What I term "adaptive systems" is a way of looking for organizational patterns which suggest principles of arrangement in the universe. Systems are sets of related objects, and the relations that bind them. Adaptive systems reconfigure themselves to the changes around them, which in turn triggers adaptation in the surrounding systems. This is the "dance" I alluded to in my title, above.

 

As General Motors, once a behemoth of American industry, shed jobs by the thousands over the last 5 years or so, it illustrated well the adage that those who can't adapt become nonviable. The current (2009) crisis was inevitable: it was just a matter of time. Eventually, if GM doesn't produce enough value (cars, trucks, vans), then its obligations (pensions, wages, rents, fees) will be greater than its capacity to meet them. Size doesn't matter: it doesn't matter how big you are, how many battleships and aircraft carriers you have, how much gold bullion you have stacked in the vault: if you don't adapt you will become void. The Tyrannosaurus Rex may once have been the baddest dude on this planet, but the planet changed (think: Chicxulub) and the tree shrew adapted better to the new world. Voila, Homo Sapiens, 65 million years later! No one should be so arrogant to think that they don't need to change.

 

How do collective entities respond to the changing universe around them? What means something is viability. Only systems that adapt will remain. Systems here means humans (as biotic systems) as well as man-made, artificial systems (robots, corporations), and also abiotic physical systems (weather, climate, tides, solar system).

 

I am interested in the process of change as it manifests itself through different physical systems. Specifically, I am interested in 2 things: One, which simple sets of rules can engender change over the long run, and yet maintain systemic continuity and viability? And two, what are the risks, what are the benefits, of this process of adaptation?

 

Regarding the first question, on rules, an initial thought is that the system's rules must be simple enough for everyone in the system to remember; there can't be "15 simple rules", there should only be two, three, or four. Five or more gets too complex and leads to insolvency. There should, however, be at least two: one for internal coherence and another one for external integration into the larger system (remember we are dealing with hierarchical [nested] systems here).

 

Regarding the second question, an obvious risk of nonadaption is that one can quickly become nonviable. So change may well be seen as imperative, given the changing environment (think, the Red Queen Hypothesis here). Those who sense the blowing winds of change around them, and respond appropriately, might retain viability a bit longer. So, which kinds of response heuristics are better, and which are worse? How might one do cost/benefit analysis in evaluating different "rules" (response patterns)?

 

Interestingly, it seems as if stability and continuity remain crucial. The historical pattern of previous events (environments and associated response patterns) have gotten us to this point, and therefore have some meaning. Trying to do some blank-slate "It is the year zero" nonsense is like jumping off a cliff; don't jump unless you really have to. Instead, recognize the value of continuity, and try to press on in manageable increments.

 

But not enough change will also lead to systemic failure, nearly as quickly as saying, "do nothing". If an agent just changes the bare minimum, and then says, "I'm different now", and folds its hands and rests, it will probably become nonviable shortly. Maybe tomorrow instead of today, but cooked nonetheless. Rather, the agent can endeavor to transform as much as is practical, and necessary, without losing contintuity with the process that brought them there. The goal might be to become an outlier, at the tip of the bell curve, but not falling off the cliff. The ones on the tip of the bell curve will probably get the greatest reward/benefit.

 

The trick seems to be to glean enough cues from the environment, so as to hear, "You're at the fat part of the niche here, the proverbial land of milk and honey. Don't move. Let the center come to you." And, conversely, one perhaps may get information from the surrounding meta-system, and hear it warn, "Lean times ahead, buddy. Better move, and move fast. Move this way; over here."

 

For instance, look at the so-called "horsetail", the little herb equistum arvense. It is a rather primitive plant which has remained largely the same over millions of years. We might say that it found a nice niche and wisely stayed put. Yet, we can also note, it was able to change: it once grew to 60 feet tall, and now it (again wisely) tops off at 2 feet. The dinosaurs came and went, and little equistum is still doing very nicely, thank you very much. So the idea of finding a "fat" niche, exploiting its potential, and maintaining some kind of equilibrium there seems like a path worth considering. It seems as if luck, or chance, i.e. a favorable roll of the dice is indeed helpful. But exploiting the outcome, once the dice are at rest, is where our decision-making process becomes salient.

 

I call this "Agent heuristics in multivariate settings".

 Last modified 8/8/09