Comments on: Alfred Hubler on Stabilizing CAS

By: Blituaboula

Blituaboula — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:13:14 +0000

http://healthboard.in/cymbalta/how-long-to-get-...
va health scope insurance muscle twitching otc drug diamox for pain
prestab pharmacy http://healthboard.in/dicyclomine/dicyclomine-t...
jennifer danielson pharmacy drugs no prescription scams free liberty diabetic supplies
top food and drug stores http://healthboard.in/diabetic/capsaicin-mixed-...
qsi pharmacy computer system drug hashish carafate and suspenssca cheap viagra generic generic buspirone

By: Rafe Furst

Rafe Furst — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:33:48 +0000

You realize of course that since this is cryptic even to me that it’s just gobbledegook to everyone else :-) Why don’t you unpack the jargon and relate it to the post and we can see if your model and claims have merit?

By: DWCrmcm

DWCrmcm — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:15:59 +0000

The RMCM asserts that Complex Mechanisms are metabolisms.
The RMCM defines complexity as Polymorphic Multibehavioralisms.

By: DWCrmcm

DWCrmcm — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:48:07 +0000

If you widen the scope of your encapsulation of the question to include metabolism, and then, you extend the the encapsulation you may find a path.
The RMCM asserts that metabolisms can be simple, complex, modern, or primitive. A primitive metabolism would be similar to what we call an echo system; its mechanisms are widely distributed and loosely bound. Catabolism and anabolism reside independently of the Rational Paradigm (life form). The Primitive Rational Paradigm is little more than serendipitously synchronized behaviors. The all-in-one metabolisms of modern Rational Paradigms are indeed there except they are metaphors abstractions or trajectories. These are contexts that can be flipped as the surroundings change. A Catabolic mechanism for one becomes an anabolic mechanism or a few, and an anabolic mechanism for one becomes a catabolic mechanism for a few.

By: Cancer as a Complex Adaptive System « The Emergent Fool

Cancer as a Complex Adaptive System « The Emergent Fool — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:52:53 +0000

[...] Stability / Chaotic Synchronization Heterogeneity provides a greater chance of success that a system can adapt to the environment and [...]

By: Best Reader Comment Award « The Emergent Fool

Best Reader Comment Award « The Emergent Fool — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:00:36 +0000

[...] commenting on Alfred Hubler on Stabilizing CAS [...]

By: Stability Through Instability « The Emergent Fool

Stability Through Instability « The Emergent Fool — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:09:57 +0000

[...] been discussing the prospect of stabilizing dynamics by intervening during times of “apparent changelessness” so that we can forestall or [...]

By: rafefurst

rafefurst — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:33:54 +0000

@Alex, you make some good points. Since you argue convincingly for mechanisms of instability, doesn’t that undermine your claim somewhat about having a more stable system? You don’t really give evidence as to how that might be accomplished.

By: Alex Golubev

Alex Golubev — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:32:43 +0000

I think it comes down to the tradeoff between growth and survival, but it is not in a vacuum. We CAN have a more stable system, but what’s the optimum point on the utility curve? Absolute level of growth doesn’t matter. it only matters what your relative size and growth is compared to others (individuals, companies, countries). So now we have to introduce yet another variable of competition. Ultimately, the ant analogy breaks down, cause the specialized ants cant resort to a highly superior military to get them out of trouble. There are too many assymetric payoffs out there. A system of a huge number of selfish agents can lead to growth of the least long-term adaptive agents and subject the whole system to extinction. I think reality is incredibly unfair. So my opinion is that the system will not improve. But the 2nd questions is can we protect ourselves as single agents. I think that’s possible to a large extent. Be very careful with leverage particularly if you’re using it along with the majority. conditional probability of failure will increase. Ultimately the gov’t has shown that when the forest fire does get out of control, noone will be spared (taxes, devaluation, confiscation, etc…)

By: Paul Phillips

Paul Phillips — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:46:45 +0000

Viewed from a thousand miles, the financial system has a incalculably large incentive to fail catastrophically as frequently as it can do so without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

As long as there is such a thing as “too big to fail” and trillions of dollars are available for siphoning, according to what logic can this cycle be dampened? Nobody has to explicitly pursue this outcome (although there are many who will) for it to be inevitable; the system obeys its own logic above all else.