“When doing simulations of networks, ‘rewiring’ is randomly changing some small subset of links from individual agents of the network…this is the programmer’s way of introducing ‘noise’ into the network, and it is precisely this type of noise that causes barriers between local sections of differing states to break down, causing a consensus to be reached. These are some of the results I’ve mentioned in some posts that are fairly new (just within the last couple years). It seems as if a growing number of people are observing such a phenomenon and drawing conclusions similar to those from the simulation work.
On another note it seems to me that some level of consilience is required to be truly resilient. To be able to react and adapt to any random perturbation will presumably require some level of understanding, or at the very least identification, of the perturbation. Since there are large numbers of possible disturbances that can unleashed on a given system, some amount of knowledge of or experience with of each type would be ideal.”
UPDATE II.
Von also has posted on resilience and consilience today.
Page 3 of 3 | Previous page
vonny:
May 16th, 2006 at 4:44 am
Hi Mark,
When doing simulations of networks, ‘rewiring’ is randomly changing some small subset of links from individual agents of the network…this is the programmer’s way of introducing ‘noise’ into the network, and it is precisely this type of noise that causes barriers between local sections of differing states to break down, causing a consensus to be reached. These are some of the results I’ve mentioned in some posts that are fairly new (just within the last couple years). It seems as if a growing number of people are observing such a phenomenon and drawing conclusions similar to those from the simulation work.
On another note it seems to me that some level of consilience is required to be truly resilient. To be able to react and adapt to any random perturbation will presumably require some level of understanding, or at the very least identification, of the perturbation. Since there are large numbers of possible disturbances that can unleashed on a given system, some amount of knowledge of or experience with of each type would be ideal.
Curtis Gale Weeks:
May 16th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Mark,
As so often happens in situations like these, so many new avenues for exploration have been opened up for me, I must pause in consideration before I can continue.
At the moment, I’m contemplating the way SOA may substitute for personal consilience, or produce consilient effects, by circumventing the normal conservative/insular impulse…Not sure if that’s the way to put it or think of it, but as I said, I’m still contemplating!
Kim McDodge:
May 17th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
I would hope that we stay to the image of consilience/resilience than get off into concepts and oversimplified ideologies. This is a reminder that some important minds have criticised the sociobiology of EO Wilson’s program of consilence. Wm I Thompson and Wendell Berry in particular need to be remembered for their care in sticking with complexity of pattern recognition, not falling off into eliminativism, reduction and blame of the other….
DeAngelis holds close to the Complex Dynamical Mentality which WIT sees as an ecology of consciousness….so far.
mark:
May 18th, 2006 at 2:30 am
Hey Von,
Question:
One of the aspects of network theory are the similar mathematical patterns in different domains where networks are operating. Does the introduction of ” noise” alter the mathematical pattern ? scramble/reconfigure it ?
hi Curtis,
Take your time. I can’t make Zenpundit the ” All resilience, all the time” blog anyway ;O) pondering can be useful.
Note Wiggins at OSD has a new related post up
Hi Kim,
Well I don’t see this discussion going in a deterministic direction, myself. My mental picture of network behavior is more “biological” in that the evolutionary path has many potentialities, only some of which are predictable.
Of course, I’m not a scientist/IT expert like Von or Steve either, so…..