It's coming.
@manlius
Emergence, Networks & Complexity | Collective Behavior(s) from Cells to Societies π§¬π¦ π§ π Prof. @UniPadova, Galileo's University | Lab: @comunelab.bsky.social | Web: https://linktr.ee/manlius Thoughts at manlius.substack.com
It's coming.
What am I watching here, exactly?
I had hard times not believing this was just some AI generated video.
It seems it is not.
youtube.com/shorts/VxXW9...
Musk, worth $829 billion, owns X.
Bezos, worth $234 billion, owns The Washington Post & Twitch.
Zuckerberg, worth $231 billion, owns Facebook, Instagram & WhatsApp.
And now Larry Ellison, worth $202 billion, is about to control CNN, CBS, TikTok & HBO.
Yes, this is oligarchy.
Is βcomplexityβ always in the eye of the beholder?
Is complexity in the system, or in the fit between the system and our description of it?
New #ComplexityThoughts:
open.substack.com/pub/manlius/...
Sadly.
Is βcomplexityβ always in the eye of the beholder?
Is complexity in the system, or in the fit between the system and our description of it?
New #ComplexityThoughts:
open.substack.com/pub/manlius/...
π―
The incorrect idea that βgraphs only encode pairwise interactionsβ has done a lot of damage, and will take a long time to repair.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Our featured article, February 2026: Quantifying biases in reconstructed brain networks by @comunelab.bsky.social, @manlius.bsky.social and @valedand.bsky.social
rdcu.be/e52eU
and there you go: it is a perfectly valid Hamiltonian βon a graphβ in the sense of our paper, ie βgraph = domain/neighborhood structure + arbitrary multivariate interaction functionβ.
But maybe I got it wrong, feel free to show me where/how and I will re-think about it.
/fin
Now βgeneric n-bodyβ means phi_c is an arbitrary function on {Β±1}^n, so it has 2^n coefficients in the standard monomial basis:
9/
I can always do this on a graph, no?
Take n spins on nodes V={1,β¦,n}. Use the complete graph G=K_n so each node has neighborhood βi=V{i}.
Let the βgroupβ be c=V and define the graph Hamiltonian by:
8/
If we truncate the expansion to order k (keeping only subsets A with |A|β€k) the number of free coefficients becomes sum_{m=0}^k binom(n,m) (minus 1 if you drop the constant).
Hyperedges donβt change this count: they only choose which c exist.
7/
Now the key distinction: βpairwise graph canβtβ is shorthand for βyou restrict phi_c to only |A|β€2 termsβ.
But, as far as I understand, thatβs a constraint on the function class, not on whether c is indexed by a hyperedge or a graph neighborhood.
6/
Let's see if I got your point.
Let a hyperedge be a set c β V with |c| = n
An βn-spin term on that hyperedgeβ is just a function
phi_c : {Β±1}^n β R, assigning an energy to each configuration of spins in c.
So far so good?
5/
Hyperedges donβt fix the β2^n dofβ issue.
A generic n-spin term is an arbitrary function on {Β±1}^n, i.e., it has 2^n values (well, minus a constant gauge).
Hereβs the count in a standard basis: any n-spin potential expands over all subsets, 2^n coefficients (again, minus the constant term).
4/
But that βcannotβ is about this specific choice of potential (sum of 1-body + 2-body terms), not about graphs as neighborhoods/domains.
A graph can still parameterize who can influence whom while allowing multivariate couplings on neighborhoods (the point of our paper).
3/
If by βgraphβ you mean (ie, assume by design) the pairwise Ising restriction, then youβre right: that family cannot represent a generic n-body interaction on the same spins.
To be clear, I am referring to the Hamiltonian below. Which is, btw, a specific βmechanism choiceβ, not a structural one.
2/
How hypergraphs would avoid the O(2^n) dof of a generic n-body Ising term?
They only index which subsets get a term: if graphs specify neighborhoods/domains and node interactions are arbitrary multivariate functions on them, hypergraph models are a constrained subfamily.
1/
The Slow Science Movement advocates for a more thoughtful, sustainable approach to research that values quality over quantity and depth over speed.
It sounds trivial, but if you are an active researcher you know it is not.
π www.slow-science.com/index.html
It seems to me that the point about being "true" or "intrinsic for" or "more general than" has been done in other 100s papers.
The point is about "telling the truth" and being counterfactual, not claiming what's "true", since there is no such a thing as a "true" model, by definition.
I think it's a legit question and, actually, something I agree with.
If social media were not important to influence human behavior, why so much investment on them?
A possible answer is also: just because they made platform richer.
But very legit doubt.
βOur results support a hypothesis whereby evolving cheaper but more numerous units through reduced investment in structural tissues was a strategic trend in the evolution and diversification of complex insect societiesβ
π§ͺππ
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Partially agree: there is at least one study supporting this and I can't find studies supporting the opposite.
I am fine with being cautiously confident and waiting for more results.
@acerbialberto.com what's your take on this?
I remember we had several discussions where you were sustaining the opposite, ie that social media have no influence.
βinitial exposure to Xβs algorithm has persistent effects on usersβ current political attitudes and account-following behaviour, -even in the absence of a detectable effect on partisanshipβ
That's the reason for a large body of research in the last two decades.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...