# Random reorganization.

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/random-reorganization/9501>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [May 10, 1999, 3:56am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/random-reorganization/9501 "1999-05-10T03:56:29Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Philip\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/8dc957/32.png) [@Philip\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Philip_Runkel)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 1999, 3:56am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/random-reorganization/9501/1 "1999-05-10T03:56:29Z")

</div>

We talk about reorganization as consisting of "random" trials of altered  
reference signals. But it doesn't seem to me that the reference values to  
be tried can be picked (?) randomly in the sense the word has in  
probability theory (every alternative equally likely). How about  
arbitrary, opportunistic, fitful, volatile, protean, transilient, erratic,  
unsystematic, ....?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 1999, 10:55am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/random-reorganization/9501/2 "1999-05-10T10:55:07Z")

</div>

Hi, Phil--

> We talk about reorganization as consisting of "random" trials of altered  
> reference signals. But it doesn't seem to me that the reference values to  
> be tried can be picked (?) randomly in the sense the word has in  
> probability theory (every alternative equally likely). How about  
> arbitrary, opportunistic, fitful, volatile, protean, transilient, erratic,  
> unsystematic, ....?

I would pick "unsystematic." When I think of random reorganization, I'm not  
thinking so much of equiprobable alternatives, but as choices that are  
without rational foundation. If you have a rational foundation for choosing  
a new reference condition, you're just using a control system that already  
exists at the logic level or the principle level or some such. But if  
you're using an already-existing organization, you're not reorganizing,  
you're just controlling. Reorganization is what happens when no  
already-existing system can solve your problem. Therefore it must be random  
in the sense of not using any learned system, method, principle, algorithm,  
and so on. If a learned system could solve the problem it would have done  
so already.

Bill

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Cherpas](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Chris\_Cherpas](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Chris_Cherpas)\
**Post date:** [May 11, 1999, 5:25pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/random-reorganization/9501/3 "1999-05-11T17:25:31Z")

</div>

[From Chris Cherpas (990511.1020 PT)]

Philip Runkel wrote:

> We talk about reorganization as consisting of "random" trials of altered  
> reference signals. But it doesn't seem to me that the reference values to  
> be tried can be picked (?) randomly in the sense the word has in  
> probability theory (every alternative equally likely).

Alternatives don't have to be equally likely for an  
outcome to be random. Would you prefer reorganziation  
be described as a "stochastic process?"

Best regards,  
cc

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Philip\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/8dc957/32.png) [@Philip\_Runkel](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Philip_Runkel)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 1999, 12:07am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/random-reorganization/9501/4 "1999-05-16T00:07:21Z")

</div>

No, "unsystematic" or "arbitrary" is good enough for me. I just wanted to  
be clear that the necessary idea was  
going-beyond-available-control-systems, not randomness.

Thanks for comment.

> **···**
>
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Chris Cherpas wrote:
> 
> > [From Chris Cherpas (990511.1020 PT)]
> 
> > Would you prefer reorganziation  
> > be described as a "stochastic process?"

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Cherpas](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Chris\_Cherpas](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Chris_Cherpas)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 1999, 4:54pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/random-reorganization/9501/5 "1999-05-16T16:54:06Z")

</div>

[From Chris Cherpas (990516.0945 PT)]

Philip Runkel wrote:

> ... "unsystematic" or "arbitrary" is good enough for me.  
> I just wanted to be clear that the necessary idea was  
> going-beyond-available-control-systems, not randomness.

Sounds good to me. I think of randomness \_as\_  
unsystematic or arbitrary, myself, rather than  
meaning a uniform distribution of elementary  
events in a sample space, per se, or any other  
particular distribution.

In addition to going-beyond-available-control-systems,  
the notion of randomness includes, for me, that only  
certain possibilities exist for modifying or forming  
new control systems, not that "anything goes" -- e.g.,  
divine intervention.

Best regards,  
cc