> I will assume, that since it is posted on this list, I am *allowed*
> to comment upon and disagree with it.
This is the type of sniping that leads us nowhere! I have repeatedly
asked for criticism of Rosen's ideas AND YOU KNOW IT. The thing I
object to is what happens in the next paragraph. Follow down and I'll
explain. I think my concern is a valid one. If it isn't just say so,
please, rather than this kind of thing.
>
>> Don Mikulecky,MCV/VCU, Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
>> As I promised, here's a section from "Anticipatory Systems" by Robert Rosen,
>> Pergamon, 1985..pp83...
>> "One further aspect of [the modeling relation] may be mentioned briefly here.
>> We are subsequently going to relate our capacity to produce independent
>> encodings of a given natural system N with the COMPLEXITY of N. Roughly
>> speaking, the more such encoding we can produce, the more complex we will
>> regard the system N.
>
> "Roughly speaking" is right here. I will argue that this is related
> to complexity but does not qualify as a definition.
>
Yes it is right. This is not where the definition appears. In the context of
MY statements surrounding the posting of
this quote, the actual definition is elsewhere and has been posted in this
forum many, many, many times. I also plead guilty to doing what you
are here. Onar was kind enough to call me on it and I've tried to be
more careful. I will certainly sin again, but that does not change the
fact that when we do this we contribute little or nothing but a
distraction from the real point.
>> Thus, contrary to the traditional views regarding system
>> complexity, we do not treat complexity as the property of some particular
>> encoding [note..here's where I am afraid Jeff has led us off the path a bit]
,
>> and hence indentifiable with the mathematical property of a formal system
>> (such as dimensionality, number of generators,or the like). Nor is complexit
y
>> entirely an objective property of N, in the sense of being itself a directly
>> perceptible quality, which can be measured by a meter. Rather, complexity
>> pertains as much to US AS OBSERVERS as it does to N; it reflects OUR ABILITY
>> TO INTERACT WITH N in such a way as to make its qualities visible to us.
>
> This is (now) a view well accepted, and repeated by many thinkers
> about complexity. I agree with it but do not think it goes quite
> far enough. I propose that complexity is not only relative to the
> OBSERVER but relative to the many languages within which that single
> observer might seek to construct the model. This is implicit in the
> top section of the quote from Roasen, but not so evident here.
That is perfectly consistent with the quote when taken in context.
>
>> Intuitively speaking, if N is such that we can interact with it in only a few
>> ways, there will be a correspondingly few distinct encodings we can make of
>> the qualities we percieve thereby, and N will appear to us as a SIMPLE system
;
>> if N is such that we can interact with it in many ways, we will be able to
>> produce many distinct encodings, and will correspondingly regard N as complex
.
>
> These last two phrases, show the weakness of this
> definition/approach to 'complexity'. The sheer numerosity of the
> encodings (or corresponding ways of interaction) is insufficient to
> imply 'complexity' (depending a bit on what we mean by 'distinct'),
> because (although they are formally essentially distinct) on a
> meta-level they may be but trivial extensions of each other.
> Numerosity of distinct encodings is a necessary condition for
> 'complexity' but not sufficient. It is unfortunate that Rosen
> blurred what was a basically good insight by prematurely applying the
> terms of 'simple' 'and 'complex' here.
Again correct if you ignore the context. In context you miss the
point. That point is that "complexity" as the word is being used here
(which is distinct from your usage) is a by- product of our history.
We have chosen to interact with systems in a limited number of ways and
then seen "errors" in our descriptions. We begin to speak of
"complexity" and "emergence" and "self-organization" as if they were
new events. THEY were always there, we chose to posit them out of the
discussion. Now we are struggling to free ourselves from the paradigm
that brought this upon us and seek a new one. Defining "degrees of complexity"
seems to be of little relevance to finding that new approach, even
though it has its own desireability and intrinsic value. In this
context, however, it is somewhat irrelevant.
>
> (Note that here (at least) Rosen is definitely allowing for more than
> a simple complex-simple dicotomy).
Again, apparantly by choice, you totally miss the point and focus on
your own needs.
>
>> It must be recognized that we are speaking here complexity as an attribute of
>> NATURAL systems; the same word (complexity) may, and often is, used to
>> describe some attributes of a FORMAL system. But this involves quite a
>> different concept, with which we are not presently concerned."
>
> This is a useful point. Here Rosen does not ascribe complexity to
> the whole modelling realtion but clearly to the "NATURAL systems".
> This is beacuse he is implicitly quatifying over possible encodings
> in his definition (that this is utterly impractical - even
> theoretically - is passed over in this quote).
>
Yes and one which I have made over and over again. However your
interpretation differs radically from mine. The modeling relation is
our only access to the natural system. Put things back into context and
what rosen is saying is that we SUBJECTIVELY now call the natural
system "complex" because of what has happened in the modeling relation
and our uses of it to describe our interactions with the system. To me
this is a clear example of how fragmenting an idea can totally change
parts of it. Often to the point that a fragment can be then
manipulated to mean what we want it to.
> Here Rosen is being clear as to his application of the concept - this
> is good. We get a different use of the word if we apply it to the
> whole "modelling relation" - it is in this context that I find it
> difficult to totally exclude the effect of the complexity of the
> "FORMAL" system on the whole.
Once again, if you fragment his idea to apply to this or that piece of
a whole process, we loose the essence. He clearly made a distinction
between looking at a fragment...the formal system...and the whole
process in his use of the notion of complexity. He also makes it clear
that the subjective notion of "complexity" as used in the holistic sense,
is something WE ASSIGN to the natural system. My own interpretation of
this and other statements of his is that the notion of complexity
becomes less useful as we understand its evolution in language. This
is due to the fact that, as you say, we can, unless there are technical
limitations, find an infinite number of ways to interact with a system and
therefore there are not any simple systems out there...we just made it
look that way over all those years! However, we live in a world where
most systems are still seen as simple in this sense and "complexity",
"emergence" and "self-organization" have become very fashonable buzz words.
Rosen has indeed seen a legitimate OTHER use of the word as applied to formalism
s.
This seems to be your interest, and I see little difference in your
views here, except where you seem to want to call the same system
mechanistic and complex at the same time. That I find mind-boggling,
but I've tried at great length to explain why.
>
>> This seems to be as near self contained as possible, but in fact is very
>> context dependent still. Chapters are devoted to preparig us for this. The
>> book "Fundamentals of Measurement" lays the grounwork to understanding the
>> modeling relation in terms of measurement. Others have written lots on the
>> problem of measurement. And, most clearly, Rosen is challenging our notion o
f
>> SCIENTIFIC objectivity without delving into the deeper questions of
>> subjective/objective human perception at this time. We seem to be going
>> afield here too.
>
> I have read these. Please do not merely try and "immunise" Rosen
> from criticism by saying I have to study him more. If you think
> previous context is releveant - quote it.
I resent the implication. I refered as here to a habit which I find
counterproductive. The context for the statements is as important as
the statement if not more. The ignoring of the context is
indistinguishable from the lack of knowledge of the context in a forum
like this. You know full well you are not being censored. This is a misuse
of language and you know it! I speak of the manner in which I perceive
you to be so willing to make your point that the topic you attack is
not the one intended. If you disagree about that so be it. But if the
shoe fits....maybe we all can improve our style here. I certainly have
an advantage there since I clearly have had the most room for improvement!
>
>> Be reminded that Rosen has experienced some of the worst of scientific
>> sociology. His reasons for asking and trying to answer these questions are
>> bringing us necessarily into the COMPLEX nature of science and epistemology.
>
> This is one of Rosen's great strengths. It is unfortunate that he
> sometimes chose to use a slightly inappropriate terminology of
> 'complexity' to do this.
You are certainly welcome to that opinion. To me the word is not
sacred and can easily become a word of little use due to different usages.
I'd rather focus on what semantic content is carried by this word,
which he seems to have sighted in on very well.
>
>> Any attempt to "sterilize" this is a reduction of the worst kind and misses
>> the point entirely.
>
> If by this you wish to _effectively_ judge any criticism as mere
> sterlization, then what we say won't matter - you will have done the
> job already.
no...sterilization means stripping something out of semantic context in
order to create a straw man. You must chose which you are going to crticise.
When it seems like you are attacking a straw man, I percieve it as
counterproductive and potentially misleading to others. For a variety
of reasons, this discussion has focused on things out of context and
often, in my opinion, misrepresented. That is more a fault of Jeff and
I than anyone else. However, I do feel a responsibility for any misrepresentati
on
we have spawned and therefore keep trying to clarify. The process gets
repititious and frustrating at times. Hence my plea to go to the source.
I must admit, if your account of the purpose for what we are doing is
simply to air our own ideas, as far from any source material they may be,
then I have clearly erred. I am very concerned that having used
Rosen's name far too many times I am obligated to steer us back to what
he is actually saying. I will do a posting in which I try to state my
views in an independent way and thereby free myself from that sense of obligatio
n.
Maybe it has been misguided from the start.
>
>> In this sense, Rosen is the ULTIMATE pragmatist as well
>> as an exquisite theoretician.
>
> This seems to be yet another attempt to put Rosen's views beyond
> argument and criticism? I hope not. To me having a high regard for
> someone's viewpoint is closely tied up with it being able to stand
> its own ground against criticism. I regard Rosen's views highly -
> they are worth criticising and impoving. This can be furthered by
> intelligent dialogue which, alas, will not be possible if we have to
> take it as read that he is already CORRECT.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce Edmonds
> Centre for Policy Modelling,
> Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Building,
> Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
> Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
> http://bruce.edmonds.name/bme_home.html
Once again, I find the last paragraph distasteful. There is no need to
imply something that is not even possible. No one can censor anyone
else here. I seek criticism of Rosen and of my understanding of Rosen because
I seek a new approach and find that a big challenge. When the things
offered have little to do with these issues, I try to direct things
back there. Is Rosen correct? Reading him says that he is his own
worst critic. No, that's not the issue. The issue, as I see it, is
where do we go from here? Rosen only provides clues. I see him as a
prophet. However, the rest of the community seems to fall short of
even that by comparison. If I am shown other ways to start out in this search
for a new approach, I'll gladly consider them. At this point, Rosen
has provided a measuring stick which I find very useful. Not that he
is right and others wrong, he is saying the same thing as so many others,
but that he has said it in a way which uses mathematical rigor and semantic
overtones simultaneously. He practices what he preaches. I am struggling
with the semantic part, and hope to focus on it in the furure. These
seem like uncharted waters to me. It is both fun and scary! I wish I
were younger.
Sorry if I speak crudely at times. I have that limitation.
Keep the dialog going, I am learning a lot and appreciate you patience
with me.
Best wishes,
Don Mikulecky