Latest discussions in the Method of Levels Section in Discourse
- by @rsmarken Richard Markenwmansell: I am at a bit of a loss regarding why there is a debate at all here as the two sides seem to be talking past one another. There is a debate here because there is a conflict over the desired state of some variable. I would say that that variable is “the merits […]
- by @BrianFleming Brian FlemingMy statistical physics is non-existent, but I don’t believe the authors actually modeled conflict causes & effects. Nor made any agents. The first citation is Lewis Fry Richardson’s Variation of the frequency of fatal quarrels with magnitude which identified power scaling laws in armed conflict data. So it’s a statistical, not a mechanistic model. But […]
- by @wmansell WarrenI am at a bit of a loss regarding why there is a debate at all here as the two sides seem to be talking past one another. What can we see in PCT modelling? When a variable is subject to conflict, it is at least somewhat less well controlled, may go into a dead […]
- by @rsmarken Richard Markenbnhpct: The next thing about collective control is that these collective outputs are perceptible aspects of the environment. Even at the simplistic tug of war level of consideration, the rope, the flag on it, the marker on the ground between the two teams, the two teams as teams, are all perceptions controlled by team members, […]
- by @rsmarken Richard MarkenBrianFleming: There are a few papers from the Santa Fe Institute that I think might be relevant, as examples of quantitative modeling of conflict data: … One of the authors has a great episode on Complexity discussing the research. This suggests to me that PCT models of conflict should also report power-law-like distributions of conflict […]