JOURNAL: How Networks Evolve Rule-Sets

Here's an interesting paper, by Alexander Franks, a very talented young man who was a finalist in a national competition. He explores, through the use of genetic algorithms and small world connections, how dispersed networks generate a coordinated rule set in noisy environments.

This is an interesting topic since it is not at all obvious how open source networks develop cohesive rules sets -- this in contrast to hierarchical systems that can propagate rules through central direction. In sum, his work suggests that one or two widely held rules (greater than 50% adoption) provide the basis for the evolution of an entire set. All rules that have affinity to those founding rules evolve until they are widely adopted. All minority rules that do not have much affinity are flushed. This has interesting applicability to open source warfare.

It suggests that the plausible promise (the idea that starts the open source warfare community) provides a center of gravity that attracts rules that advance it and repels those that don't. Any additional work on this topic is welcome.

Comments

[Mark]

John wrote:

"This is in contrast to hierarchical systems that can propagate rules through central direction."

One might argue that 'hierarchical systems' only exist as a linguistic by-product of a small-world network's existance.

All human systems are the product of small world networks ordered by a few instinctive rules playing out in a landscape of opportunity. The example of deaf children housed together without sign language training provides a good example. Within a short time, the children will invent a common sign language. Soon after that language is discovered by 'verbal' agents, a hierarchy will be identified within the group. The hierarchy is not foundational to the small-world network, it is deduced after the fact by a linguistic process performed by outsiders.

[joe]

John, You used the phrase "center of gravity" just right. Thanks Joe L

[Mark]

"...the plausible promise provides a center of gravity that attracts rules that advance it and rejects those that don't."

Just for grins, the word 'attracts' makes this an 'intelligent design' evolutionary scheme. The 'idea' or 'spirit' attracts refined solutions. The standard materialist view would use the term 'retain', making no claim on where solutions come from.

Since the proposal uses 'attracts' and 'rejects', it mixes 'intelligent design' and 'materialist' schemes. To be consistent, the terms should be 'attract and repel' or 'retain and reject'.

The issue of 'intelligent design' is not moot to a discussion of what society global guerrillas will 'construct' (intelligent design) or 'produce' (the blind watchmaker).

[mark safranski]

"Soon after that language is discovered by 'verbal' agents, a hierarchy will be identified within the group. The hierarchy is not foundational to the small-world network, it is deduced after the fact by a linguistic process performed by outsiders."

Mark, Are you arguing that hierarchy is an illusion of perspective and don't exist in nature or a linguistic construct that doesn't exist or neither ? Both? Could you clarify ?

[mark safranski]

LOL ! Should read " hierarchies...don't" Sorry.

[Cardenio]

Rule Zero of all possible plausible promise rule sets. " What do I get ? " Then go from there.

[John Robb]

The plausible promise can migrate. It can start with, "kick the American's out" to "collapse the Shiite government" to "this is how we make a living."

[Veteran]

Real authority rises up.

[mark vondracek]

Thanks for the post...Alex did some really nice work. The idea of 'noise' in a network is gaining much attention, and getting a better grip on it will be essential to understanding any type of social network. This could include miscommunication between individuals in the network, as well as an ever-changing set of links within the network as decision making is taking place. For an evolving network, it is almost as if there can be pockets of increasing disorder (i.e. entropy) while the collective emergent system actually appears to become more ordered (e.g. reaching consensus via a majority rule, etc). Such topics are here to stay, I would think.

[g510]

I'll speculate that an emerging rule set can contain within it the information needed to enable individuals and other relevant actors to discern for themselves their proper places or roles in the network in which the rule set is becoming operative.

It also seems sensible that rule sets evolve more rapidly (and those that are successful become more robust than they otherwise would) in high-noise environments than in low-noise environments.

Intuitively it seems likely that rule sets that evolve in high-noise environments would lose a degree of flexibility and of capability for dealing with exceptions, in exchange for their gain of robustness. To some extent, noise necessarily reduces the capability for accurately perceiving small signals.

Conversely, rule sets that evolve in low-noise environments, while less robust, would be more flexible, and more capable of dealing with exceptions. By "dealing with exceptions," I mean, accommodating or adapting to exceptions, or developing subroutines for achieving successful outcomes when confronted with nondestructive exception-cases. Low noise = greater capability to perceive small signals and respond accurately to them.

[t]

http://scienceweek.com/2006/sw060428-1.htm - SOCIAL SCIENCE: ON THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN COOPERATION

[Michael Bernstein]

Re: 'intelligent design': Mark, society and culture are lamarckian, not darwinian (even in the neo-darwinian synthesis sense).

[Turloch O'Tierney]

>The plausible promise can migrate. It can start with,
>"kick the American's out" to "collapse the Shiite
>government" to "this is how we make a living."

Examples IRA members move from freedom fighting to Diesel cleaning (removing the die that marks it subsidised for agriculture) and money laundering.

We (Socialist Workers Party) are currently trying to cross people over from against the 'American War' (as I like to call the war on Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran) to more revolutionary socialism. It looks like we need smaller steps, but disconnected utopian visions (such as open source) have a habit of being crushed so general strike through the workplace still seems the most likely push, after we are all degree educated and up to our neck in debt we have few priviliges to lose.