3 ms·
> Self-organizing has a very clear definition. Not true. The "definition" in Wikipedia is essentially saying that a complex system exhibits self-organization i
by jayajay 10y ago
> Self-organizing has a very clear definition.
Not true. The "definition" in Wikipedia is essentially saying that a complex system exhibits self-organization if there is order observed at various scales. I didn't read the paper -- but based on the abstract, it looks like there is some sort of structural phase transition at T_c = 253K (please correct me if this is wrong) which allows these molecules to energetically favor reassembly. This would classify, according to Wikipedia, as self-organization at a microscopic scale. Self-organization can be evident at some scales (but not others) in systems which are not self-similar, but you already know this, since you read the Wikipedia article.
> From biological to robotic swarms, very simple instructions can achieve amazingly complex results.
No one is denying the beauty of complex systems. That said, the versatility of the word "swarm" word is precisely what makes it trivial! One can only beg for more words. What kind of swarm? At what scale? A physicist will find behavior that can be poetically described as "swarm" in one place, and a chemist will find it in another place, and a biologist will find it in still another place, and at a different scale!
> I have a high confidence that when we actually do have a real self-healing technology, swarm will be an apt description of its nano tech.
This is meaningless! It's trivially true. Let me try it: "I have high confidence that when we actually do have a real self-healing technology, sinusoidal will be an apt description of its nano tech." You can't use those terms to describe what self-healing "should look like" since those terms are vague and non-mathematical (self-organization could be defined more mathematically).
In reality, I think you have an idea or imagination or intuition of what you think "real" self-healing technology should be, and you just aren't satisfied with what we're at right now. This -- I can accept, and I might even agree with you. But don't go around hand-waving buzzwords about what technology should look like, because there's no content there.
- jayajay 10y agoI think a really good example of this is boson gasses versus fully connected neural networks (phase only). A cold enough boson gas will undergo a phase transition where each particle falls into the ground state. A fully-connected strongly coupled random phase network will lead to each neuron having the same phase (i.e. same state). You would readily call a neuron matrix "self-organizing" or "swarmy", since it leads the EEG signals we measure, but how is that any more self-organizing or swarmy than the Bose-Einstein condensate if the math is the same? The premise is that it isn't. That's why it seems silly to claim that this paper's statistical system is not self-organizingy or swarmy enough, and that "real" self-healing systems are "more" self-organizingy and swarmy.
- slacka 10y agoThe way biological neurons self-organize into a neural network could correctly be described as swarm behavior. In fact there is quite a bit of research into this and it's amazing how during development you can move a neuron from one part of the brain into another area, and it will self-correct and take up the proper role in the new region. There are complex emergent properties here, which your Bose-Einstein condensate lacks. Which is also why it has not practical use beyond theoretical research. I subscribe to the cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics, that our most fundamental laws work like the game of life. A basic part of their program is to increase entropy. This results in homogenous and lack of complexity. These is where your counter point falls apart. Your Bose-Einstein condensate is less complex. Unless we could change the laws of our universe, we have no way to program its behavior and is therefore not useful. So if you must, I will quality my original assertion that it will be a programmable swarm-like behavior. Although whether it be from computer code or DNA, this is a characteristic than any traditional swarm behavior possesses.
- jayajay 10y ago> There are complex emergent properties here, which your Bose-Einstein condensate lacks. Which is also why it has not practical use beyond theoretical research. I'm sure someone said that "doping insulators has no practical use beyond theoretical research", too. > Unless we could change the laws of our universe, we have no way to program its behavior and is therefore not useful. Something is useful if and only if we can "program" its behavior. Do you think this assertion is true? Would you consider an iron hammer useful? What about bone tools?
- jayajay 10y agoHonestly mate, I appreciate the conversation and your response, but this is starting to reek of quantum spirituality, which is fine, but you're presenting ideas which I can't argue against. Regarding interpretations of quantum mechanics, the interpretation is unimportant -- the math is the same is the same is the same. If you want to think about particles as being controlled by fairies who are locked up in hidden dimensions, that's kinky and totally fine -- as long as we use the same math, I don't really care. If your fairies end up predicting new phenomenon that exist, which are not predicted by the Born/Copenhagen interpretations, sign me up -- I'll go to wonderland. Until then, let's leave interpretations out of our conversation. My point in bringing up boson gasses and neural networks was to show that two vastly different systems at different scales can both exhibit self-organization described by similar mathematics. I am not saying those systems are equivalent, but I am saying that self-organization is a very versatile term and that throwing it around with no context warrants more content.