1. 2

    Mammals survived when non-flying dinosaurs perished. Do not kill the 200 earth bound mammals just because you do not have the imagination that other features could be important than the numbers characterising the 1000000 earth bound dinosaurs.

    1. 2

      During 40 years I combined my activities in the industry with a formalisation of the same praxis. When I tried to make contact with academia in 1995, the reaction was that I did something similar to Spencer Brown and that it was proven that this approach is a struggle in a swamp and did not result in anything new. I then made a copy of the book and studied the Laws of form, and indeed: I could imagine why I got this advise: the whole approach with the “equal-sign” is very subtile and not understood by Spencer Brown, and the “re-entry” is obscuring the fundamental insight. There is no need for. Spencer Brown only needs two values: the cross and the void, indeed. All other expressions are “if… then…” constructions, value-less, and he invented a “re-entry” trying to express this insight. However this invention obscures the fundamental structure in reality: a reality that can be built from distinctions gets naturally the structure of a lattice, known in mathematics, a direct consequence of a partial order relation that can be understood as a relation of simultaneity. This has very fine consequences for dealing with the complexity of stakeholder views and thus for praxis. The development of a mathematical and logical formalism needs a very carefully approach not hindered by connotations given naturally in the language that is used for disclosing the structural way of thinking. This means that I could only do it using my native language and this is not English. I thus am handicapped but I am willing to discuss and demonstrate.

      1. 2

        Do not worry. You will always have the feeling that you lack more knowledge. Knowledge (and thus models) is available and, indeed, could be more accessible and open to discussion. I hope we, as a group, do not lack action. In action also something different than what you know always will show up. It is not because we are not posting on model.report that we do not take action. Action is a necessary condition for knowledge.

        1. 2

          Your question is a consequence of the fact that most models in system dynamics focus on the relation of increasing or decreasing physically separated subsystems (components of a structure). Higher level component-systems are seen as wholes or individuals: systems that have an identity of their own which would be lost if the system would be decomposed into its parts, thus the very structure of the whole (as an emergent entity) is not modeled in terms of components, let alone other aspects. The availability of physical components however is not a requisite for making simulations and this immediately complicates the available tools. Focusing on emergent aspects only, one could talk about aspect systems. An aspect is a relation between components and thus not a separated subsystem but a focus emerging from interactions. Aspect systems are internally distributed modes of interactions constituting a medium (F. Heylighen: Mediator Evolution: a general scenario for the origin of dynamical hierarchies http://cleamc11.vub.ac.be/papers/MediatorEvolution.pdf). Interactions are relations, they are not accumulations. If the interaction stops, there is nothing left, no whole, no individual, no entity, let alone a countable entity. An aspect system is a model focusing on something else than mutually defining components, it focuses on mutually defining influences. Two separated subsystems could interact as far as aspect A is concerned but not as far as aspect B is concerned. Here some examples: Instead of the variation of one component constraining the variation of the other component, the variation of an aspect (for example the position of a component) constrains the variation of an other aspect (for example the angle with a given direction of THE SAME component). A good example of an aspect system is given by the story of throwing a die http://innowiz.be/Methodologiecursus/Werkelijkheid/Complexity_and_emergence_by_example.html the pips are an aspect of the game, the orientation is an aspect, position is an aspect, the noise is an aspect etc…. The synergy for new games with dice is at the level of interactions and is not an accumulation (that would exist even when there is no (inter)action). Synergy is an aspect of a medium: the game. An other example is given by the farmer making a choice of interactions when actively growing grass to feed more cows (giving the possibility to sell more cows and buying more land to grow more grass or corn), but simultaneously making the decision that less space is available to grow corn, food for which he comes in competition with his own cows but also giving the possibility to feed cows during winter time. And one piece of land even can have more than the aspects “suitable for grass” or “suitable for corn” (both aspects are relations between minerals, water, soil, warmth, light etc…). And aspects moreover can show a synergistic relationship, for example: forage clover and corn (growing clover AND corn on the same piece of land will increase the total food biomass). Again the synergy (or no synergy at all) is an aspect of the medium. The possibilities of mutually defining each other usually are limited (for example there are only a few “fitting” states) except when there is no scarcity of essential resources. Abundance (no scarcity) is a defining property of information and creativity. Information could be called “knowledge” or “know-how” and thus information increases the “access” to new resources, meaning that creativity can find other non competing resources and thus avoid scarcity. Moreover creativity can be focused to organize a synergy of making resources available. However: if one does not find a way to make traces (that are built but not destroyed by the interaction, accumulating the knowledge leading to synergy) then the synergy will be lost http://innowiz.be/Methodologiecursus//Werkelijkheid/Stigmergic_prototyping_2.04.html. The synergy of making resources available has an unavoidable material component, be it an internal or external memory, and thus separate subsystems and thus potential scarcity. This results in the inevitability of hierarchies for information and meaning: a collective of agents begins interacting, thus constituting a medium; the medium self-organizes so as to better coordinate the interactions, becoming a mediator; the mediator establishes active control over the interacting agents, becoming a manager and actively promoting a certain meaning in the interactions (F. Heylighen). If these hierarchies are materialized constituting a hierarchy of meaningful traces, the increasing synergy will not be lost and still higher levels of coordination will be possible.

          1. 1

            Contact Bernard Lietaer at bernard@lietaer.com with my recommendation. Bernard was one of the speakers on the TEDX event https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEqkCA2qnLo where I gave the keynote. Walter

            —–Original Message—– From: systemswiki [systemswiki@model.report] Sent: donderdag 20 november 2014 16:14 To: modelreport-beCZfX01jj@model.report Subject: Local Currency Impact Model [Question] [_Economy]

            Bruce Nappi, bnappi@a3society.org, is looking for leads for someone who’s done an economic model for the impact of local currencies. He’s working on this independently with Helene. If you have any leads please contact him at the previous email address.

            Vote: https://model.report/s/fobser

            – Modify your email notifications: https://model.report/settings

              1. 1

                In order to see clearly how we are our own enemies, we have to make a distinction between actions with a goal and actions without a goal. This is modeled as follows: http://innowiz.be/Methodologiecursus//Werkelijkheid/Designing_experienced_simultaneity.html The conclusion is worth to reflect on: “That the best organizations of agents are best fit is not apparent in the industrial cooperation of people alone. Not only in the industry this results in a noticeable increase in time pressure. It can be observed with the distribution of information or knowledge, an asset that in principle should be non-rivalry because it can be distributed without loosing it. Except… when it is related to reputation, when the knowledge creator, for being part of a team that distributed the information more quickly than competing teams, can claim (s)he was the first and is rewarded for this. This is a reward that is exclusive by the exploitation of linear time and is related to the activity of publication of the information. Thus it is an activity with a goal but in its organizational aspects benefiting from the “context building” activities without a goal. These context building activities increase the collective competence and act as the necessary medium for publication. This medium is very sensitive to disturbing actions from “free riders” and thus functions as a new kind of commons.”

                1. [Comment removed by author]

                  1. 1

                    I will try by highlighting parts of your question, and I will connect these to the content that I provided. If there was an active virtual learning community… You could try to imagine that I came to understand that learning cannot be goal directed, because, if you are not surprised (that you experience something else than that what you know already of what you think you would learn) you did not learn. Learning increases the distinctions with which you construct a reality deemed relevant to you. Learning is being open to and looking for a positive feedback loop, running away from an anti-goal. … intently pursuing a broader awareness and a deeper understanding around a particular subject area… You could try to imagine that my interpretation of this part of the sentence is that this is goal directed … . Goal directed actions are modeled by a negative feedback loop. The goal is available from the beginning and one aims at recognizing that it is met after a certain linear time. What conclusion seems to hold if you combine both in one sentence? Aren’t we our own enemies? … in what manner would they engage? What would they need to support their pursuit considering that those engaged were only able to engage periodically and in an asynchronous manner? … You could try to imagine that I read this as related to “time”. I thus posted the link to a model focused on “time”. We are building a new medium very sensitive to disturbing actions from “free riders”, for example the temptation to exploit it (the rationale of Linkedin), to publish (the rationale of academia) etc…. In my eyes it functions as a new kind of commons. I hope that we can cherish it. I hope this helps.

                    1. [Comment removed by author]

                      1. 2

                        Change the mindset out of which the system – its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters – arises? Hope for the power to transcend paradigms? Dancing with systems? (Donella Meadows)

                        1. [Comment removed by author]

                          1. 1

                            Act. Acting means (operationally) being unable to differentiate between two aspects: (1) “choosing for something” (related to a paradigm, for sure) AND (2) “letting happen something different” (different from anything grounded by this paradigm). If both aspects are not recognized, you imagined “acting”, but you did not act. For sure, you are right in judging that “acting” is not a thought, dancing neither.

                            1. [Comment removed by author]

                              1. 1

                                I agree we should stop here as it seems it just to “dance” for my feeble mind to grasp? Feel free. Warm feelings.