95:
31:
190:
169:
432:, though I don't think he actually said or meant that; what he said was that the widespread occurence of scale invariant structures in nature pointed to a common dynamical mechanism (for which SOC was a viable candidate). There is an objection to this argument in the review you cite, which points out that many quantities follow a Bell curve (e.g. IQ and height) yet no one would claim these have a common dynamical origin. But actually, I think
200:
85:
64:
266:
22:
449:, with SOC being an exciting example of how to do so). Much of the criticism I've read of him seems to stem more from not reading or understanding what he said (probably often because they were so put off by his willingness to make blunt criticisms of others), and reading things into his words that aren't actually there.
336:— I don't think any of the serious proponents of SOC have suggested that "whenever" anything. But in any case this particular statement is not true. Example: take the BTW sandpile model and introduce dissipation into the local exchanges. It satisfies all the conditions listed in this "definition" but isn't critical.
524:
Probably the best thing is to do a slight rewrite of the opening paragraph. After all, in the sense of SOC as a description of theoretical models, it is pretty much proven for at least some of them that the critical point of the system is an attractor. So I'm probably wrong to give a definition which refers
764:
bored :D). I think it is more natural to enter a category from one of the pages it contains, with the aim of seeing what else it contains. Returning to the case at hand, the categories you had before and the ones that are there now seem quite fine - I say this because they are more or less consistent
523:
Hmm. I understand your issue over "SOC as mechanism". I'll think about it and how to phrase things better. "Self-organized criticality" and "self-organized critical dynamics" tend to be used interchangeably in the literature, which is the context in which I was writing the paragraphs you refer to.
474:
edited, the 2nd para of the
Overview, since I didn't quite feel comfortable with the way that was rephrased (sorry:-). Also, in the 3rd para, I was not comfortable with the removal of the word "some" from "some reservations" regarding SOC with local dissipation. The reservations are very minor and
381:
I plan to make a couple of further updates in the near future, most importantly, to give one or two examples of SOC algorithms (I'm thinking BTW sandpile and Bak-Sneppen evolution model). When I really have time (not now, not now) I'll try to add some handy graphics to help readers visualise what's
822:
P.S. "Phase changes" is probably not the best place for SOC. The critical phenomena associated with phase transitions are kind of the opposite of SOC — in a phase transition the critical point is only reached by highly accurate tuning of a control parameter, but in SOC it's an attractor and robust
869:
Where did the comment come from that SOC is sometimes referred to as "the Neo effect"? I've never heard of this term and was unable to find any reference to links with SOC except the comment in this article. So, I've removed it for now, but if anyone can convince me otherwise, I'll let it be put
695:
You'll have to guide me on this since I'm a relative novice to the question of how and why categories should be used. My choice was related to two points: (a) is it appropriately classified? and (b) if someone is browsing through category lists, how easy is it to discover relevant and interesting
499:
state a hypothesis that untuned scale invariance is always the consequence of a particular mechanism. On the other hand, his many examples of systems building to criticality and then exhibiting a power law did seem to lead people to think he was asserting a theorem of sorts — which they disagreed
710:
It's for the latter reason I decided to include the higher-level categories in SOC since I felt that someone who is interested in SOC will not necessarily be first and foremost interested in the feature of self-organization. There's also the question of the genealogy of SOC being a bit different
299:
I've just made a major (read: total:-) rewrite of the page. Hope I haven't trodden on any toes; I just felt that not only did the page need expanding but that I could put some of the points in earlier versions better in my own words. Feel free to flame me on my talk page if offended. I do have
580:
articles, but I'd like to chat a bit more with the existing writers on that since I think any major changes there would be more likely to cause a ruckus — self-organization, at least, is much more disputed and less well-defined than SOC. I guess you know the people who have worked on that stuff
454:
To the direct issue of why I objected to the phrase in the earlier article, AFAIK neither Bak nor anyone else made any sort of "whenever" claims about what kinds of dynamics would display SOC. (Probably this is one of the reasons why Jensen's (1998) acronym of SDIDT systems is not widely used,
555:
I like it! The definition as "having a critical point attractor" is elegant and succinct. You then relate the attractor to the absence of tuning, and the scale invariance to the criticality, sensibly leaving the details about power laws and fractals till later. The new second paragraph then
509:
The first sentence of your article does give a clear "top down" definition of SOC; on the other hand it doesn't posit a specific "bottom up" mechanism. So it's not likely to meet the same criticisms. However, you do call it a "mechanism" in a couple of places further down, without going into
377:
I have expanded the reference list but deleted the link to Amazon since I don't think it's our job to tell people what bookshop to go to. However, I do plan to update the reference section so that all references to scientific papers have a link to the online copy of the article (original and
1018:
If there is a way to create infographics to better illustrate the concepts. I have a graphics designer who could help with visualization. I am an autodidact who just two year dago iscovered
Complex System theory and I fell in love with sthe cientific field. My hope is to faciliate a better
622:
I've added a section on examples of SOC dynamics, with links to other pages rather than take up a load more room here. That can also allow for the individual model pages to get relatively lengthy. I've created the model pages as stubs so if anyone wants to write them, go for it! :-) —
371:
properties but most are not self-organizing. Example: Conway's Game of Life displays emergent complexity, but change the rules even slightly and it significantly changes the behaviour of the system. Self-organization implies robustness with respect to design
904:
Turcotte wrote a review of self-organized criticality, referenced in the article, and he does not even mention the papers in question. Given that he was a co-author on the former, you'd think he might have done so if there was really a priority
485:
I like "(minor) reservations". My edits were intended as stylistic not scientific: I only removed the "some" to avoid a second occurrence of that word in close proximity. Ditto for "possible" in the previous paragraph, but you've put that
750:. I know that the first of these is a parent category of self-organization, but I think in this context it's important, since its use as an applied and interdisciplinary physics theory is one of the key aspects of SOC. Good compromise? —
848:. The choice is deliberate. SOC is clearly related to self-organization, but is not limited to that area of interest: it has wide applications in interdisciplinary studies. The categories are chosen to reflect both these aspects.
475:
do not concern SOC as a whole, just some types of dynamics; SOC with local dissipation has not really been contentious in the scientific literature for the last 10+ years. So I put "minor" in brackets before the word reservations.
459:
emerge, but doesn't guarantee it.) Nobody has given any sort of "bottom-up" definition of SOC along the lines of "SOC occurs whenever the dynamics are like this" — but the phrase I objected to outlined SOC along those lines. —
938:
where it is more appropriate. The Bak-Sneppen reference itself I think should stay as it represents the introduction of the second general kind of SOC dynamics: extremal models as opposed to threshold/avalanche models.
806:
Naah, no pressure was felt. I listened to your reasoning and felt it had merit; your contributions have been useful both for the article and for me as a new
Wikipedian. Glad you like what the article has become! :-) —
773:
itself seems to be organized more poorly than SOC (so many categories!). One more note - SOC is probably much used in phase transition studies (I think so only, 'cuase it's not my field), but it's not related to
571:
The next few things I want to do are to write up a couple of models as examples of SOC dynamics (I think BTW sandpile and Bak-Sneppen evolution model are good choices). I'd also like to have a hack at the
355:
to visualise SOC models, and the actual real case of avalanches (whether in sand or other materials). In fact the results from avalanche experiments are pretty ambiguous (see e.g. Turcotte's 1999 review).
793:, I only meant to notice that it might not be optimal. I write this, because I am grateful that you improved the article. After all, categorization is a second hand issue compared to the article itself.
1062:
556:
explicitly acknowledges the lack of a general theorem or guarantee (so far), thus drawing the teeth of the criticisms directed against (mis?)perceptions of Bak's implications. It's good. --
35:
993:
The first starts "There is a debate on the relevance of SOC theory to the real world." and then proceeds to offer a single example about sand which seems like an inappropriate synecdoche.
1082:
1067:
1052:
1019:
understandingf the field for the public. I would also love to chat with people who created the article to interview them and highlight the articles and the people behind them. o f
1000:
303:
Although broadly my aim was just to give an expanded picture, I have deliberately removed certain things said in the previous version. Here's a list of what and why:
300:
quite a few SOC-related research interests, so it's possible some aspects of my rewrite may be too POV (though I've tried to avoid it). Advice on this appreciated.
841:
739:
996:
The second paragraph then boldly states that "These criticisms are obsolete." and again, describes a single example of a physical system which SOC models well.
151:
760:
I'm not aware of the most common way categories are used, but I doubt that alot of people just browse them and look for things to read (I don't, unless I get
1057:
566:
Great. Thanks for the little typographical/wiki link edits, that's been really helpful. I think we've got both intro and overview pretty sorted now. :-D
1097:
1077:
1047:
274:
141:
1092:
256:
246:
402:
Although it's correct as it applies to what was written, I don't entirely agree with your comment above on no one asserting "whenever": I think
94:
1102:
1087:
1072:
934:
My thanks to the anonymous contributor who added the Bak-Sneppen references. I'm going to move the
Sneppen interface depinning reference to
909:
I agree that we could mention, in the discussion of the history, that some earlier similar models to the sandpile model had been published. —
543:
OK, see what you make of the updated version of the intro. I've also added links to online copies of all journal articles referenced. :-) —
441:
Others interpreted the title of his book as being a claim to have explained everything (whereas I read it more as being a call to arms to
1042:
960:
117:
982:
Dear
Webdrake, could you complete the model section with a literature reference on SOC in networks of IaF neurons. Many thanks.
789:
Small retrospect. I fear you may have felt some pressure from my side as to the categorization of SOC. After removing it from
1004:
581:
somewhat, so do you reckon you could bounce them into some discussion? (Get them to look over this article too.:-) Best, —
901:
I actually have the
Smalley et al. and Katz papers, and it's not at all clear that the models are identical. Similar, yes.
331:
213:
174:
108:
69:
44:
953:
I believe there were interesting precursors of Bak's first SOC models. I think one of them was by Sue
Coppersmith.
701:
Essentially my rationale is that while classification is important, it is also important that material be highlighted
999:
These are both hasty generalizations (the second much more so than the first) and they smell a little bit of ego. --
845:
747:
721:
682:
678:
599:
495:: as far as I remember, at no stage does he give an explicit definition of SOC — nor as you point out above did he
1024:
638:
21:
964:
823:
with respect to parameters. If there was a "Critical point phenomena" category, that would be a good one.
884:
Can the person who made these edits please identify themselves and give some justification for this edit?
775:
205:
738:
After thinking about this further I've removed several of the higher categories. The remaining ones are
649:
436:— it's just that these dynamics are so general that they can have vastly different physical embodiments.
428:
To the issue you raised, I think the criticism of PB was that it was perceived that he had claimed that
50:
491:
With regard to criticisms of Bak, I think they may have arisen partly because of a lack of clarity in
956:
1020:
116:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
794:
779:
686:
595:
504:
he was asserting a "whenever" statement. It would of course be nice if there were a theorem :-)
935:
770:
743:
717:
573:
413:
for a sample along these lines). But that's a small point. Thanks for your new version. --
362:
312:
919:
Further to above, I have reverted the introduction but added some extra material elsewhere. —
790:
766:
642:
315:
222:
705:— else there's a danger of users having to descend through an endless tree of categories.
410:
was criticised, at least initially, for his claims about the ubiquity of power laws (see
840:
To repeat the above (since some people keep trying to remove it), it is understood that
189:
168:
1028:
1008:
968:
943:
923:
913:
874:
859:
827:
811:
797:
782:
754:
728:
689:
667:
627:
606:
585:
560:
547:
532:
514:
479:
464:
417:
389:
100:
1036:
940:
920:
910:
871:
856:
824:
808:
751:
725:
664:
624:
582:
544:
529:
476:
461:
396:
386:
765:
and because these categories aren't yet overloaded (I am very keen only on keeping
265:
594:
Thanks for the feedback, WebDrake. You have good plans, but I'll respond on your
990:
Both paragraphs in the section on
Criticism seem to be excessive in their tone.
898:
The edits suggest bad faith on the part of BTW, which I see no reason to assume.
657:
323:
319:
84:
63:
716:
But I'll follow your guidance on this. :-) FWIW I don't think limiting SOC to
895:
the sandpile model. The concept of SOC was put forward by BTW and not before.
423:
Thanks very much for the nice compliments. Copy edits are always welcome. :-)
195:
90:
653:
603:
577:
557:
511:
471:
414:
382:
going on and to show examples of the sorts of scale-invariance that result.
343:
411:
711:
since for example it's not too highly related to chemistry or cybernetics.
347:
685:
is in, what is the rationale for keeping SOC in additional categories?
470:
Further to the above, I've also slightly revised one of the paragraphs
403:
399:! I've done a minor copy-edit, but I think your article is excellent.
327:
113:
330:) behaviour similar to that displayed by static systems undergoing a
218:
510:
details of what the mechanism is. Maybe that can be addressed. --
978:
Integrate and Fire Neuron
Network with SOC properties - References?
430:
whenever a natural system displays power laws, it is a sign of SOC
367:— This is misleading. Many cellular automata display interesting
15:
887:
I am going to rewrite these edits on the following grounds:
455:
apart from unwieldiness. It gives you an idea of where SOC
264:
681:
exists and it is a subcategory of most of the categories
986:
Inappropriately authoritative tones in Criticism section
1063:
Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
112:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
891:This article is about self-organized criticality,
851:If you want to remove the category, please give a
351:— This is a confusion of the sandpile/avalanche
1083:Start-Class physics articles of High-importance
1068:Start-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
842:Category:Applied and interdisciplinary physics
740:Category:Applied and interdisciplinary physics
1053:Knowledge vital articles in Physical sciences
641:, with a reference to the paper published in
8:
880:Smalley et al. (1985) and Katz (1986) papers
385:Comments eagerly awaited! Peace and love, —
361:This is related to the self-organization of
217:, which collaborates on articles related to
648:In addition we need to create pages on the
19:
163:
58:
500:with. In other words, as you say, they
165:
60:
637:I've just created a stub page for the
836:Applied and interdisciplinary physics
7:
273:This article is within the field of
211:This article is within the scope of
106:This article is within the scope of
855:reason on these talk pages first. —
769:slim for now). Also, as it is now,
49:It is of interest to the following
1058:Start-Class level-5 vital articles
14:
1098:Systems articles in chaos theory
1078:High-importance physics articles
1048:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
198:
188:
167:
93:
83:
62:
29:
20:
1093:Mid-importance Systems articles
724:would be too inappropriate. —
251:This article has been rated as
146:This article has been rated as
703:as soon as it becomes relevant
1:
924:13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
914:12:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
860:13:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
528:to the observed phenomena. —
332:second-order phase transition
311:(SOC) claims that whenever a
231:Knowledge:WikiProject Systems
126:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
120:and see a list of open tasks.
1103:WikiProject Systems articles
1088:Start-Class Systems articles
1073:Start-Class physics articles
1014:Contribution of Infographics
1001:2601:19B:801:5180:0:0:0:2B05
944:18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
828:00:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
812:00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
798:21:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
783:20:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
755:16:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
729:13:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
690:07:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
668:23:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
628:02:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
607:17:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
586:16:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
561:11:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
548:00:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
533:23:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
515:11:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
234:Template:WikiProject Systems
129:Template:WikiProject Physics
480:22:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
465:20:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
418:06:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
390:03:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
378:preprint, where possible).
1119:
1043:Start-Class vital articles
1029:15:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
969:03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
846:Category:Self-organization
748:Category:Self-organization
722:Category:Self-organization
683:Self-organized criticality
679:Category:Self-organization
598:since we're going off the
309:self-organized criticality
257:project's importance scale
152:project's importance scale
875:09:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
663:Further ideas welcome! —
443:start thinking about the
272:
250:
183:
145:
78:
57:
1009:17:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
844:is a parent category of
639:Oslo ricepile experiment
618:Examples of SOC dynamics
326:, it exhibits critical (
930:Bak-Sneppen references
778:in any way right now.
776:Category:Phase changes
269:
206:Systems science portal
650:Gutenberg-Richter law
633:Further related pages
447:of "How Nature Works"
268:
36:level-5 vital article
214:WikiProject Systems
109:WikiProject Physics
865:"The Neo effect"??
270:
45:content assessment
959:comment added by
936:Bak-Sneppen model
771:self-organization
744:Category:Fractals
718:Category:Fractals
574:self-organization
363:cellular automata
342:Examples include
289:
288:
285:
284:
281:
280:
162:
161:
158:
157:
1110:
971:
791:Category:Physics
767:Category:Physics
493:How Nature Works
408:How Nature Works
316:dynamical system
239:
238:
237:Systems articles
235:
232:
229:
208:
203:
202:
201:
192:
185:
184:
179:
171:
164:
134:
133:
132:physics articles
130:
127:
124:
103:
98:
97:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1033:
1032:
1016:
988:
980:
954:
951:
932:
882:
867:
838:
675:
635:
620:
328:scale-invariant
313:self-organizing
297:
236:
233:
230:
227:
226:
223:systems science
204:
199:
197:
177:
148:High-importance
131:
128:
125:
122:
121:
99:
92:
73:High‑importance
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
1116:
1114:
1106:
1105:
1100:
1095:
1090:
1085:
1080:
1075:
1070:
1065:
1060:
1055:
1050:
1045:
1035:
1034:
1021:Able D. Paryon
1015:
1012:
987:
984:
979:
976:
974:
950:
947:
931:
928:
927:
926:
907:
906:
902:
899:
896:
881:
878:
866:
863:
837:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
817:
816:
815:
814:
801:
800:
786:
785:
733:
732:
731:
713:
712:
707:
706:
698:
697:
674:
673:Categorization
671:
634:
631:
619:
616:
614:
612:
611:
610:
609:
589:
588:
568:
567:
553:
552:
551:
550:
538:
537:
536:
535:
518:
517:
506:
505:
488:
487:
468:
467:
451:
450:
438:
437:
425:
424:
393:
375:
374:
358:
357:
339:
338:
307:The theory of
296:
293:
291:
287:
286:
283:
282:
279:
278:
271:
261:
260:
253:Mid-importance
249:
243:
242:
240:
210:
209:
193:
181:
180:
178:Mid‑importance
172:
160:
159:
156:
155:
144:
138:
137:
135:
118:the discussion
105:
104:
101:Physics portal
88:
76:
75:
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1115:
1104:
1101:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1091:
1089:
1086:
1084:
1081:
1079:
1076:
1074:
1071:
1069:
1066:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1056:
1054:
1051:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1041:
1040:
1038:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1013:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1002:
997:
994:
991:
985:
983:
977:
975:
972:
970:
966:
962:
961:67.190.40.183
958:
948:
946:
945:
942:
937:
929:
925:
922:
918:
917:
916:
915:
912:
903:
900:
897:
894:
890:
889:
888:
885:
879:
877:
876:
873:
864:
862:
861:
858:
854:
849:
847:
843:
835:
829:
826:
821:
820:
819:
818:
813:
810:
805:
804:
803:
802:
799:
796:
792:
788:
787:
784:
781:
777:
772:
768:
763:
759:
758:
757:
756:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
730:
727:
723:
719:
715:
714:
709:
708:
704:
700:
699:
694:
693:
692:
691:
688:
684:
680:
672:
670:
669:
666:
661:
659:
655:
651:
646:
644:
640:
632:
630:
629:
626:
617:
615:
608:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:
591:
590:
587:
584:
579:
575:
570:
569:
565:
564:
563:
562:
559:
549:
546:
542:
541:
540:
539:
534:
531:
527:
522:
521:
520:
519:
516:
513:
508:
507:
503:
498:
494:
490:
489:
484:
483:
482:
481:
478:
473:
466:
463:
458:
453:
452:
448:
446:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
422:
421:
420:
419:
416:
412:
409:
405:
400:
398:
392:
391:
388:
383:
379:
373:
370:
364:
360:
359:
356:
354:
349:
345:
341:
340:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
310:
306:
305:
304:
301:
295:Major rewrite
294:
292:
276:
267:
263:
262:
258:
254:
248:
245:
244:
241:
224:
220:
216:
215:
207:
196:
194:
191:
187:
186:
182:
176:
173:
170:
166:
153:
149:
143:
140:
139:
136:
119:
115:
111:
110:
102:
96:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1017:
998:
995:
992:
989:
981:
973:
952:
933:
908:
892:
886:
883:
868:
852:
850:
839:
761:
735:
734:
702:
676:
662:
647:
636:
621:
613:
554:
525:
501:
497:specifically
496:
492:
469:
456:
444:
442:
433:
429:
407:
401:
395:Great work,
394:
384:
380:
376:
368:
366:
352:
350:
335:
308:
302:
298:
290:
275:Chaos theory
252:
212:
147:
107:
51:WikiProjects
34:
955:—Preceding
658:earthquakes
602:topic. --
324:dissipative
41:Start-class
1037:Categories
949:Precursors
870:back in. —
372:variables.
344:avalanches
905:question.
696:material?
677:Now that
654:Omori law
596:talk page
578:power law
502:perceived
348:sandpiles
39:is rated
957:unsigned
941:WebDrake
921:WebDrake
911:WebDrake
872:WebDrake
857:WebDrake
825:WebDrake
809:WebDrake
752:WebDrake
726:WebDrake
665:WebDrake
652:and the
625:WebDrake
583:WebDrake
545:WebDrake
530:WebDrake
486:back :-)
477:WebDrake
462:WebDrake
445:question
397:WebDrake
387:WebDrake
369:emergent
353:metaphor
346:e.g. in
736:UPDATE:
434:they do
404:Per Bak
255:on the
228:Systems
219:systems
175:Systems
150:on the
123:Physics
114:Physics
70:Physics
762:really
643:Nature
47:scale.
795:Karol
780:Karol
687:Karol
28:This
1025:talk
1005:talk
965:talk
853:good
746:and
720:and
656:for
604:JimR
576:and
558:JimR
526:just
512:JimR
472:JimR
415:JimR
320:open
221:and
142:High
893:not
600:SOC
457:may
406:'s
365:.
334:.
322:or
318:is
247:Mid
1039::
1027:)
1007:)
967:)
742:,
660:.
645:.
1023:(
1003:(
963:(
939:—
277:.
259:.
225:.
154:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
