[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

[Paul D. Fernhout]

How is "fractal" the same or different from "stigmergic"?

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/

Samuel Rose wrote:
> I think we have collectively come to a realization here (including
> what Michel  said):
> 
> In p2p systems, it is the simple rules that tend to be fractal.
> 
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> We need a Fernhoutian Flurry on Fractals.
>> R.
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Sam,
>>>>
>>>> Does this imply a "fractal" nature of P2P?  How does fractal relate to
>>>> emergent.  Emergent seems to disallow analysis to me. Ever fresh seems
>>>> to be
>>>> impossible to appreciate.  Nature has rules.  DNA.  Is there an
>>>> underlying
>>>> P2P rule set?  Or is that necessarily unknowable due to the locally
>>>> emergent
>>>> possibilities?
>>>>
>>>> Ryan
>>>>
>>>
>>> Emergent may seem to defy analysis, but there are simple rules that
>>> are at play, and constraints in systems/environments
>>>
>>> As I have already said in this thread, there are definitely simple
>>> rules, there are definitely factors that are identifiable. Nature has
>>> rules like DNA, and yet nature created an explosion of localized
>>> diversity.
>>>
>>> I think it does imply a "partially" fractal nature, where systems can
>>> be replicated efficiently, they will probably be replicated. But,
>>> unique local conditions will rise in importance, where they may
>>> currently or previously have been supressed by mass culture