes in unknown quantities, rolling entirely in the invisible mystery of effluvia, employing everything, not losing a single dream, not a single slumber, sowing an animalcule here, crumbling to bits a planet there, oscillating and winding, making of light a force and of thought an element, disseminated and invisible, dissolving all, except that geometrical point, the I; bringing everything back to the soul-atom; expanding everything in God, entangling all activity, from summit to base, in the obscurity of a dizzy mechanism, attaching the flight of an insect to the movement of the earth, subordinating, who knows? Were it only by the identity of the law, the evolution of the comet in the firmament to the whirling of the infusoria in the drop of water. A machine made of mind. Enormous gearing, the prime motor of which is the gnat, and whose final wheel is the zodiac.
Victor Hugo, Les Misérables, Volume IV: Saint Denis; Book III: The House in the Rue Plumet; Chapter III: Foliis ac Frondibus
AKA, Hugo pre-empts chaos / complexity theory. "How do we know that the creation of worlds is not determined by the fall of grains of sand?" indeed. This is modern thinking I wouldn't have expected before the 1950s.
Now I do find that the earliest references in Wikipedia point to the 1860s to 1880s, but I severely doubt that Hugo discussed the Three-Body-Problem with Poincaré...
i just feel really grateful;
i am nowhere near where i wanna be or have been conditioned to believe i need to be but i am here.
i read so much. i talk to so many different people about life, love, and death and its given me so much perspective that not everyone is privy too.
it's brought me to meet and know some of the coolest people to ever grace earth. it's washed me in so much personal cultural spiritual exchange that i feel so lucky to even be given that moment.
once upon a time i never thought i would see another day nor did i want to. for years after that didn't really change but i knew it was time to get back to digging deep. bridging that understanding between me and me, myself and others, others and themselves and amongst each other too.
i am unfortunately still quite flippant with living but i have learned to make the best of it and come to understand it.
secrets of the occult, the hidden has helped. but so has language. history. romantic relation(ships). even mathematics 🤮
living (and suffering) is so complex and interconnected. like entwined branches of trees in a forest and the roots that dance below. complexity theory and syncretism has given me sense to life (and suffering). it also helped me understand that it's not all bad and its not all good. and not all of it is meant to or even capable of being justifiable or making any sense. the non-answer answer is just as just or honest as a fully comprehensive one.
idk maybe this is just my saturn return. im glad i made it.
The moment you think you understand love, it transforms into something else entirely. It's like watching a city evolve - each interaction between people creates patterns that shape future interactions, yet the whole thing moves and breathes in ways no single interaction can explain. Love operates as both architect and blueprint of itself: your small acts of care shape your partner's responses which reshape your tendencies, spinning out loops that transform both people into versions of themselves that couldn't exist alone. Yet the moment we map these beautiful feedback loops and emergent behaviors, we've somehow missed love's essence - as if describing a dance by listing the positions of feet without capturing the music. This is love's fascinating paradox: it follows the most predictable patterns while remaining fundamentally unpredictable, uses the machinery of systems to create something that escapes systematic explanation entirely. It's both the most analyzed human experience and the one that most stubbornly resists analysis, leaving us with insights that feel simultaneously profound and incomplete.
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
A new paper finds a faster method for determining when two mathematical groups are the same.
(from June 2023)
Note: In runtime formulas, computer scientists don't ignore the constant term because it "doesn't have a big effect". They ignore it because they're trying to establish an upper bound for problems of every size. (This is a common misconception about the big-O notation used in computer science.)
