> > > Rosen saw in the 1950's that traditional science had put on blinders when
it
> > > came to the issue of the complexity of real systems. He then established
the
> > > following:
> > > 1.There is a clear, unambiguous distinction between our perception of
systems
> > > as simple mechanisms or as complex systems.
> >
> > I am very skeptical of how useful complexity theory is in helping us to
> > better understand our selves, each other and the universe we live in.
>
> Both Rosen and I agree. what is popularly callwd complexity theory is simply
a last
> ditch attempt to save the reductionist/mechanist approach. The word
"complexity" is
> and unfortunate choice, but I don't know what to substitute. When I speak of
> complexity, it is in an entirely different context. It refers to the failure
of the
> Newtonian paradigm to give one final way for understanding our world. Rosen's
> definition is both unique and ignored by the others. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> >
> >
> > > 2.Dealing with complex systems NECESSARILY means dealing with more than
the
> > > physical constituents since complex systems are irreducible.
> >
> > I am not convinced that we don't need to deal with more than the physical
> > constituents regardless of the complexity of a system.
>
> Here again the context is all important. It is not the complexity of the
system
> that we refer to. All real systems are complex. It is the complexity of the
> formalsisms with which we try to understand the system that have varying
degrees.
Can you expand on what you mean by "formalisms"?
> >
> >
> > > 3.Relationships between functional components are far more important than
how
> > > the pieces fit together and these two aspects do not map into each other
in
> > > any 1:1 manner.
> >
> > The relational aspects of the functional components of a system are, in
> > my opinion, just one of many perspectives we need to assimilate in order
> > to better understand the whole systemic process.
>
> That's exactly what I've been saying. However you don't get far without them.
This
> is especially true when it comes to the physical/non-physical issue. There
has been
> so much done in this area which has been ignored. It is almost as if you feel
> better continuing to ignore it?
>
> >
> >
> > > 4.Complex systems have more than one way with which they can be
interacted.
> >
> > Simple systems can also interact in several ways too.
>
> No......here you lost my meaning. It is not how the systems interact. It is
how we
> interact with the system. Science (so far) has given us only one way through
> empiricism.....the reductionist/mechanist approach.
We agree completely on this point. But I think science is changing. I
expect to see more big changes in the near future. I think it is also
vital to understand science as a part of our cultural, social, economic,
political, legal, educational and value systems. This is one of the
things some scientists still have trouble with.
> >
> >
> > > These are distinct(not derivable from each other).
> > > This is just a glimpse of what is at stake here. It's substance requires
hard
> > > work and study to master. I don't think you will get very far by making
fun
> > > of it or by ignoring it.
> >
> > So far as I know, no one is ignoring your suggestions and no one is
> > making fun of them. So, unless you want to keep complaining about being
> > ignored and made fun of, lets move on.
>
> OK..show me that you are taking them seriously........comment on their
content...
I just did.
and
> stop refering to Rosen's work as a you have.
In my opinion, taking these issues seriously means not taking ourselves
too seriously.
Norm