Date: 2003/03/27 08:20
From: Gerry Gleason <gerry@geraldgleason.com>
To: georgedafermos@discover.org
George Dafermos wrote:
>Hello evryone,
>
>I followed the discussion between Gerry and Carl and no doubt the proposal looks much more coherent now.
>
>Regarding the first paragraph, in the now altered by Gerry proposal, I am perfectly happy that it makes more sense, although it begs certain questions about how renumeration will take shape (how? will it be through fees, rents, loyalties, stock options or salaries and wages) but then I guess this can be dismissed for the time being. I 'll go back into it later below.
>
>I really like the second paragraph, especially as a means to introduce and link together complexity theory, computational-mathematical analysis, and the basic thesis in Wolfram's book that very complex properties derive from very simple rules. What i got out of the second paragraph is that (provided with the right tools) it's now feasible to understand how interdependencies among otherwise seemingly unrelated systems occur and this is undoubtly the firt step towards a more thorough understanding of how to design social structures and institutions that are capable of responding to complex environmental pressures.
>
Thanks, I though that it came out pretty well. I must confess that I
haven't read as much of Wolfram as I would like, but I did skim through
large sections of it. The truth is that he isn't the only person to make
some of the theoretical leaps involved here, although I think he puts
more of it together in one place. It's daunting just to read all of it
much less contemplate writing it, and there are certainly some aspects
that become compelling just because they keep appearing over and over.
>
>However, I can't really connect the last few words
>"and therefore the insolvability of the general halting problem is exactly the equivalent of Goedel's incompleteness theorem from math" to the rest of the paragraph. Maybe my social sciences background is to be blamed for this. I know what the Halting Problem conveys but still I can't make any sense. So, please give me some help on this.
>
Although I haven't had time to read through that chapter, the key
theoretical move is the "principle of computational equivalence".
Mathematicians use the term "homomorphic" to describe when you can make
an exact one to one mapping between two axiomatic systems, then you can
automatically know that any result proved in one system is also true in
the other. In the bulk of the book, he is examining one formal system
after another, and showing the chaos that is present. He is saying that
the chaos is there because there is computation there, and wherever
there is computation there is a fundamental irreducability.
Maybe the point I'm making is too cryptic to be useful here, but it
really struck me that he is casting a much wider net with this than
Turing or Goedel are likely to have comptemplated (although such genius
may well have done, but not proved). The first step in these theoretical
frameworks is to establish through homomorphism that all the systems of
interest are equivalent, so that further results can be taken to apply
to the entire class (Turing machine equivalent logical machines, or
mathematical systems equivalent to basic arithmetic for Goedel). Douglas
Hoffsatter's book Goedel, Escher, Bach, and Eternal Golden Braid is a
wonderful way to learn about how this works even if you aren't
particularly mathematical.
Now, with the wider net being cast, I'm suggesting that these two
results are the same result, that the two classes (and many others
including physical and biological systems) are equivalent because it's
all computation at the bottom (it's turtles all the way down ;-).
Really, how different is to to ask whether an arbitrary computer program
will terminate vs. asking whether an arbitrary mathematical statement
can be proved. Although the two proofs are different, the result is the
same one. Even more mind-bending is that Goedel is saying that we can't
prove that we might not uncover a contradictory result this way (i.e.
one of these problems is solvable but the other isn't).
Hope this isn't just more confusing.
WRT
>
>Proceeeding to the third paragraph, I'm not sure whether talks of divine intervention as a higher state of distributed self-organisation will go well with a non - Western audience. But this is up to Carl to decide. Furthermore, I get the impression that there is a slight confusion betweeb chaos and complexity theory, without implying that I know better than Gerry. I'm similarly attracted by those both fascinating fields and through my own research have come to acquire some pretty basic understanding of them.
>
No, not divine intervention, but only the presence of the divine. This
is where I am probably going beyond anything that Wolfram would consider
to be well established, but I think the reasoning is sound. I'm saying,
ok, so it's all computation, therefore computation is the basis for all
the complexities we see. I have a phrase borrowed from Robert Anton
Wilson (the preface to the second edition of Cosmic Triggers), "I don't
believe in anything". Belief is always subject to revision and error,
but I still have an important place for faith. What Goedel proved is
that in spite of what die-hard positivists would claim, even
mathematicians need faith that their whole enterprise won't fall down
like a house of cards. Could the Absolute ever really be so fickle to
have such horrors embedded deeply within the finely woven tapestry of
mathematics where the pulling of a single thread would unravel it all?
Then I'm also turning the arguments on their heads and saying that when
we see high level emergent behaviors in physical and biological systems,
we can assume that the same behaviors can be exhibited by the artificial
systems as well. This goes all the way up to human social systems and
languages, hence Wolfram's suggestion that AI systems will eventually
become possible (but perhaps they must be discovered and/or evolved, not
designed and implemented in any traditional sense).
I thought that it was necessary to make this move explicite even if it
is more of a conjecture than a firmly established result because we are
extending the idea to organizational structures. We still have a
problem, though, because there is an enormous abyss between the formal
systems at the base level and the complexity that we see in the natural
world, much less the human social systems we wish to address. We are
placing our faith in the idea that the structures that are naturally
emerging in OS development are deeply connected to the ideas from
Wolfram. One way to look at this would be to suggest that the highly
unnatural structures of the "architectures of control" are something
like the non-chaotic rules that go all black of all white or exhibit
very simple oscilations.
The next step is to address what is really meant by "simulation" in the
context of the VNOs and MicroCorps of the Organis proposal. For me, this
has to be carried out at the level of the systems being simulated. So
for organizational matters, we would use the tools taught to all MBAs,
but with an ethical twist that completely respects the integrity and
humanity of the people making up the organizations.
>
>I think we can utilise some features common to complex systems, particularly the presence of positive feedback loops, the inderdependence among the various components that make up the systems, the openness to external environmental forces, and their synergic and nonlinear behaviour. I feel pretty confident in putting a small paragraph together in order to illustrate how Organis, networks and hierarchies are connected. Or we could quote bits and pieces of the work of Yaneer Bar-Yam, W.Brian Arthur in case a quote works best. But that's up to you Carl. You know the audience. The beasic premise is that higher complexity is making a good many of current social and economic hierarchies unworkable (unable to respond with the required speed and flexibility), which is basically what the "Law of Requisite Variety" infers. In short, academics refer to the Law of Requisite Variety ("design for a brain", Ashby, W.R., 1952) which indicates that the complexity of the environment must be reflected in the composition of the firm. Anyway, this greater complexity has inevitably resulted in a worldwide shift towards co-operative networks and weblike arrangements and such examples abound. It's no wonder why these days increasingly more industries are experimenting with hollywood-style forms of governance and structural organisation. As a consequence of this larger re-structuring of networks of co-operative units, further complexity creeps in to further overwhelm centralised processes. In all, complexity can only be dealt with complexity.
>
I'm not as well read in the management area as you are (a benefit of
collaboration, blending of diverse streams of knowledge), but I think
you are going in exactly the right direction here. You can't create a
structure more complex that a single mind can understand under the
architectures of control, but if you don't try to control everything and
act more like a gardener by creating the conditions under which the
plants you select can thrive and grow. This analogy is also limited, but
you get the idea.
>
>On the other hand, Chaos which is an equally intriguing field, is governed by the basic processes of cause-and-effect. This is the primary difference between the properties that chaotic and complex systems exhibit. Complex systems can be chaotic as vice versa too. But this need not mean that all chaotic systems are comlex or the opposite. I would suggest we keep it to the complexity, whether employing metaphors or not. It's easier to link complexity theory to networks and business/social ecosystems rather than chaos.
>
>
Yes, but from what I've read in the past, and what I have gleaned so far
from Wolfram, complexity theory and chaos are deeply connected, perhaps
two sides of the same coin. Systems that lose their chaotic aspect are
dead. On the other hand, you are completely correct about it being
easier to create the links we need with complexity theory, just don't
forget the importance of the deeper connections.
>
>I reckon i can provide some "numeric guidance regarding the size of the cells" in the fifth paragraph. There is indeed a growing body of scientific literature suggesting that numbers play a role. Interestingly, the numbers of 15 and 150 are the most prominent ones. Malcolm Gladwell ?s ?The Tipping Point? (pages 169-192) is perhaps the best place to start an exploration of the magic number of 150. In short, the number one hundred and fifty is particularly important because, oddly enough, going above one hundred and fifty members in any given group seems to result in communication bottlenecks and breakdowns of group processes. Communication breakdowns aside, ?the figure of one hundred and fifty seems to represent the maximum number of individuals with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who they are and how they relate to us? (Gladwell 2001:179). There is indeed a growing body of knowledge supporting that when a group of people ? regardless of what binds them together, may that be work, leisure, religion, or politics - grows beyond that number, some unintended consequences such as alienation and distancing among group members suddenly crave in to overwhelm group processes and devastate the social dynamics that form the nucleus of group cohesion and co-operation. More specifically, if a factory unit crosses the one hundred and fifty workers threshold, the same model of (informal) organisation that was so far capable of sustaining the collaboration spirit and communication flow among fellow workers, is almost certain to falter. As if by magic, the rule of one hundred and fifty seems to govern communities and groups that are functional, productive, and ultimately successful in whatever it is they are doing without requiring formal hierarchies to co-ordinate their interactions. So, it seems reasonable that we don't need formal management guidelines and large hierarchies if we keep cells engaging less that 150 people.
>
>The number of 15, in a similar way, is based on the assumption that we humans have a circle of relationships (based on strong ties) to which we're intimately connected. For example, there are 15 people whose loss would devastate me and there're 15 with whom I can have a genuinely creative co-operation at any given time. So, if there has to be some sort of an organisational chart, the first level is made up of a network of small, tightly-knit work-teams each consisting of no more than 15 members, the second level is then a network of units of no more than 150 people and taken together they form the community of developers (community of practice). The only level above the active commmunity is the surrounding community (this is a clearly a community of interest/political network which is affected by the social and economic outcome). Our role is to co-ordinate the smooth flow of information up and down the levels and among the networks and make sure all stakeholders are satisfied by means of communicating their needs to each other and ensuring they can all feed into a larger pool of resources (ie. pointing them to a piece of software that's already written or providing legal guidance).
>
>
Very interesting. I wonder if you could find some similar relatonships
in say, nerve cell grouping in brains and similar. I have some partially
formed thoughts about how the small groups would be densely connected
internally, but the external connections to larger groupings might be
"function specific" so that any individual would have a scope < 150 but
the small group as a whole would be connected to a much larger network.
If the larger community (surrounding?) is similarly organized, I can see
the scope being very wide indeed, but more in terms of replicating (with
variation) the 15 -> 150 units in physically seperated spheres.
Gerry
>
>
>I also have some comments to make with respect to more practical underpinnings of the Organis but this will have to wait for a few hours. You also might be interested in knowing that I intend to make a presentation at Harvard at the end of May at the OSCOM conference and I would surely welcome any recommendations. My presentation discusses the requirement for a license such as the GGPL and analyses how such a strategy can be set into motion. You can have a look at the admittedly rough proposal at
>http://www.oscom.org/Conferences/Cambridge/Proposals/dafermos_open_coding _innovation.html
>
>
>George
>
>