{"id":3164,"date":"2014-11-27T20:29:05","date_gmt":"2014-11-28T01:29:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/?p=3164"},"modified":"2015-05-13T06:32:56","modified_gmt":"2015-05-13T11:32:56","slug":"dual-paradigm-view-can-ecosystems-be-stable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/dual-paradigm-view-can-ecosystems-be-stable\/","title":{"rendered":"“Dual paradigm view” Can ecosystems be stable?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reposting a\u00a0November 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm<\/a>\u00a0comment to Quanta on the\u00a0Tracy-Widom New Universal Law<\/a> article<\/i><\/p>\n

This is a simple way to demonstrate the “dual paradigm view” as a\u00a0bridge between the abstract\u00a0complex\u00a0systems theory<\/span> and direct study of individual complex systems<\/span>, to advance\u00a0our understanding to of the mysterious phenomenon of “emergence”.\u00a0\u00a0The article suggested\u00a0that as statistical systems\u00a0ecologies generally could never be structurally\u00a0<\/em>stable,\u00a0but did not compare that to\u00a0systems that rely of “accumulative organizational design” particularly those with “learning parts” as ecosystems systems so often to have rather than “correlated random variables”. \u00a0\u00a0The moderator clearly liked this better than my first response<\/a> not published. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

The\u00a0“dual paradigm view” addresses the dilemma of complexity science that computer models are fine for theory, but don’t really let you study nature. \u00a0That’s what a way to connect\u00a0mathematical systems theory with individual systems study\u00a0addresses. \u00a0 Much of my work of the past 35 years has been\u00a0on that subject, now recently raised by\u00a0David Pines’ in a founder’s article for\u00a0<\/em>SFRI Emergence: A unifying theme for 21st century science<\/a>,\u00a0saying that physics and complex systems science now need a way to study the physical phenomenon of emergence and actual complex systems to progress. \u00a0 My reply to his article\u00a0\u00a0Can\u00a0Physics Study Behavior not Theory<\/a>, was first\u00a0posted on Medium<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

It\u2019s interesting that with such a number of cross connecting areas of physics being discussed, the ultimate finding technically\u00a0didn’t\u00a0answer the initial question posed. That\u00a0was Robert May\u2019s \u201cquestion about whether a complex ecosystem can ever be stable, or whether interactions between species inevitably lead some to wipe out others\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

The mathematical analysis of that question and others was limited to \u201ckinds of random growth\u201d and \u201csystems of correlated random variables\u201d. There are also lots of non-randomly behaving systems too is worth considering, and may have been overlooked in answering the basic question. The variety of organizational growth systems that are familiar everywhere in nature display many kinds of growth curves and outcomes, often having an overall appearance of being 1) quite lopsided, 2) quite symmetric, or 3) reaching extended stable states.<\/p>\n

note: How the meaning of probability distribution curve shapes (as discussed in the article) differs from the meaning of these individual development\u00a0curve shapes was skipped in this short comment on the article. \u00a0Please do bring it up of course if needed. \u00a0 The question posed was about the development of individual ecosystems, and their potential structural stability.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0Generic common curve shapes
\nfor the development of organizational systems.<\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

We probably know of lots familiar examples of these from personal experience, where the systems involved are going through progressive organizational change during their periods of acceleration or deceleration. Reversals in curvature don\u2019t always reflect systemic changes in direction for organizational development, but often do though (shown as gaps in the diagram for raising those questions).<\/div>\n

The one looking like a TW distribution curve is familiar to all economics and other matters, as a \u201cmeteoric rise\u201d followed by \u201cimmediate decline\u201d, like many a seemingly fine business plans might experience. The quite unusual thing is this same shape turns up in Gamma Ray burst records too (see image of BATSE 551 #1 below). It raises the question of whether that system (presumably of radiation from black hole collapse) reflects the organizational stages of a system that experiences a \u201cblows out\u201d (like some of our best business plans do) or that of a statistical distribution for correlated variables, or something else?<\/p>\n

In any case, just asking that raises the possibility of a bridge between TW correlations and the fates of natural system organization designs, and perhaps a need to consider whether the other kinds of system are available to change the outcome for May\u2019s ecosystems, depending on their design.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Gamma Ray Burst \u201cBATSE 551 #1\u201d\u00a0 – Raw data dynamically smoothed.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

( reposted from the Pattern Language Debategraph<\/a><\/p>\n

________________<\/div>\n
jlh<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reposting a\u00a0November 25, 2014 at 4:46 pm\u00a0comment to Quanta on the\u00a0Tracy-Widom New Universal Law article This is a simple way to demonstrate the “dual paradigm view” as a\u00a0bridge between the abstract\u00a0complex\u00a0systems theory and direct study of individual complex systems, to advance\u00a0our understanding to of the mysterious phenomenon of “emergence”.\u00a0\u00a0The article suggested\u00a0that as statistical systems\u00a0ecologies generally … Continue reading “Dual paradigm view” Can ecosystems be stable?<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crdt_document":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6,8,35,12],"tags":[32],"class_list":["post-3164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-mail","category-theory","category-pattern-language","category-scitheory","tag-org-stage-models"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3164"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3164\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3174,"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3164\/revisions\/3174"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}