Bruce
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 09:43:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: mikulecky@Gems.VCU.EDU (Don Mikulecky)
Subject: Re: My and Rosen's "complexity"
To: B.Edmonds@mmu.ac.uk
>Dear Don, Hans, and other PCPers,
>
>I have been away for a week but, ....
>
>I think I had better make clear (or elaborate) on the relation
>between my use/definition of "complexity" and Rosen's.
>
>Rosen's use of "complexity" is a special case of mine where the
>"difficulty" involved is the utlimate difficulty of impossiblity.
>Thus, in this case, the definition specialises to:
>
>"That property of a language expression which makes it
>*impossible* to formulate its overall behaviour completely, even
>when given almost complete information about its atomic
>components and their inter-relations.".
>
>Thus if the "difficulty of overall speicifcation of behaviour" you
>are concerned with is that associated with the limits of the
>classical reductionist/Newtonian method this would be the
>approapriate interpretation of my general definition in your
>domain (though I think Newton homself mught be somewhat
>annoyed by this use of his name - he was very aware of the
>limitations of his knowledge). This is fine and good, knowledge
>always gains from a variety of approaches however successful
>any one is in its own domain, so that pointing out the limitations
>of established methods and looking for other ways is to be
>applauded (but judged by its ultimate utility).
Yes, I agree that Newton himself was mainly out to describe planetary motion.
This is no small matter, however. A multitutde of authors have also
come to this conclusion while also acknowledging that the "misuse" od the
Newtonian Paradigm has gone very far, even to the organization of
society.
>
>I find it somewhat strange that this should be considered the
>_only_ use of the term "complexity" though. Surely much of the
>power and utility of language comes from the fact that words
>can be used from many perspectives and for many uses while
>retaining the same "flavour" (and I am *not* going to define
>that!). Most of the world (maybe SFI and anti-reductionists
>apart) will frequently use terms like "X is more complex than Y,
>which is more complex than Z". To insist that the rest of the
>world should change their language to suite the reductionist
>debate seems topsy-turvy!
You mistate the situation somewhat, I think. In the non-technical
sense, "complex" is an old word and we will never change that, nor do
we intend to. But now, mainly due to the press hungry Santa Fe Inst.
group, we have the books by Waldrop, Lewis, and others using the word
complex in a very specific way. They did not start this trend. What Rosen
has done is to say that if this term is to be used to categorize systems,
let's do it right. He provides the only way I've seen to make "technical"
cpmplexity have a counterpart in a true dichotomous classification and to
relate that distinction to the historical epistemology accompanying the
Newtonian
Paradigm's evolution. He provoides a clear, unambiguous mathematical
method for dealing with the classification. He, in this way, makes it clear
that the complexity we see (emergence, etc.) is a function of the narrow
approach we have come to take. Witness, for example, the standard mathematical
repertoire considered essential for science. It is mainly analytical and
designed to help manipulate a Newtonisan world. When the folks in our
math department heard that I thought topology was applicable to science
some years back, they flipped!
>
>This is not to say that the distinction intended by such as Don, to
>indicate a crucial difference between what they call
>"complicated" and what they call "complex" is not a useful one.
>But that these specific meanings of these terms are a strictly
>"local" usage. As long as everybody knows what the others are
>talking about and can use language to fruitfully discuss the
>intended distinctions this is all that is required. The rest is
>politics!
>
Or semantics? Rosen's distinction is both useful and imortant.
I hate to get it put in a box because of the choice of words, but
am hard pressed to know what to do with "complexity" as a concept
as used by others.
>I will now set out the *personal* reasons _I_ use complexity as I
>do:
>
>1. I am interested in identifying the core of the cluster of
>concepts which have been used under the term "complexity".
>
>2. I think that analysing "complexity" in a particular way (as I
>defined it) reveals something useful about the sharper
>(analytic?) application of the concept, so that confusions of the
>type we are discussion are clearly delineated and thus avioded
>but so that its wide range of applicability is still retained.
>
This sounds good, but I for one do not see that you have succeded.
>3. I want to be able to talk about comparing complexity, this is
>in fact the most common use of this term! Thus Rosen's
>approach is too specific to meet all my analytic needs.
>
And yours is too general for our needs! (As is the Santa Fe Institute's)
>4. I want to be able to talk about and investigate the *roots* (I
>don't say "causes") of the type of complexity that Rosen
>identifies. Imagine a long evolution from systems that are
>somehow "simple" (a mere mixture of chemicals) to something
>"complex" i.e. us (given some uniform method of reprentation,
>of course)! Limiting the meaning of "complexity" to a particular
>paridgmatic one like Rosen's means that somehow in this
>evolutionary process it suddenly swaps from state "simple" to
>state "complex" and does this (essentially) only ONCE. This is
>very unhelpful if you are trying to use a concept such as
>"complexity" to understand such an emergence
>_as_a_process_.
>
Here's where you and Rosen diverge completly. In our sense of complexity,
things did not start as simple mechanisms and then become complex. Evolution
began in a complex system.
>5. Keeping the term as close as possible to common usage
>while *refining* it (not restricitng it) to reveal more of the
>assumptions and chaacteristics of its use.
>
>I am, of course, pesimistic about its success for many reasons:
>An Vranx outlined the power such terms gain as naratives as
>they move into the public domain; the *status* that the term
>"complexity" conveys to an academic enterprise - which means
>that deliiniations of its use is somewhat political (see recent
>Sci.Am. article for an example); the ease with which the
>ingrained habits/world-view of each group of humans is
>extended (by that group) to the whole world (e.g. try discussing
>the merits of your favourite editor/WP with someone else!); and,
>of course, the sheer glorious perversity, imagination,
>individuality and diversity of our species.
>
>In the end, all I am concerned with is identifying some useful
>core of the various uses of the term "complexity" and looking at
>it in such a way as to make clear some of the assumtions and
>relativities in its use and thus reduce some of the confusion
>surrounding it.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Bruce Edmonds
>Centre for Policy Modelling,
>Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Building,
>Aytoun Street, Manchester M1 3GH. UK.
>e-mail b.edmonds@mmu.ac.uk
>Tel no. +44 161 247 6479 Fax no +44 161 247 6802
>WWW. http://bruce.edmonds.name/bme_home.html
>
So, maybe now that everhing is on the table, we need to agree to disagree.
I also would recommend further study of Rosen, because it is not clear
to me that you fully understand him yet. You seem to dismiss him as "to
specific" which is hardly a fault. You never deal with the specifics.
Best wishes, Don Mikulecky
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! Don Mikulecky, First International Laboratory for the Application of !
! Analysis Situs to Physiology (FILASAP) !
! Medical College of Virginia Commonwealth University !
! Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu !
!**********************************************************************!
! An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it !
! at the moment. It must stand or fall on its own merits. !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!