
Self-Organizations - shoniko
https://shoniko.com/posts/self-organizations/
======
jonmc12
Bees, ants and termites are considered super organisms. As discussed, they
don't really act as a great example of emergent behavior of organisms - more
analogous to the organization of, say, cells within a mammalian body. Drawing
the lines around species properly is helpful to understand the implications of
natural selection, and the fitness functions surrounding emergent behavior.

Without doubt, eusocial insects represent some of the most successful species
on the planet from a biomass perspective. At the same time, if you study the
evolution of these species, you won't be motivated to "be a bee".

One way to describe the very complex multi-adaptation evolution in brief: wasp
egg dumpers, over generations had the tables turned; host wasps started
charging rent, then enslaving younger generations; some of the wasps started
cloning their slaves, even breeding these clones for specialized roles.

Its a really interesting topic to dive into.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_eusociality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_eusociality)

------
greggyb
Picking a nit, the article claims that a free market works only in
equilibrium. This is a spherical cow in a vacuum view of economics.

Markets, in general, can be seen as moving toward an incalculable equilibrium
(at least not calculable in less time than it takes to reach). There is not a
single equilibrium, though. As time goes on, people are born and die, trends
and preferences change. If you could calculate some optimal state as of the
end of 2019 and name it as "equilibrium", that would be different than the
optimal state as of the end of 2020 (and different (and likely without some
continuous transition function) in the full duration between these points).

~~~
TeMPOraL
Agreed. Equilibrium is defined in terms of the market, not the other way
around. The system does what it does.

I think a better way of phrasing the article's point is that markets are
metastable; pushed hard enough, they'll stop falling back to the current
equilibrium and instead find a new one. That transition process often involves
massive amounts of death and suffering, so that's why we care about not
disturbing the market.

~~~
greggyb
I'd push back on your use of "current equilibrium", based on how I interpret
this phrase. If my interpretation is off, then I apologize.

It reads to me as if you're presenting the world as having a single
equilibrium toward which the market moves. There is no meaningful static idea
of equilibrium. However you want to define and measure some optimal state that
we can call equilibrium, this target moves discontinuously _at least_ with
each birth and death that occurs. Each of these events either introduces or
removes a set of preferences (a terrible reduction of humanity). Accounting
for these will shift our "equilibrium" in any meaningful calculation of the
same. There are 1.8 deaths per second and 4.3 births per second.[0][1]

Again, these birth and death rates represent the minimum rate of change of
equilibrium. As a follow-on effect, a birth is very likely to alter the
parents' preferences in a way that will shift the equilibrium. Deaths likely
shift families' and friends' preferences in a way that will shift the
equilibrium. Both these second-order effects are not instantaneous
(information does not spread instantly). Invention and innovation represent
changes. Discovery of new natural resources represent changes. And people are
not static sets of preferences. People change.

Perhaps we may be able to define some equilibrium for an instant. And we can
expect with near-certain probability that one instant's equilibrium is very
close to neighboring instants' equilibria. But the shifts are discontinuous,
and likely impossible to model with a function.

[0] [https://www.medindia.net/patients/calculators/world-death-
cl...](https://www.medindia.net/patients/calculators/world-death-clock.asp)

[1] [https://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/How-Many-Babies-
Are-B...](https://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/How-Many-Babies-Are-Born-
Each-Day)

~~~
TeMPOraL
I meant something else entirely:

> _It reads to me as if you 're presenting the world as having a single
> equilibrium toward which the market moves._

The opposite. I hinted at that by saying "the system does what it does",
though I realize it may be an obscure reference[0]. The markets are. They are
a dynamic system that naturally reaches _some_ sort of (meta)stable behavior,
and this is what we call equilibrium. It's not defined, it's _observed_.

> _this target moves discontinuously at least with each birth and death that
> occurs_

Disagree. To a good approximation, markets moves continuously, because it
takes time for individual preferences to manifest, and preferences aren't
binary switches - they're communicated through many individual decisions over
time.

WRT. the "death and suffering" part, I meant that large disruptions to markets
usually involve events that kill and impoverish lots of people, and markets
rebalancing themselves also cause that. I'm thinking of events like COVID-19,
2008, 1929, and quite often, discovery of new deposits of highly demanded
resources.

\--

[0] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does)

~~~
greggyb
Thanks for the clarification. I did not know that reference, and it seems
we're much more in alignment than I thought.

I still hold that the target moves discontinuously, though not universally so.
Death is the strongest argument here. A set of preferences exists, and then it
doesn't. Some deaths are expected. Some are slow. Some are unexpected. Some
are abrupt. Death is a binary off-switch for all preferences the deceased
individual may have had. Without this collection of preferences, equilibrium
abruptly jumps to some other value. Of course, in a system as large as the
market, these death-jumps are going to be so small as to be effectively
immeasurable.

Note: expectation of death here means at a specific time. All death is
expected on a long enough time scale.

> To a good approximation, markets moves continuously

I agree here. My discussion of discontinuity, though, is that of movement of
whatever ideal equilibrium the market is moving toward (but does not achieve).
The equilibrium is the target toward which a market moves. This equilibrium is
incalculable or at least not calculable in less time than it would take to
reach. The target may move discontinuously (though I would argue the
discontinuities are small for the most part), and the process moving toward
the target may be continuous, both at the same time.

Ninja edit: An equilibrium in this discussion is more akin to a platonic ideal
than anything concrete. The market is the system which can be observed. The
equilibrium is an abstract and incalculable target.

------
rgbrgb
In addition to bitcoion, mentioned in the OP, several crypto projects in the
DAO space come to mind. What if you don't need managers, but strong contracts
between individuals? I think that's one of the theses floating around in that
space.

[https://colony.io/](https://colony.io/)

[https://medium.com/@simondlr/the-moloch-dao-collapsing-
the-f...](https://medium.com/@simondlr/the-moloch-dao-collapsing-the-
firm-2a800b3aa2e7)

------
eternalban
I’ll be that guy to point out that bees have a queen.

But more seriously, imo, it is an error to conflate permanent organizational
perches of top-down systems (“leader”) with command and control networks and
‘critical nodes’.

In context of considering bottom-up, self-organizing system, it is important
to note that order increases, and ‘organization’ is a neutral term. Critical
nodes may (temporarily) emerge.

There is also nothing fundamental in the bottom-up organization process that
inherently precludes the emergence of a hierarchy.

~~~
carapace
> bees have a queen.

The "queens" are gonad not brain.

~~~
eternalban
I've always viewed the entire colony as the "thinker".

It is true that the queen is not the "brain" but then neither is the
individual worker bee. Considered as a cellular automata, the queen 'cell' is
a super-cell. The queen regulates flow of pheromones, and communication is
communication, whether it uses electric signals or gradient diffusion of
chemicals. That 'cell' is sitting on top of a hierarchy, and whether she is
just a glorified "gland" as you would have it or not, little worker bees will
NOT disregard her input.

~~~
carapace
FWIW it's not like we disregard the, uh, _input_ of our gonads, eh?

Anyway, I basically agree with you, except that I doubt the queen is doing
much more, uh, thinking than any particular worker. I don't think she's more
of a person (independent mind) than a worker.

~~~
eternalban
It's very simple: there is a _hierarchy_ in a hive. And yes, on occasion I
surprise myself, to say nothing of my demanding gonad, and veto hormonal
urges.

The topic at hand, my original remark above, is that self-organization does
not speak to the necessity of leaders, and hierarchical organizational order.

------
_hao
Natural phenomena amazing as they are aside...

The "free market" doesn't exist because the economy is governed by rules
established by governments and rules between governments in extension.

Cryptocurrencies right now are a speculative trading tool and store of value
for others (very volatile at that), but I think that the cryptocurrencies that
will really take off and seep into the mainstream are the government digital
currencies currently being worked on (China is set to start testing the
digital Yuan soon if not already).

My point is that nothing is ever truly free because nothing is ever by itself
in a vacuum. You have to interact with outside forces and follow certain rules
- natural or otherwise.

~~~
spking
The cryptocurrencies that will really take off (in the long run) will be the
ones that are most programmable and win the most developer hearts and minds.
Digital nation-state sponsored fiat won't be able to compete with the
complexity that is made possible by "finance legos". I think Ethereum and
maybe what's coming together at
[https://www.avalabs.org/](https://www.avalabs.org/) are good examples.

------
ismail
Ashby’s work on self-organisation [0] is a must read. I think it was he that
defined the concept.

[http://csis.pace.edu/~marchese/CS396x/Computing/Ashby.pdf](http://csis.pace.edu/~marchese/CS396x/Computing/Ashby.pdf)

------
GistNoesis
Even nails can self-organize with a little help :
[https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/fc7mmh/ho...](https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/fc7mmh/how_to_organise_nails_the_right_way/)

