Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> Don Mikulecky wrote:
>
> > > > 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"?
Here I refer to a concept called the "modelling relation" . To
oversimplify....our
attempts to "know" involve attempting to match self created formal systems
(usually
mathematical, but not always) with what we percieve in the world outside
ourselves.
When this match is good (thediagram of mappings constituting the modelling
relation
commutes...saying it formally) we have a model of reality. Thus formalisms can
be
very rigorous or simply musings about the world out there. The most common
formalism in science is the Newtonian Paradigm and all its accomanying baggage.
Formal systems are what Goedel talked about as well.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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.
> Yes I agree.....would you also agree that change is coming in the context of a
> much bigger change?....much like science changed in a bigger context when we
> ended up with the "industrial revolution"?
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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.
\
> Thanks so much!
> 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
Sorry,I don't mind if you poke fun at me. I am in a peculiar position relative
to
Rosen. He has suffered a lifetime of being misunderstood and I get to trying to
get
folks to take him seriously. He would like that as he is very ill and unable to
defend himself as well as used to. Please realize my problem here...thanks!
Don