Гладилин Иван
Стратегия расчленения России вступила в горячую фазу, предостерегает армянский политик
«Варшавская Декларация (Варшавская декларация Евросоюза по случаю Европейского дня памяти жертв тоталитарных режимов, которую приняли 23 августа в Варшаве министры юстиции стран ЕС. – Прим. KM.RU) создает благодатную почву для демонтажа таких организаций, как СНГ, ШОС, ЕврАзЭС, Таможенный союз России, Казахстана и Белоруссии и, конечно, Военно-политический союз Организации Договора о коллективной безопасности». С таким предостережением выступил глава армянской партии «Национальное единение», председатель правления общественной организации «Северная перспектива» Арташес Гегамян.
Ведь не секрет, пишет он в материале, который публикует ИА REGNUM, что цементирующей основой духовной близости народов государств – членов СНГ является чувство родства и кровной причастности к поколению, которое ценой колоссальных жертв и лишений сумело спасти Европу от коричневой чумы фашизма. Грядущие же за ним поколения воспитывались в духе сынов и внуков победителей единой страны – спасительницы Старого континента. А вот реализация Варшавской Декларации приведет к тому, что души детей и внуков более чем 600 000 армян – участников Великой Отечественной войны, половина которых не вернулась с фронта, будут в смятении.
Не секрет, продолжает Арташес Гегамян, что уже более 20 лет их мозги промывают якобы идеями «демократии» и «либерализма», а на самом деле меняют их психологию, которая унаследована ими от их отцов и дедов, психологию народа – победителя фашизма. Более того, стремятся навязать молодому поколению синдром покаяния, психологию оправдывающегося поколения за то, что, как это записано в Варшавской Декларации, «Европа страдала под властью тоталитарных режимов (читай, СССР. – А.Г.), независимо от того, был ли это коммунизм, национальный социализм...».
В случае с Республикой Армения расчет прост, поясняет политик. Армянский народ, по логике инициаторов Варшавской Декларации, который испытал ужасы геноцида в Османской империи в 1915-1923 гг. и который в годы Второй мировой войны в составе СССР опять-таки ценой колоссальных жертв добился победы, оказывается, должен покаяться за то, что «Европа страдала под властью тоталитарных режимов», а наши родители и мы не только не бунтовали против этого режима, но своим посильным и честным трудом приумножили мощь и богатство страны, нашей великой Родины.
Это – не ностальгия по советским временам и тем более по маразматическим и бездарным лидерам СССР конца 1980-х гг., специально оговаривается армянский политик. Это – всего лишь осмысление того факта, что уже в современных условиях ведется крайне продуманная системная работа по навязыванию России, как справедливо отметил Модест Колеров в своей вышеуказанной статье, «Нюрнберга против России» (так было озаглавлено интервью главного редактора ИА REGNUM, опубликованное на днях информагентством, на которое ссылается Арташес Гегамян. – Прим. KM.RU). При этом остальным странам СНГ уготована роль холуев – разоблачителей преступлений тоталитаризма.
Существует ли связь, задается далее политик вопросом, между принятой 23 августа с. г. Варшавской Декларацией с событиями, которые имеют место быть в Ливии и Сирии? Какие последствия Декларация может иметь для постсоветских государств, охваченных программой ЕС «Восточное партнерство», в которой задействованы Украина, Белоруссия, Молдавия, Грузия, Азербайджан и Армения?
Чтобы понять подлинную суть происходящего в Ливии и Сирии, он приводит выдержки из интервью Пола Крейга Робертса, бывшего заместителя министра финансов в администрации Рональда Рейгана, которое тот дал телекомпании Press TV. Арташес Гегамян напоминает, что Пола Крейга Робертса сам Рейган называл «настоящим отцом рейганомики». Итак, в вышеуказанном интервью Пол Крейг Робертс заявляет: «Мы хотим свергнуть Каддафи в Ливии и Асада в Сирии, потому что хотим выгнать Китай и Россию из Средиземноморья». Дальше – больше. «Какой наш интерес в протестах в Сирии?», – задает вопрос Пол Крейг Робертс и отвечает на него так: «За протестами стоят американцы. Мы заинтересованы в этом, потому что у русских есть военно-морская база, которая обеспечивает им присутствие в Средиземном море. Так что, вы видите, Вашингтон вмешался в Ливии и прилагает все больше усилий для вмешательства в Сирии, потому что мы хотим избавиться от русских и китайцев».
Судя по сообщениям самых разных источников, режим Каддафи обречен, отмечает Арташес Гегамян. Удастся ли Национальному переходному совету (НПС) сохранить единую Ливию и не дать распасться на три государства в соответствии с границами исторически существовавших областей: Триполитанию на северо-западе, Киренаику на северо-востоке и Феццан (Феззан) – на юге, покажет время. Установится ли мир на земле Ливии, которая по своей площади (1 759 540 кв. км, из них 90% занимают пустыни) является четвертой страной в Африке и 17-й в мире? Это – тема для отдельного анализа, пишет автор.
Бесспорно одно, подчеркивает он, что после последних событий в Ливии основное внимание мировых центров силы будет сосредоточено на Сирии. В случае дальнейшей эскалации напряженности в Сирии неизбежно вовлечение во внутренний конфликт этой страны соседней с ней Турции, хотя бы под предлогом приостановления надвигающейся «гуманитарной катастрофы», связанной с массовым пересечением беженцами сирийско-турецкой границы. Определенная роль будет отведена и курдскому населению, и не только Сирии, но и Ирана, и Турции. Естественно, эта роль предполагается быть дестабилизирующей. И все это будет происходить в приграничных с Арменией государствах Турции, Иране, а также в Сирии, в которой вот уже около 100 лет проживает более чем 200-тысячная армянская диаспора. Не приходится сомневаться в том, что «политика управляемого хаоса», которая успешно реализуется под фирменным названием «арабская весна», может быть распространена как на Армению, так и на Азербайджан, предостерегает Арташес Гегамян.
Если же при этом, пишет он далее, не без участия внешних сил будет одновременная дестабилизация ситуации в Армении и Азербайджане, то это приведет к созданию положения «управляемого хаоса» и взорвет ситуацию в Южном Кавказе. А там на очереди, глядишь, уже центральноазиатские государства – члены СНГ. И, следуя логике последних событий в Северной Африке, такая политика мировых центров силы будет реализовываться при одновременных попытках дестабилизировать обстановку в самой России. Россия в союзе с ослабленными государствами – членами ОДКБ будет иметь все меньше и меньше возможностей противостоять действиям западных стратегов, которые устанавливают «новый мировой порядок», основанный на «управляемом хаосе».
К достижению этой же задачи, скорее всего, нацелена Варшавская Декларация от 23 августа 2011 года. С одной стороны, заложенные в Декларации положения в случае их реализации неизбежно будут разрыхлять основы единства российского общества. С другой стороны, через программу «Восточного партнерства» авторы Варшавской Декларации будут вовлекать партнеров России по ОДКБ (Армения, Белоруссия) и СНГ (Азербайджан, Украина, Молдавия) в работу по сбору материалов, обличающих «преступную деятельность тоталитарного СССР». В то же самое время соответствующая пропагандистская машина на этом фоне развяжет очередной виток информационной войны, преследующей цель нагнетания антироссийских, русофобских настроений. Это, в свою очередь, по принципу сообщающихся сосудов, незамедлительно перекинется в саму Россию. Ведь не секрет, что сегодня в РФ проживают и обеспечивают не только свое, но и существование своих родственников в СНГ многомиллионные армянская, азербайджанская, грузинская, молдавская, таджикская диаспоры.
Можно привести и другие веские аргументы, подтверждающие факт проведения целенаправленной и эшелонированной работы по размыванию основ государственности России и его союзников по ОДКБ, однако думается, что вышеизложенное позволяет сделать вывод: стратегия расчленения России уже вступила в горячую фазу, заключает Арташес Гегамян.
Темы: Территориальные и финансовые претензии к России со стороны республик бывшего СССР, Отношения России с республиками бывшего СССР, Геополитическая стратегия Запада в отношении республик б.СССР
Источник: KMnews
понедельник, 29 августа 2011 г.
воскресенье, 28 августа 2011 г.
NPR13.7 - A New Kind of Law Beyond Entailing Law: The Ensemble Approach7
by Stuart Kauffman
Two posts ago, in "The End Of A Physics Worldview: Heraclitus And The Watershed of Life," I agued, I believe correctly, that no law entails the detailed evolution of the biosphere, or human life. At stake is our entire framework of understanding the universe, for reductionism claims that there shall be a "theory of everything" that entails all that happens in the universe, evolution, life, social systems, and history.
If I, with Giuseppe Longo, am right, the reductionist view is inadequate. We live beyond the watershed of life and beyond entailing law.
In this post I wish to speak to a new issue: If life is beyond entailing law, what forms of law can we have where life is concerned, if any? I believe we can. One approach is based on what I call the "ensemble approach."
I begin with the insights of Longo and Bailly in Mathematics and the Natural Sciences: The Physical Singularity of Life (Imperial College Press, 2011). Longo and Bailly establish convincingly that the modern foundations of physics, classical and quantum, have the following two essential properties: i. The phase space of the system in question, i.e., the space of its "possible behaviors," is pre-stated and pre-fixed. ii. The behavior of the system is, however, always a unique trajectory that optimizes some criterion. For a ball rolling down a set of interconnected bowls, the optimum is a path that minimizes an action, the principle of least action. In general terms, they claim, the actual trajectory follows a shortest path or geodesic on some surface, or manifold which may be curved.
Bailly and Longo, and I in Reinventing the Sacred, believe that the phase space of life is ever changing and unprestatable. Life follows myriad pathways, not geodesics, without entailing law.
The Ensemble Approach And A Form Of Self Organization
The ensemble approach may prove useful. I will give four examples where it has been applied: genetic regulatory networks, the origin of life, that statistical features of rugged fitness landscapes, and in physics, spin glasses. I discuss the first in detail.
First, as a young man I was thinking about cell differentiation. How could different cells in you, all having the same genes, be different: liver, kidney etc.?
It was known that in different cells types, different genes were active making specific and different sets of proteins. In 1961 and 1963, French microbiologists, F. Jacob and J. Monod, cracked the problem when they showed that, in E. coli bacteria, one gene could make a protein, say A, that bound to a DNA region next to another gene, say the B gene, and turn on or turn off the B gene's formation of its own B protein. In a seminal 1963 paper they argued that if two genes, A and B, each repressed, or turned off, the other gene, the little two gene circuit had two dynamical steady states: A on B off; A off B on. Hence they said, the same set of genes could express different proteins corresponding to two cell types.
Their work led to the central question of systems biology: What is the genetic regulatory network among 23,000 human genes, of which about 2,200 regulate one another's activities and regulate the rest of the 23,000?
Here we need to know which genes regulate which genes, and by what rules. Then we need to integrate the equations of motion of such a network to discover its integrated behavior.
Just as Newton's laws for billiard balls yield, upon integration and given initial and boundary conditions, the trajectory of the balls, for a classical physics genetic network, the behavior of the system has a trajectory from each initial state. These typically end up on small subsets of states, called attractors, each of which drains a basin of attraction. Cell types probably correspond to attractors, differentiation to noise or signal induced flow among attractors.
Here is the ensemble approach: I wondered if natural selection had to struggle to create very specific, engineered networks to achieve controlled differentiation from the fertilized egg, or zygote, called ontogeny, or, I hoped, some broad class, or ensemble of networks would all have good enough dynamical behavior to underlie ontogeny with just some tuning by natural selection.
To ask this question I idealized the behavior of a gene as an on-off device, a light bulb, and asked was there a class of large genetic networks that yielded orderly behavior. To ask this question is inherently to take the ensemble approach. It asks whether there are typical (i.e., generic) behaviors in different classes or ensembles of networks.
In my case I imagined N genes, each with K inputs. There are vastly many networks, an entire ensemble of networks, with N = 23,000 genes, and K = say, 2 inputs per gene. To study the typical properties of this ensemble, one approach is to sample at random from this ensemble. Thus, I chose the K = 2 inputs to each gene at random from among the N, and for each I assigned at random one of the 16 possible logical, or Boolean, functions prescribing the behavior of the regulated gene at the next-time moment, given the on or off states of its two inputs at the current moment. The and function is such a Boolean function. It says the regulated gene will be on at the next moment only if both its inputs are on at the present moment.
To summarize many years of work by many on Random Boolean Networks, it turns out that they behave in three regimes: ordered, chaotic, and a critical edge of chaos regime which is a phase transition between order and chaos. K = 2 networks turn out to be critical for the ensemble of networks with randomly chosen Boolean functions. Critical networks can have other values of K greater than 2 by using non-random choices of Boolean function of K inputs.
Now three essential facts: i. critical and ordered networks exhibit very ordered, and also multiple, attractors, hence the generic behaviors of these networks exhibits a new form of self organization — generic order in an ensemble of systems. These ordered attractors are so ordered that the different attractors could explain the order of the different cell types in an organism. ii. It is becoming clear that differentiated cell types are almost certainly attractors. iii. More amazingly, cells appear to be critical, to live on the edge of chaos.
Note two essential features of the ensemble approach: i. There is a vast ensemble of NK Random Boolean Networks, or more realistic models of genetic networks, all of which are dynamically critical. In short, criticality is a feature of an entire ensemble of networks, not just of one. ii. Critical networks are a subset of all Random Boolean Networks, those at the edge of chaos. If cells are critical, natural selection must hold networks at the edge of chaos for adaptive reasons — here is the mixture of ensemble self-organization and natural selection.
The Ensemble Approach Can Yield Statistical Laws Beyond Entailing Laws
As noted at the start of this post, no law entails the detailed evolution of the biosphere, including the evolution of genetic regulatory networks. This means we cannot deduce ab initio what those networks are. But the ensemble approach allows statistical laws about the typical features and behaviors of the entire ensemble of critical networks.
More profoundly evolution does not follow geodesics. Thus evolution is not entailed. It follows myriad pathways mixing quantum random indeterminate mutations and non-random natural selection. The ensemble approach is the natural way to seek statistical laws about the behaviors of genetic regulatory networks, without needing to know the details of any specific genetic regulatory network. As we learn more about real networks, we can refine the specifications of the ensemble, hence the generic behaviors of the refined ensemble, for better statistical predictions.
In short, the ensemble approach marries to the lack of entailing law for evolution, to yield a viable approach to statistical laws beyond entailing law.
Finally, the ensemble approach has been used by physicists with respect to spin glasses, and by me and others with respect to models of the generic origin of self-reproducing, collectively autocatalytic sets of organic molecules, where it appears that there is a phase transition in complex reaction networks to molecular self reproduction.
I hope life is generic.
The ensemble approach has also been used by me and others to study the typical statistical properties of tunably rugged fitness (or payoff) landscapes, of use in biology, and even economics, (See my Origins of Order or At Home in the Universe, Oxford University Press 1993, 1995).
Comments
1
Stuart, I'm sorry that I misspelled your name, I sometimes use Google's translator to recheck was written, but then from Russian there is only this variant of your name.
I really think you should still take into account context. For example, you can definitely reduce the variable K, and therefore do landscape smoother if the connections within the system move in context (if instead of connection within the system we connect it with its context).
For example, this happens when an individual shifts his or her responsibility to someone else. I think that in this way can be described hierarchy.
samedi 27 août 2011 11:50:01
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
2
Stuart, do not you think if you look at a larger scale, when the system reaches the attractor, its present state is determined not so much by the previous one, but by the very attractor, ie its future state?
So it seems this virtual skeleton, which shapes and orders chaos, acts from the future ... And if so, cancer must be one of the most natural disease - problem with this virtual skeleton should naturaly lead to out-of-control chaos.
samedi 27 août 2011 11:45:30
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
3
Richard Dawkins looks at the genes "from the bottom" as a reductionist, and quite rightly concludes that, from this perspective, the notion of an individual organism is an illusion. On the other hand, it is not clear why, for example, not all parasites that get inside a body, not become organelles. So this virtual form, in my opinion, is simply the negation of context, and your model should take this into account.
(There was a very interesting article that Lamarckism can not be discounted, perhaps not a coincidence that it was written by immunologist, I do not give a link because unfortunately it was in Russian.)
Interestingly, this form can not be regarded as a hierarchy, but it's probably only defines boundaries within which is complete freedom, for exampe, skin cells must cover everything and stop.
samedi 27 août 2011 11:44:53
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Basil Roche (NagaJr) wrote:
Me too, Bob, but now Russell's gone and raised the bar. A 4-track mind. Sheesh!
samedi 27 août 2011 01:05:28
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Bob Wilson (PorchGuy) wrote:
Basil Roche (NagaJr) wrote:
Well, there's Science, Bob, and now there's Systems Science. It's possible to both chew gum and walk down stairs simultaneously, you know.
---
Very well said!
I'm chewing on the problem of Synthesis.
I’m not happy with SJ Gould’s ideas about non-overlapping magisteria.
Stuart asked the central question on a previous post: would you rather be Newton or Shakespeare?
A very interesting “either or" question.
Walking and chewing gum simultaneously is the transcendent ideal I long for.
vendredi 26 août 2011 21:50:35
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
NPR STAFF:
Stuart Kauffman (SAK43) wrote:
Thanks Russell. .Stu
vendredi 26 août 2011 17:16:28
Recommend (0)
Russell Grunloh (boatguy) wrote:
Darn it.
Here's the clean link
http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2011/jul/26/4-track-mind/
without my inept attempt at hypertext.
vendredi 26 août 2011 13:28:29
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
2
Stuart, do not you think if you look at a larger scale, when the system reaches the attractor, its present state is determined not so much by the previous one, but by the very attractor, ie its future state?
So it seems this virtual skeleton, which shapes and orders chaos, acts from the future ... And if so, cancer must be one of the most natural disease - problem with this virtual skeleton should naturaly lead to out-of-control chaos.
samedi 27 août 2011 11:45:30
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
3
Richard Dawkins looks at the genes "from the bottom" as a reductionist, and quite rightly concludes that, from this perspective, the notion of an individual organism is an illusion. On the other hand, it is not clear why, for example, not all parasites that get inside a body, not become organelles. So this virtual form, in my opinion, is simply the negation of context, and your model should take this into account.
(There was a very interesting article that Lamarckism can not be discounted, perhaps not a coincidence that it was written by immunologist, I do not give a link because unfortunately it was in Russian.)
Interestingly, this form can not be regarded as a hierarchy, but it's probably only defines boundaries within which is complete freedom, for exampe, skin cells must cover everything and stop.
samedi 27 août 2011 11:44:53
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Basil Roche (NagaJr) wrote:
Me too, Bob, but now Russell's gone and raised the bar. A 4-track mind. Sheesh!
samedi 27 août 2011 01:05:28
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Bob Wilson (PorchGuy) wrote:
Basil Roche (NagaJr) wrote:
Well, there's Science, Bob, and now there's Systems Science. It's possible to both chew gum and walk down stairs simultaneously, you know.
---
Very well said!
I'm chewing on the problem of Synthesis.
I’m not happy with SJ Gould’s ideas about non-overlapping magisteria.
Stuart asked the central question on a previous post: would you rather be Newton or Shakespeare?
A very interesting “either or" question.
Walking and chewing gum simultaneously is the transcendent ideal I long for.
vendredi 26 août 2011 21:50:35
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
NPR STAFF:
Stuart Kauffman (SAK43) wrote:
Thanks Russell. .Stu
vendredi 26 août 2011 17:16:28
Recommend (0)
Russell Grunloh (boatguy) wrote:
Darn it.
Here's the clean link
http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2011/jul/26/4-track-mind/
without my inept attempt at hypertext.
vendredi 26 août 2011 13:28:29
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
Russell Grunloh (boatguy) wrote:
All,
For a brief aside, I recommend _this_">http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2011/jul/26/4-track-mind/"/>_this_ short from "Radiolab".
We've discussed the mysterious unity of consciousness before on this extended thread, and now the ensemble approach. The subject of the piece appears to be able to run four different complex threads simultaneously without "ensemble-ing" them, through the means of a unifying 3D visualization.
As a musician having had to perform multiple time signature Charles Ives charts, I must concede his performance to be almost unbelievable and revelatory of the nature of comprehension.
I apologize if this seems off-topic, but I trust it will be worth your while.
vendredi 26 août 2011 13:25:25
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
Stewart, do not you think that your model must also take into account and the relationship with contests? Could you assign a variable for this? To me, this is exactly what is missing.
NPR STAFF:
Stuart Kauffman (SAK43) wrote:
cont As physicist Max Aldana is spearheading, we can study the effects of selection on the evolution of the ensemble itself, again with new predictions. It seems the ensemble approach is one sensible approach to predicting the typical behaviors of systems in an evolving ensemble, but without predicting the detailed structure, logic and behavior of any one network. In turn, if successful, the ensemble approach implies that the successfully predicted generic behaviors of the ensemble members do NOT DEPEND upon the specifics of any particular evolved member of the ensemble. It is new kind of statistical mechanics, not over the states of one system, but over the generic behaviors of an ensemble of evolving systems.
jeudi 25 août 2011 13:00:29
Recommend (1)
NPR STAFF:
Stuart Kauffman (SAK43) wrote:
cont, where critical random Boolean nets predict that the number of cell types in an organism scales as the square root of the number of its genes - which seems roughly true. Or we predict the statistics of transitions among attractors and try to map it to the statistics of differentiation from one cell type to others, which again matches reality. Or we propose that the fertilized egg does not "reach" all cell type attractors of which the genomic system is capable, so some of the unused cell types may be cancer, hence open to curing by inducing them to differentiate into normal cells - cancer differentiation therapy where my colleague Sui Huang and I are finding initial confirming (to be tested much further) results. Or we find that critical networks have optimality properties and predict that cells are dynamically critical due to a marriage of self organization AND selection. Here initial evidence says cells may really be dynamically critical. So: in summary, the ensemble approach does truly allow predictions that can be and are being tested.
But as we learn more of real genetic regulatory networks we can refine the specifications of the ensemble of model networks to get refined predictions and can also, as Max Aldana cont
jeudi 25 août 2011 12:57:35
Recommend (1)
NPR STAFF:
Stuart Kauffman (SAK43) wrote:
HI All, There are two main themes of this post: i. from "The End of a Physics Worldview: Heraclitus and the Watershed of Life", I hope, with Giuseppe Longo, to be building an increasingly strong case that no law entails the evolution of the biosphere or our econosphere or all of human life. We must treat such a huge claim with caution, for if it is true, Nobel laureate S. Weinberg's dream of a final theory that entails all that happens in the universe is false. 2. Assuming the truth of the Heraclitus post, if the detailed evolution of life and the living is beyond entailing law, what types of laws might we have? This opens the door to all of the social sciences, economics, sociology, psyschology, anthropology. It also opens the door to an Ensemble Approach. In this approach we purposely give up trying to model the details of whatever we study, eg genetic regulatory networks, and study instead a definable class, or ensemble, of genetic regulatory systems and seek the average, or typical, or generic behavior of members of that ensemble. One way to do so is to sample from the ensemble at random, eg my Random Boolean Networks. Then one DOES try to make predictions: eg the number of attractors to the number of cell types, cont.
jeudi 25 août 2011 12:52:39
Recommend (1)
Bob Wilson (PorchGuy) wrote:
If ensemble theory yields testable hypotheses I am interested.
F=MA yielded testable predictions, as did e=mc^2.
What is the equation of ensemble theory?
Is ensemble theory empirically testable?
mercredi 24 août 2011 20:34:33
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Elliot Tarabour (etarabour) wrote:
Hi Bob,
I agree. It is good to be critical and question everything. But if you Cauldron boils hot you may kill many things off or you may get some excellent soup.
e.
mercredi 24 août 2011 14:06:01
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
1
Stuart, thanks, what you wrote sounds reassuring. As you can see, I read your book (Origins of Order or At Home in the Universe) very carefully and not once, and it's worth it! Now I am happy to discuss it!
Phil wrote:
"Life is a non-equilibrium state, so it need not follow the path of least action - it can choose to expend energy to follow another path."
Phil, I think in this case, you're wrong: in each case we are dealing rather with a choice of different paths of development, within each of them the system follows the path of least action. We have already discussed the collapse of quantum states, and it relates to the relationship between Potential and Actual and between text and context.
Here is an example, Mike, this is my answer to you!
mercredi 24 août 2011 12:01:35
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
2
Imagine that you have your own business, and like any normal businessman your main task - to make a profit. And then, one day a corporation - it still was your rival - invited to join them, promising that there you will have more. You have joined, the money you won but maybe you lost something? Now you have a boss - this is another happy purchase - in fact, your relationship is purely formal, then you can treat him as your client - who cares? Try it, and then tell me what happened ... Clearly, if with a client you were on an equal (ideally) then now you become subordinate - there hierarchy emerged. This means that no sane economist should no longer consider you as an independent selfish players.
mercredi 24 août 2011 12:00:53
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
3
In terms of game theory, you and your boss are playing entirely different rules - that is allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to bull - this is hierarchy. So what you lost? Your Potential. If before, at least theoretically, your company could become the second Microsoft, but now it is not you who determines your future. The relationship with context was changed: instead of preserving the independence of it (negation), it is obedience (ie - merger). It was a choice between maintaining Potential and the transition to a stable state. But within each scenario BUT WITHIN EACH SCENARIO THE SYSTEM FOLLOWS THE PATH OF LEAST ACTION!
This implies many interesting conclusions, for example, that money does not necessarily make us free, but quite the contrary - we often have to pay them for our independence. The same applies to the States: to maintain the sovereignty they need to maintain many of the unprofitable national industry (in the U.S., I have heard similar problems with the automotive industry, for example), but it is perfectly rational strategy!
mercredi 24 août 2011 11:59:42
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
4
And these are two different strategies in real life: to earn as much as possible and to maintain your own independence. So that once we sold ourselves, we find ourselves trapped in a local peak - this secret known by all the founders of large companies: during their evolution they are definitely not once received tempting offers to merge - they all refused, but they somehow convince us that a "rational economic player" has to climb to the first available local peak.
So the call of the Tea Party to return to the early capitalism in practice should mean the transition to the strategy of independence for each player - to do business for the sake of business itself, in order not to work for others.
mercredi 24 août 2011 11:57:15
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
Two posts ago, in "The End Of A Physics Worldview: Heraclitus And The Watershed of Life," I agued, I believe correctly, that no law entails the detailed evolution of the biosphere, or human life. At stake is our entire framework of understanding the universe, for reductionism claims that there shall be a "theory of everything" that entails all that happens in the universe, evolution, life, social systems, and history.
If I, with Giuseppe Longo, am right, the reductionist view is inadequate. We live beyond the watershed of life and beyond entailing law.
In this post I wish to speak to a new issue: If life is beyond entailing law, what forms of law can we have where life is concerned, if any? I believe we can. One approach is based on what I call the "ensemble approach."
I begin with the insights of Longo and Bailly in Mathematics and the Natural Sciences: The Physical Singularity of Life (Imperial College Press, 2011). Longo and Bailly establish convincingly that the modern foundations of physics, classical and quantum, have the following two essential properties: i. The phase space of the system in question, i.e., the space of its "possible behaviors," is pre-stated and pre-fixed. ii. The behavior of the system is, however, always a unique trajectory that optimizes some criterion. For a ball rolling down a set of interconnected bowls, the optimum is a path that minimizes an action, the principle of least action. In general terms, they claim, the actual trajectory follows a shortest path or geodesic on some surface, or manifold which may be curved.
Bailly and Longo, and I in Reinventing the Sacred, believe that the phase space of life is ever changing and unprestatable. Life follows myriad pathways, not geodesics, without entailing law.
The Ensemble Approach And A Form Of Self Organization
The ensemble approach may prove useful. I will give four examples where it has been applied: genetic regulatory networks, the origin of life, that statistical features of rugged fitness landscapes, and in physics, spin glasses. I discuss the first in detail.
First, as a young man I was thinking about cell differentiation. How could different cells in you, all having the same genes, be different: liver, kidney etc.?
It was known that in different cells types, different genes were active making specific and different sets of proteins. In 1961 and 1963, French microbiologists, F. Jacob and J. Monod, cracked the problem when they showed that, in E. coli bacteria, one gene could make a protein, say A, that bound to a DNA region next to another gene, say the B gene, and turn on or turn off the B gene's formation of its own B protein. In a seminal 1963 paper they argued that if two genes, A and B, each repressed, or turned off, the other gene, the little two gene circuit had two dynamical steady states: A on B off; A off B on. Hence they said, the same set of genes could express different proteins corresponding to two cell types.
Their work led to the central question of systems biology: What is the genetic regulatory network among 23,000 human genes, of which about 2,200 regulate one another's activities and regulate the rest of the 23,000?
Here we need to know which genes regulate which genes, and by what rules. Then we need to integrate the equations of motion of such a network to discover its integrated behavior.
Just as Newton's laws for billiard balls yield, upon integration and given initial and boundary conditions, the trajectory of the balls, for a classical physics genetic network, the behavior of the system has a trajectory from each initial state. These typically end up on small subsets of states, called attractors, each of which drains a basin of attraction. Cell types probably correspond to attractors, differentiation to noise or signal induced flow among attractors.
Here is the ensemble approach: I wondered if natural selection had to struggle to create very specific, engineered networks to achieve controlled differentiation from the fertilized egg, or zygote, called ontogeny, or, I hoped, some broad class, or ensemble of networks would all have good enough dynamical behavior to underlie ontogeny with just some tuning by natural selection.
To ask this question I idealized the behavior of a gene as an on-off device, a light bulb, and asked was there a class of large genetic networks that yielded orderly behavior. To ask this question is inherently to take the ensemble approach. It asks whether there are typical (i.e., generic) behaviors in different classes or ensembles of networks.
In my case I imagined N genes, each with K inputs. There are vastly many networks, an entire ensemble of networks, with N = 23,000 genes, and K = say, 2 inputs per gene. To study the typical properties of this ensemble, one approach is to sample at random from this ensemble. Thus, I chose the K = 2 inputs to each gene at random from among the N, and for each I assigned at random one of the 16 possible logical, or Boolean, functions prescribing the behavior of the regulated gene at the next-time moment, given the on or off states of its two inputs at the current moment. The and function is such a Boolean function. It says the regulated gene will be on at the next moment only if both its inputs are on at the present moment.
To summarize many years of work by many on Random Boolean Networks, it turns out that they behave in three regimes: ordered, chaotic, and a critical edge of chaos regime which is a phase transition between order and chaos. K = 2 networks turn out to be critical for the ensemble of networks with randomly chosen Boolean functions. Critical networks can have other values of K greater than 2 by using non-random choices of Boolean function of K inputs.
Now three essential facts: i. critical and ordered networks exhibit very ordered, and also multiple, attractors, hence the generic behaviors of these networks exhibits a new form of self organization — generic order in an ensemble of systems. These ordered attractors are so ordered that the different attractors could explain the order of the different cell types in an organism. ii. It is becoming clear that differentiated cell types are almost certainly attractors. iii. More amazingly, cells appear to be critical, to live on the edge of chaos.
Note two essential features of the ensemble approach: i. There is a vast ensemble of NK Random Boolean Networks, or more realistic models of genetic networks, all of which are dynamically critical. In short, criticality is a feature of an entire ensemble of networks, not just of one. ii. Critical networks are a subset of all Random Boolean Networks, those at the edge of chaos. If cells are critical, natural selection must hold networks at the edge of chaos for adaptive reasons — here is the mixture of ensemble self-organization and natural selection.
The Ensemble Approach Can Yield Statistical Laws Beyond Entailing Laws
As noted at the start of this post, no law entails the detailed evolution of the biosphere, including the evolution of genetic regulatory networks. This means we cannot deduce ab initio what those networks are. But the ensemble approach allows statistical laws about the typical features and behaviors of the entire ensemble of critical networks.
More profoundly evolution does not follow geodesics. Thus evolution is not entailed. It follows myriad pathways mixing quantum random indeterminate mutations and non-random natural selection. The ensemble approach is the natural way to seek statistical laws about the behaviors of genetic regulatory networks, without needing to know the details of any specific genetic regulatory network. As we learn more about real networks, we can refine the specifications of the ensemble, hence the generic behaviors of the refined ensemble, for better statistical predictions.
In short, the ensemble approach marries to the lack of entailing law for evolution, to yield a viable approach to statistical laws beyond entailing law.
Finally, the ensemble approach has been used by physicists with respect to spin glasses, and by me and others with respect to models of the generic origin of self-reproducing, collectively autocatalytic sets of organic molecules, where it appears that there is a phase transition in complex reaction networks to molecular self reproduction.
I hope life is generic.
The ensemble approach has also been used by me and others to study the typical statistical properties of tunably rugged fitness (or payoff) landscapes, of use in biology, and even economics, (See my Origins of Order or At Home in the Universe, Oxford University Press 1993, 1995).
Comments
1
Stuart, I'm sorry that I misspelled your name, I sometimes use Google's translator to recheck was written, but then from Russian there is only this variant of your name.
I really think you should still take into account context. For example, you can definitely reduce the variable K, and therefore do landscape smoother if the connections within the system move in context (if instead of connection within the system we connect it with its context).
For example, this happens when an individual shifts his or her responsibility to someone else. I think that in this way can be described hierarchy.
samedi 27 août 2011 11:50:01
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
2
Stuart, do not you think if you look at a larger scale, when the system reaches the attractor, its present state is determined not so much by the previous one, but by the very attractor, ie its future state?
So it seems this virtual skeleton, which shapes and orders chaos, acts from the future ... And if so, cancer must be one of the most natural disease - problem with this virtual skeleton should naturaly lead to out-of-control chaos.
samedi 27 août 2011 11:45:30
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
3
Richard Dawkins looks at the genes "from the bottom" as a reductionist, and quite rightly concludes that, from this perspective, the notion of an individual organism is an illusion. On the other hand, it is not clear why, for example, not all parasites that get inside a body, not become organelles. So this virtual form, in my opinion, is simply the negation of context, and your model should take this into account.
(There was a very interesting article that Lamarckism can not be discounted, perhaps not a coincidence that it was written by immunologist, I do not give a link because unfortunately it was in Russian.)
Interestingly, this form can not be regarded as a hierarchy, but it's probably only defines boundaries within which is complete freedom, for exampe, skin cells must cover everything and stop.
samedi 27 août 2011 11:44:53
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Basil Roche (NagaJr) wrote:
Me too, Bob, but now Russell's gone and raised the bar. A 4-track mind. Sheesh!
samedi 27 août 2011 01:05:28
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Bob Wilson (PorchGuy) wrote:
Basil Roche (NagaJr) wrote:
Well, there's Science, Bob, and now there's Systems Science. It's possible to both chew gum and walk down stairs simultaneously, you know.
---
Very well said!
I'm chewing on the problem of Synthesis.
I’m not happy with SJ Gould’s ideas about non-overlapping magisteria.
Stuart asked the central question on a previous post: would you rather be Newton or Shakespeare?
A very interesting “either or" question.
Walking and chewing gum simultaneously is the transcendent ideal I long for.
vendredi 26 août 2011 21:50:35
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
NPR STAFF:
Stuart Kauffman (SAK43) wrote:
Thanks Russell. .Stu
vendredi 26 août 2011 17:16:28
Recommend (0)
Russell Grunloh (boatguy) wrote:
Darn it.
Here's the clean link
http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2011/jul/26/4-track-mind/
without my inept attempt at hypertext.
vendredi 26 août 2011 13:28:29
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
2
Stuart, do not you think if you look at a larger scale, when the system reaches the attractor, its present state is determined not so much by the previous one, but by the very attractor, ie its future state?
So it seems this virtual skeleton, which shapes and orders chaos, acts from the future ... And if so, cancer must be one of the most natural disease - problem with this virtual skeleton should naturaly lead to out-of-control chaos.
samedi 27 août 2011 11:45:30
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
3
Richard Dawkins looks at the genes "from the bottom" as a reductionist, and quite rightly concludes that, from this perspective, the notion of an individual organism is an illusion. On the other hand, it is not clear why, for example, not all parasites that get inside a body, not become organelles. So this virtual form, in my opinion, is simply the negation of context, and your model should take this into account.
(There was a very interesting article that Lamarckism can not be discounted, perhaps not a coincidence that it was written by immunologist, I do not give a link because unfortunately it was in Russian.)
Interestingly, this form can not be regarded as a hierarchy, but it's probably only defines boundaries within which is complete freedom, for exampe, skin cells must cover everything and stop.
samedi 27 août 2011 11:44:53
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Basil Roche (NagaJr) wrote:
Me too, Bob, but now Russell's gone and raised the bar. A 4-track mind. Sheesh!
samedi 27 août 2011 01:05:28
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Bob Wilson (PorchGuy) wrote:
Basil Roche (NagaJr) wrote:
Well, there's Science, Bob, and now there's Systems Science. It's possible to both chew gum and walk down stairs simultaneously, you know.
---
Very well said!
I'm chewing on the problem of Synthesis.
I’m not happy with SJ Gould’s ideas about non-overlapping magisteria.
Stuart asked the central question on a previous post: would you rather be Newton or Shakespeare?
A very interesting “either or" question.
Walking and chewing gum simultaneously is the transcendent ideal I long for.
vendredi 26 août 2011 21:50:35
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
NPR STAFF:
Stuart Kauffman (SAK43) wrote:
Thanks Russell. .Stu
vendredi 26 août 2011 17:16:28
Recommend (0)
Russell Grunloh (boatguy) wrote:
Darn it.
Here's the clean link
http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2011/jul/26/4-track-mind/
without my inept attempt at hypertext.
vendredi 26 août 2011 13:28:29
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
Russell Grunloh (boatguy) wrote:
All,
For a brief aside, I recommend _this_">http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2011/jul/26/4-track-mind/"/>_this_ short from "Radiolab".
We've discussed the mysterious unity of consciousness before on this extended thread, and now the ensemble approach. The subject of the piece appears to be able to run four different complex threads simultaneously without "ensemble-ing" them, through the means of a unifying 3D visualization.
As a musician having had to perform multiple time signature Charles Ives charts, I must concede his performance to be almost unbelievable and revelatory of the nature of comprehension.
I apologize if this seems off-topic, but I trust it will be worth your while.
vendredi 26 août 2011 13:25:25
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
Stewart, do not you think that your model must also take into account and the relationship with contests? Could you assign a variable for this? To me, this is exactly what is missing.
NPR STAFF:
Stuart Kauffman (SAK43) wrote:
cont As physicist Max Aldana is spearheading, we can study the effects of selection on the evolution of the ensemble itself, again with new predictions. It seems the ensemble approach is one sensible approach to predicting the typical behaviors of systems in an evolving ensemble, but without predicting the detailed structure, logic and behavior of any one network. In turn, if successful, the ensemble approach implies that the successfully predicted generic behaviors of the ensemble members do NOT DEPEND upon the specifics of any particular evolved member of the ensemble. It is new kind of statistical mechanics, not over the states of one system, but over the generic behaviors of an ensemble of evolving systems.
jeudi 25 août 2011 13:00:29
Recommend (1)
NPR STAFF:
Stuart Kauffman (SAK43) wrote:
cont, where critical random Boolean nets predict that the number of cell types in an organism scales as the square root of the number of its genes - which seems roughly true. Or we predict the statistics of transitions among attractors and try to map it to the statistics of differentiation from one cell type to others, which again matches reality. Or we propose that the fertilized egg does not "reach" all cell type attractors of which the genomic system is capable, so some of the unused cell types may be cancer, hence open to curing by inducing them to differentiate into normal cells - cancer differentiation therapy where my colleague Sui Huang and I are finding initial confirming (to be tested much further) results. Or we find that critical networks have optimality properties and predict that cells are dynamically critical due to a marriage of self organization AND selection. Here initial evidence says cells may really be dynamically critical. So: in summary, the ensemble approach does truly allow predictions that can be and are being tested.
But as we learn more of real genetic regulatory networks we can refine the specifications of the ensemble of model networks to get refined predictions and can also, as Max Aldana cont
jeudi 25 août 2011 12:57:35
Recommend (1)
NPR STAFF:
Stuart Kauffman (SAK43) wrote:
HI All, There are two main themes of this post: i. from "The End of a Physics Worldview: Heraclitus and the Watershed of Life", I hope, with Giuseppe Longo, to be building an increasingly strong case that no law entails the evolution of the biosphere or our econosphere or all of human life. We must treat such a huge claim with caution, for if it is true, Nobel laureate S. Weinberg's dream of a final theory that entails all that happens in the universe is false. 2. Assuming the truth of the Heraclitus post, if the detailed evolution of life and the living is beyond entailing law, what types of laws might we have? This opens the door to all of the social sciences, economics, sociology, psyschology, anthropology. It also opens the door to an Ensemble Approach. In this approach we purposely give up trying to model the details of whatever we study, eg genetic regulatory networks, and study instead a definable class, or ensemble, of genetic regulatory systems and seek the average, or typical, or generic behavior of members of that ensemble. One way to do so is to sample from the ensemble at random, eg my Random Boolean Networks. Then one DOES try to make predictions: eg the number of attractors to the number of cell types, cont.
jeudi 25 août 2011 12:52:39
Recommend (1)
Bob Wilson (PorchGuy) wrote:
If ensemble theory yields testable hypotheses I am interested.
F=MA yielded testable predictions, as did e=mc^2.
What is the equation of ensemble theory?
Is ensemble theory empirically testable?
mercredi 24 août 2011 20:34:33
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Elliot Tarabour (etarabour) wrote:
Hi Bob,
I agree. It is good to be critical and question everything. But if you Cauldron boils hot you may kill many things off or you may get some excellent soup.
e.
mercredi 24 août 2011 14:06:01
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
1
Stuart, thanks, what you wrote sounds reassuring. As you can see, I read your book (Origins of Order or At Home in the Universe) very carefully and not once, and it's worth it! Now I am happy to discuss it!
Phil wrote:
"Life is a non-equilibrium state, so it need not follow the path of least action - it can choose to expend energy to follow another path."
Phil, I think in this case, you're wrong: in each case we are dealing rather with a choice of different paths of development, within each of them the system follows the path of least action. We have already discussed the collapse of quantum states, and it relates to the relationship between Potential and Actual and between text and context.
Here is an example, Mike, this is my answer to you!
mercredi 24 août 2011 12:01:35
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
2
Imagine that you have your own business, and like any normal businessman your main task - to make a profit. And then, one day a corporation - it still was your rival - invited to join them, promising that there you will have more. You have joined, the money you won but maybe you lost something? Now you have a boss - this is another happy purchase - in fact, your relationship is purely formal, then you can treat him as your client - who cares? Try it, and then tell me what happened ... Clearly, if with a client you were on an equal (ideally) then now you become subordinate - there hierarchy emerged. This means that no sane economist should no longer consider you as an independent selfish players.
mercredi 24 août 2011 12:00:53
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
3
In terms of game theory, you and your boss are playing entirely different rules - that is allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to bull - this is hierarchy. So what you lost? Your Potential. If before, at least theoretically, your company could become the second Microsoft, but now it is not you who determines your future. The relationship with context was changed: instead of preserving the independence of it (negation), it is obedience (ie - merger). It was a choice between maintaining Potential and the transition to a stable state. But within each scenario BUT WITHIN EACH SCENARIO THE SYSTEM FOLLOWS THE PATH OF LEAST ACTION!
This implies many interesting conclusions, for example, that money does not necessarily make us free, but quite the contrary - we often have to pay them for our independence. The same applies to the States: to maintain the sovereignty they need to maintain many of the unprofitable national industry (in the U.S., I have heard similar problems with the automotive industry, for example), but it is perfectly rational strategy!
mercredi 24 août 2011 11:59:42
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
Vlad Piaskovskiy (0nothing1) wrote:
4
And these are two different strategies in real life: to earn as much as possible and to maintain your own independence. So that once we sold ourselves, we find ourselves trapped in a local peak - this secret known by all the founders of large companies: during their evolution they are definitely not once received tempting offers to merge - they all refused, but they somehow convince us that a "rational economic player" has to climb to the first available local peak.
So the call of the Tea Party to return to the early capitalism in practice should mean the transition to the strategy of independence for each player - to do business for the sake of business itself, in order not to work for others.
mercredi 24 août 2011 11:57:15
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
Подписаться на:
Комментарии (Atom)