> >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.
I think I wish to include some of the "old" meaning in my
consideration of the word. I certainly do not want to be limited to
a SFI viewpoint!
> What Rosen
> has done is to say that if this term is to be used to categorize systems,
> let's do it right.
Doing it "right" begs a number of questions. Different
categoraizations are only right or not relative to the languages they
are represented in and the type of utility required of them.
> 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.
I am unsure of what you mean when you refer to "technical" complexity
here. I am also unsure why one would want only a dichotomous
classification. I, of course, am interested in a far wider
application than just the epistemology relating to Newtonian
Paradigm's evolution
> He provoides a clear, unambiguous mathematical method for dealing
> with the classification.
Agreed.
> 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.
Yes, but he does not show that this is the *only* source of the
complexity we see.
> 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!
Granted. But this is obvious!
> >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 certainly do not want Rosen's distinction to be "put in a box", but
that is a long way from not tolerating other's use of the word. When
I said "The rest is politics!" I was not intending the (usual)
denigration by that. Whether anyone's viewpoint is "put in a box" IS
political (and rightly so). Compare "Man is born free", this is a
useful political statement - it is not meant to be taken literally or
analytically. I wish to use "complexity" for an analytic tool, I can
understand a more political use, epsecially when confronted (and
funded (!)) by blinkered reductionists.
> >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.
This is, of sourse, dependent on your purpose.
> >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.
OK, this was just a particular "thought experiment". I might want to
consider a sequence (not time) of systems with "simple" systems at
one end and "complex" ones at the other. The same problem of a
complexity _catastrophe_ (in Thom's sens) occurs. (I guess) you
would say that they are basically incommeasurable, which is not so
useful in considering the difference (epecially w.r.t. transitions -
what you are saying is that essentially NO transistions between
simple and complex occur!).
This also raises the question of what (real or represented) systems
you would consider "simple" or is everything ultimately "complex"?
> 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 "too specific" which is hardly a fault.
Lets be accurate here. Rosen is concerned with the limitation of
the reductionist approach to modelling, exposing its assuptions and
questioning its generality. He then proposes a very general
alternative approach. His definition of "complexity" is a mere
adjunct to this very general thrust, suited for his purpose in this
and in this sense is more specific: his definition can be considered
as a special case of mine. This is fine - we have different purposes.
> You never
> deal with the specifics. Best wishes, Don Mikulecky
Mine was hardly designed to be a specific paper!
----------------------------------------------------------
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